|
|
a huge byzantine cathedral to the art of reference dropping, with no real meat there: this criticism confused me at the time, to be honest - essentially moore and o'neill are being accused of being too geeky... by people who have comic blogs. oh the irony.
I think the criticism isn't so much that they're being too geeky, it's more that in dropping so many references, they're obscuring the emotional clarity of the narrative. It killed the moment for me when at the end Alan and Mina are saved by the guy with the flying ship because I have no clue who that guy is, even though I'm clearly supposed to. It plays like a deus ex machina because some character I've never seen before, but is briefly alluded to, shows up with a flying ship and saves the day.
Now, you could say hop on Google or check out the annotations if you really want to understand the story, but for a book that's all about getting caught up in the magic of storytelling, it's ironic that you should need so much stuff from outside the fictional world to appreciate it. I think there are moments of brilliance in the work, and it's still better than the vast, vast majority of comics out there, but it's frustrating to not be able to respond to a lot of what's going on because I have no clue who these people are.
That's the difference between this and the first two volumes for me. Previously, knowledge of where the characters come from is a bonus. If you know the Doctor in Volume I is Fu Manchu, that's a plus, but the character still works without that knowledge. Here, only Bond and Emma Peel get that same kind of development, the vast majority of the cameos are just sort of there. One of the best characters is Orlando, because we're actually given the back story of the character and made to understand him/her. I didn't know he/she came from a Virginia Woolf story, but it doesn't matter because Moore made me care.
What I do love is this notion of synthesizing the entirety of fiction into a parallel history of the universe. That's a fantastic idea, and even when I don't respond to a segment on an emotional level, I can respect what Moore is doing with it. But, I think Promethea did a better job treating these same themes in a more dynamic and exciting way, as well as one that used the medium better. For all the praise O'Neil has gotten, I don't think Moore let his artist tell the story as much as he should have. Other than the 3-D section, most of the show offy stuff is more about Moore's prose than O'Neil's art. It makes for a stronger work when the two are equally weighted, as in Promethea's best section. |
|
|