Review: American Vampire #2
I was a huge fan of the debut issue of this comic from Scott Snyder and Stephen King and I was eager to get my hands on the second issue. Whereas the first one left me awed at how clever and how American the stories were, this second issue naturally couldn't rely as much on the novelty of being a premiere.
As such, I didn't come away as jaw-droppingly impressed. I liked it a lot and I am very much looking forward to the third issue but there were little things that didn't mesh quite as well with my personal tastes. That said, there's very strong writing and the art remains fantastic.
Read on for more detailed thoughts!
I don't know whether to be a little disappointed or gratified that the entire Pearl half of this issue is devoted to acclimation and revenge. On the one hand, isn't that basically every modern vampire story, the tale of a damned soul's attempt to repay the one who made them? I get that as a natural direction for the story to go, but we've all seen it go there. On the other hand, heavens but it's satisfying in this one and at least Pearl is getting it out of the way instead of swanning around for a few issues with the back of her hand pressed to her forehead. A character with agency is almost always preferable to the alternatives and I was glad to see Pearl getting down to business.
However, Skinner's explanation of Pearl's condition, such as it is, left me fairly cold as a reader. I get that he isn't exactly a cuddle-bug and I get that it would be the antithesis of his character to provide factual, straightforward information. I get that. It doesn't make me like him when he's presented as snide, misleading, inarticulate or smug, however, and he's all that and more in remarkably few words. His portrayal as a sly monster in the second half of the book, in King's hands, is much more engaging and enjoyable. I think it's somewhat a combination of Sweet being ultimately King's character, not Snyder's - at least, Pearl is the star of Snyder's plot and Sweet is the star of King's - and that the part of Sweet's biography being told by King is a more active and exciting story than his role as drive-by creator and snark factory in Snyder's. In neither case is he much of a hero but it's easier for King's portrayal to win my sympathy by playing on the reader's natural tendency to root for the person facing hardship. Snyder's portrayal of Sweet as the insane - and inane - disposable maker has no such preprogrammed advantages.
I confess that the way vampires are drawn as misshapen and warped seems incongruous, almost clownishly so, with the otherwise serious, psychological story being presented. However, the rest of the art remains fantastic in this issue, especially the remote views of the submerged town in King's story. Comics occupy a unique place in the spectrum of visual experience, straddling the line between immutably perspective-locked works such as film and the creator-guided but observer-driven perspective of, say, a theatergoer. The art in American Vampire is sufficiently strong that it presents and conveys what the creators intend without making the reader break the flow of narrative to keep up. The book manages to express the passage of significant time - in, say, the images of the town once it's partially submerged - without significant interruption by a narrator while still including a narrator. Impressive!
So, all told, a very good issue but not one that knocked my socks clean off the way the first one did and the vampires, well, they look a little silly. I'm still really looking forward to #3, though, and I consider this one of the very best new books of 2010 by any measure.
Klarion
Posted to Review on 10 May 2010
· Comments (4)
Other stuff like this: American Vampire, Scott Snyder, Stephen King
Klarion, so glad you liked issue 2. Pearl's story is one of revenge, and no, there won't be much moping or pining, but we have tried really, really hard to give you (hopefully) engaging characters you care about as much as we do...
Also, I wanted to say that when the issue first came out, I got a letter from a fan who, as a gay reader, was really bothered by the use of "faggy clothes" in Skinner's note to Pearl. The reader's letter to me was very affecting, and I just wanted to say thanks to him again, and to say that I hope Skinner's line didn't bruise too much. He's supposed to be a bad guy all around - racist, misogynistic, homophobic and down right mean. Readers are not meant to want to be like him. He's the villain, promise. And while I can't promise Skinner won't say even worse things in the future, I can promise that decisions won't be made lightly surrounding his dialogue and actions, and that I'm very sorry if that line hit a nerve. Thanks.
Klarion, so glad you liked issue 2. Pearl's story is one of revenge, and no, there won't be much moping or pining, but we have tried really, really hard to give you (hopefully) engaging characters you care about as much as we do...
Also, I wanted to say that when the issue first came out, I got a letter from a fan who, as a gay reader, was really bothered by the use of "faggy clothes" in Skinner's note to Pearl. The reader's letter to me was very affecting, and I just wanted to say thanks to him again, and to say that I hope Skinner's line didn't bruise too much. He's supposed to be a bad guy all around - racist, misogynistic, homophobic and down right mean. Readers are not meant to want to be like him. He's the villain, promise. And while I can't promise Skinner won't say even worse things in the future, I can promise that decisions won't be made lightly surrounding his dialogue and actions, and that I'm very sorry if that line hit a nerve. Thanks.
Sweet is a product of his time and his opinions are the result of his amoral and sociopathic tendencies. I don't think you need to apologize for what seemed like a pretty natural line for him. There has to be an agreement between the creator and the audience that characters are allowed to be true to what they are if they're going to be developed and engaging. There are ways for that trust to be broken on both sides of the deal, yes: a writer can use a character to transmit a message that originates in, and is directed at, the modern and is at odds with the setting of the story itself - if someone had a Wild West character expound at length on gay marriage, for instance, or that went so overboard with their homophobia that it was transparently meant for the audience outside the scene - but letting a character occupy and express the times and views to which they are native is not some grave insult and a reader who takes offense is also breaking the terms of that unspoken agreement between writer and reader. It doesn't thrill me to hear a character use "faggy" as an insult (some of us do wear that as a badge of pride, after all) but I have no reason to believe it's used as anything other than an expression of that character's crude views and general social ineptitude. That to the modern reader it further damns that character probably helps establish him as a villain - rather than as a cool anti-heroic role model - more than anything else for me.
It's interesting, though. I will readily admit that I flinched a little at it. It's a word that I particularly dislike hearing people outside the community use. I had a straight friend in college who thought he could use "faggot" casually because, you know, we're cool like that, right? We were not cool like that and it had to stop. I didn't come away from reading that scene feeling the same way towards you, though, I felt that way towards Sweet.
Thanks man - I appreciate that. No confusion here about ever using that word (or other slurs that Skinner has used and will use) casually. Hope you enjoy 3.