by Mike Mignola
Script by John Byrne
Published by Dark Horse Comics
1st Edition 1994
2nd Edition 1997
3rd Edition 2003
pages 80?
I was interested in this because the Hellboy movies got real good reviews, especially the latter one because of the director who also did Pan's Labyrinth.
Hellboy is a kind of super hero. He's a paranormal detective, which he is perfectly suited to since he comes from the bowels of hell. This story includes his origin which runs into and is related to the second story. An evil wizard conjures Hellboy to aid the Nazi's in their quest to spread evil throughout the world. Of course he has his own reasons to work with them since he's much more powerful that any petty dictator. Hence Hellboy is born, but he's a good guy. He even poses with the American soldiers for a snap shot. So then there's this stroy about monster frogs. The upshot is that there is some kind of sprit in the northpole and the wizard is back changing people into monster frogs so that he can take over the world.
It all seems hair schemed and none of it really makes sense. During the fighting, the preacher is incanting some mumbo jumbo. So what is the basic story here? Evil guy wants to take over the world. A very unimaginative plot in my mind. But its so convoluted that its hard to figure out the plot.
This is typical of what happens to my students when they try to summarize the fantasy books for me that they read. Usually they are too detailed and I cant understand their summaries. When I ask probing questions, "Why did so and so do that?" for example, the upshot is that they are usually evil. No reason that they are evil, they are just evil. I'll try to get some back ground info, "why does the guy do bad things? Did something happen in the past that turned him into a bad guy?" No overbearing mother, no humiliating defeat at the wizardry school. Nope, he's just evil.
So there is no character development and that makes, in my opinion, for a lousy story. A sin that much of the fantasy genre is guilty of. There are some exceptions, so one must not give up on the genre entirely, but this book is no exception to that rule. I did not like the story, though Hellboy himself was an interesting character. I still intend to see the movie. One thing that film provides is someon's imagaination on how other worlds might appear.
And here's what the film looks like.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Gathering **1/2
By Anne Enright
Random House UK 2007
paperback Black Cat U.SWinner of 2007 Booker Award
260 pages
This is a story of an large Irish family who are "gathered" after the death of of one of the brothers. The gathering could also refer to the gathering of the body, which the main character is charged with doing.
The family is a dysfunctional one, for reasons which may or may not be traceable to the marriage of their grandmother. This is also a book about memory, because the narrator often tells stories about her family's past, and then the narrator isn't sure if that story actually happened. Which make for some pretty ambiguous reading. Why would the author tell us a detail and then claim, through the narrator, that is might not be the case and is ill remembered? It might have something to do with where the blame lies. The blame for the dysfunction in the family and the blame for the death of her favorite brother. The narrator tries to lay the blame at the feet of the other suitor of her grandmother. He wanted her, but she chose the other man who is the narrator's grandfather. This other suitor had some power over the family as he was the grandmother's and grandfather's landlord. He was also in love with the grandmother. The narrator as a child, had witness this man, Nugent, molest her brother and this is what she claims is the reason for her brother's suicide. And consequently for the problems of the whole clan.
And the problems of the family are not clear and cut problems. The brother, Liam, of course, was an alcoholic and was sexually loose sleeping with probably both men and women. The narrator of the story is unhappy in her marriage, but it is unclear why. The mother of the story almost seems vegetable like, but it is never explained. And the uncle is in an asylum.
The book presents the reader with two conflicting ideas at once. The fault of all the family's problems stem from the Nugent character, long ago, (though even before him, grandma was an orphan and probably a prostitute.) On the other hand, the ambiguity of all these details and the faulty remembrance of them make blaming of Nugent debatable. Could he really be responsible for all this?
This is an very introspective book. A psychological drama. I enjoyed it very much, but it took a while to get going. It's not a linear narrative, and jumps around a lot. It's also very slow to reveal key elements of the plot. Add that to the intentional muddying of the details though the narrator's faulty memory and this is one difficult read. If the book would have been just a little less opaque, I probably would have given it three stars. It's really a dark and sad book, which I like of course.
Random House UK 2007
paperback Black Cat U.SWinner of 2007 Booker Award
260 pages
This is a story of an large Irish family who are "gathered" after the death of of one of the brothers. The gathering could also refer to the gathering of the body, which the main character is charged with doing.
The family is a dysfunctional one, for reasons which may or may not be traceable to the marriage of their grandmother. This is also a book about memory, because the narrator often tells stories about her family's past, and then the narrator isn't sure if that story actually happened. Which make for some pretty ambiguous reading. Why would the author tell us a detail and then claim, through the narrator, that is might not be the case and is ill remembered? It might have something to do with where the blame lies. The blame for the dysfunction in the family and the blame for the death of her favorite brother. The narrator tries to lay the blame at the feet of the other suitor of her grandmother. He wanted her, but she chose the other man who is the narrator's grandfather. This other suitor had some power over the family as he was the grandmother's and grandfather's landlord. He was also in love with the grandmother. The narrator as a child, had witness this man, Nugent, molest her brother and this is what she claims is the reason for her brother's suicide. And consequently for the problems of the whole clan.
And the problems of the family are not clear and cut problems. The brother, Liam, of course, was an alcoholic and was sexually loose sleeping with probably both men and women. The narrator of the story is unhappy in her marriage, but it is unclear why. The mother of the story almost seems vegetable like, but it is never explained. And the uncle is in an asylum.
The book presents the reader with two conflicting ideas at once. The fault of all the family's problems stem from the Nugent character, long ago, (though even before him, grandma was an orphan and probably a prostitute.) On the other hand, the ambiguity of all these details and the faulty remembrance of them make blaming of Nugent debatable. Could he really be responsible for all this?
This is an very introspective book. A psychological drama. I enjoyed it very much, but it took a while to get going. It's not a linear narrative, and jumps around a lot. It's also very slow to reveal key elements of the plot. Add that to the intentional muddying of the details though the narrator's faulty memory and this is one difficult read. If the book would have been just a little less opaque, I probably would have given it three stars. It's really a dark and sad book, which I like of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
