Spike it! - The Book of Fate
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff7c1/ff7c1959b12bb1a57a673a42aa7899416268d299" alt=""
For instance, here's one of my favorite pages--art by Ed Benes
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9946f/9946ff19d4911e4ba1ee87361c2fc7eb1e02b6be" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4984/d49849462cf13e3e6c83394df4045676c0c89b6c" alt=""
Alas, "The Book of Fate" reads more like those psuedonymous Michael Crichton books that author ground out during his medical school days--stories that moved quickly, sometimes for no apparent reason, and with enough action and/or violence to increase the page-turning along the way ("Popsicles" a college room-mate called them--forgettable and without much value, other than the descriptions of weaponry and fighting techniques). The Freemasonry? For all the claims of extensive research (and that is certainly evident in his writing about life in the White House's "inner circle") there's precious little about the Masons other than some name-dropping, and the curious configuration of the layout of Washington D.C.--which is, to say the least, interesting.
But it does share one aspect with "DaVinci." It is meant to be read in short sittings. the chapters are abnormally short--just enough to cover a series of events in one location--then once a cliff-hanger is achieved, or about to be achieved, the next chapter focusses on something many miles away, just enough to sustain interest, or frustrate that interest. I found myself frustrated more often than not, and a bit irritated that Meltzer used two narration styles: one, a first-person narrative, all the better to explain the intricacies of life in the White House, and build suspense/identification with the narrator; then, an omniscient view where events are described but information withheld to keep the suspense going. You can't be personable AND ominiscient--you have to make a choice. One's useful--the other's a cheat--like one of those "serial killer" POV shots inserted into a straight narrative. One has to think: "Okay, Who am I now?"
So, if you're looking for the Mason hook to be delved into, it's not here. It's a simple thriller about who trusts whom in the White House--or rather the Presidential Retreat. And how much trust that entails. Like the quality of the book itself--Not so much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, on the other hand, there was the problematic "All-Star Batman and Robin," written by the hyper-ventilating Frank Miller. Maybe Miller's been distracted putting together a film version of "The Spirit," but his writing has been more heavy-breathing than usual. For instance, in the latest issue Wonder Woman is portrayed as a man-hating demon-warrior. And if this wasn't born out by the many repetitions of "Men! I HATE them!," there are the sound-blurbs Miller chooses for the sound of WW walking "TANK-TANK-TANK-TANK." Yeee-ees.
But just when one is about to lose all hope, Miller nearly ends it with this two-page spread, featuring faithful servant, Alfred, taking out his frustrations on a weight-bag. Miller always wrote best for Alfred, but here something is added to the character than deconstructed--the power of the one man who can persuade Bruce Wayne, and the restraint with which he must endure. And while he's at it, Miller adds one more haunting aspect to an origin story that has lately creaked with the weight of additional details. But here, the tragedy is deepened. Nice work. It lets you see how great Miller could be.
4 comments:
Gotta disagree with you, my man. I haven't been reading Meltzer's JLA, but the page you cite doesn't work as well for me as it did for you: Speedy's dialog sounds more like meta-commentary than characterization. And Miller's Alfred sequence is just another hyper-violent, uber-macho glorification of testosterone from a creator who's either gone round the bend or taking the piss out of all of us. Of course Alfred has to reminisce while punching a heavy bag in a thunderstorm, regardless of whether that's consistent with any characterization over the past thirty years - that's what "men" do. And Batman must be a demon of vengeance, cuz that's just cool. Sorry, I don't buy any of it.
Didn't like the Miller work... but you weren't exactly gushing over it... I thought you were just saying there's potential there if he would focus on what he does right.
I liked the Red Arrow meta-commentary (and the art in those panels)... maybe I'll check out the JLA stuff.
I’m not sure what “meta” commentary is. Is it commentary by “meta’s” (which is the DC code word for super-heroes) or is it ancillary commentary that appears to clarify a point (like the text commentary on DVD’s, or I suppose the “*” comments in silver age comics, ie. "* See last ish! Stultifying Stan") In which case, wouldn’t any information-contained dialogue be meta-commentary, and if so, doesn’t that just limit characters to talking about their feelings (“I sense great pain, Captain!”)? I still find it interesting which character says what and provides what information—that is character-based, and in Meltzer’s case is well thought out. I notice that Meltzer’s getting a bum rap among the comics ‘tators, who tend to be clannish. Their biggest beef seems to be that Meltzer has the characters refer to each other by their christian names, rather than their code-names. I find the opposite irritating--how many times can you address comments to “Karate Kid” before you start giggling (“Thanks, Matter-Eating Lad, but I’m not done with that pickle yet!”).
(Ah, I see "meta" means self-referential. When when you're discussing strategy, what else do you draw on than history?)
As to Miller and Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler has plenty of back-story to conclude that he might have a training regimen. That Miller has to make it punching a weight bag—well, if you were Wayne’s butler wouldn’t you take your frustrations out on some-thing? If not, you’d end up kicking Ace, the Bat-hound (A nick-name K has now attached to Smokey).
By meta-commentary I meant that it seemed to be the writer's way of commenting on previous stories rather than a character's way of commenting on prior history. Sort of a stealth fourth-wall-breaking.
Post a Comment