Okay, so I’ve been working through a number of “classic” graphic novels over the past few months. Here’s what I’ve read, with the most recent first:
The Sandman Vol. 1: Preludes and Nocturnes by Neil Gaiman, Sam Kieth, and Mike Dringenberg
The Quitter by Harvey Pekar and Dean Hapsiel
It’s a Good Life, If You Don’t Weaken by Seth
A Contract With God by Will Eisner
City of Glass by Paul Auster, Paul Karasik, and David Mazzucchelli
Death: The High Cost of Living by Neil Gaiman and Chris Bachalo
Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland
V for Vendetta by Alan Moore and David Lloyd
Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller
From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell
Watchmen by Alan Moore and David Gibbons
Of all of these, my favs would have to be Watchmen, From Hell, City of Glass, and It’s a Good Life, If You Don’t Weaken because, to me, they do the most with the graphic novel medium. Watchmen is the only one to make this list due to the riffing on what might be expected from a superhero comic book.
This issue of the expectations of the comic genre occupies way too much time for way too many people. I took a course on comics as an undergrad and really disliked it because the professor continually asked (sarcastically) “But comics are safe, right? Comics are supposed to be funny, right?” To me, it makes more sense to throw such expectations out the window and focus on more substantive issues, such as how the art and story work together and whether the narrative comes together as a whole.
For example, I wasn’t a huge fan of Will Eisner’s A Contract With God because each of the four short stories is a bit hackneyed, even if the artwork is really interesting. Published in 1978, I can see how people find this a work that challenged what comics are “supposed” to do, since these portrayals of depression-era tenement life are stark and harsh. So fair play to Eisner for being one of the first pioneers to bring so-called adult themes to a so-called childish medium, but that also means the novelty (excuse the pun) can’t be ascribed to later works.
And this brings me around to Gaiman. I was less than impressed with Neverwhere last year, but I have been told that he has done his best work in graphic novels. Okay, but I was less than blown away by Death: The High Cost of Living and I found very little in Sandman Vol. I to get excited about. A two-star Amazon review refers to one of the features of the work as “an incoherent assortment of historical, mythological, and literary references” and I have to agree. In fact, that kind of sums up my problem with Neverwhere, which featured like a parade of fantasy tropes in a familiar plot. And the five-star reviews in Amazon time and time again cite Gaiman’s originality and how he proved that comics could be for adults. Erm, not really?
To be fair, Gaiman’s notes suggest that he was finding his feet with the character at the time, and many reviewers say this is the worst Sandman volume of the bunch but let’s just say my expectations will be significantly lowered, since many of these same reviewers found Death: The High Cost of Living to be really unique, whereas I find the “Death as cheery goth chic” to be fine, but a bit of a one-trick pony and not all that mind-blowing of a concept.
Yet I feel like I am somehow obligated to keep reading Gaiman until I find something that makes me think, “Ah, so this is what the fuss is about.” I once read a single Gaiman short story “Keepsakes and Treasures: A Love Story” that I liked quite a bit and have thought about often over the years, but other than that his work has fallen flat for me. Is American Gods or Anasai Boys the answer? Or his collections Smoke and Mirrors or Fragile Things? Or is it simply a case that I’m not on the Gaiman wavelength?
Dunno. But for some reason I’ll keep trying.
Current Mood: Neutral | 
11 Comments
trent, i dig your blog.
i agree with you on the gaimen issue. but eisner’s _contract_ literally made me cry for more than one story. there were presentations so dreamy and sweet that the characters’ sadness was beautiful. it’s been awhile since i’ve read it, so maybe that’s part of it. but the super whose dog dies as a result of him being tricked by a young girl and the alleyway performer really hit me hard. i remember some of my friends thought they were overdramatic, but they seemed so simple and perfect to me.
tim
Tim, thanks for reading the blog! Glad you like it.
The two stories you mention are the middle ones and way better than the first and the last stories. Maybe that’s the problem with my lingering feelings about the book—starting and ending on a so-so note with the good stuff in the middle is not the best order! I am planning on using one of them in my Intro to Creative Writing class this fall as an example of a short visual narrative, so I can’t be that down on them!
You are not only out of the club, you’ve been thrown off the island.
Gaiman is one of a very few writers whose writecraft I admire very much (especially when he’s being arch and disdainful, like parts of Anansi Boys) but whose themes and stories don’t ever really do much for me.
Smoke and Mirrors! Didn’t I say that the last time?
I believe you did, Eric, and I do plan to give it a try. It’s just that Sandman is so canonical I felt I needed to see what the fuss is about. I checked out the next several volumes from the library so we’ll see if it ever lives up to the hype.
Have you read the Sandman series?
I generally enjoyed what Gaiman did with Sandman, but the first collection is one of the weakest in the series (I also find the final couple of collections weaker as well). The next couple of collections is where the series really picks up. Those would be the real test as to whether his work does anything for you.
In general I like Gaiman’s work in comics better than in straight fiction. His own writing style tends to be fairly bare bones, not quite visual enough for my taste when taken at length, and having an artist fills that in, turning a weakness into a strength in the comics medium.
The best thing he has done with the written word IMO is Coraline. Just about he right length for him and really a great read with a nice sense of disturbance in it (note that I didn’t really care that much for the movie–okay in its own right but lost quite a bit in the translation to screen).
–Eric S.
Good Omens / Gaiman and Pratchett.
All I need to say.
Dr. Phil
Trent,
I read “Keepsakes and Treasures” in Fragile Things last night and just knew I’d also read it in graphic form. I can recall specific panels but can’t for the life of me remember where I read the graphic version. Any idea?
Thanks,
Tanya
Hi Tanya,
No, I’m afraid not. I haven’t read all that much Gaiman, actually, so I’m not a good one to ask.
ok thanks. maybe another Gaiman fan will know?
Mystery solved: I read it in a compilation called “Mammoth Book of Best Crime Comics,” published in 2008. The title, however, was “The Court” and not “Keepsakes and Treasures.”