"Infestation 2"

[Sparky Prime]

Dixon has long been known as a paint by numbers writer. What more is there to say? Dixon's plots are really not worth point by point summaries.

It doesn't need to be point by point, I'm just saying a review should say something about the story itself, not just its writer.

[Shockwave]

Indeed. This would be assuming the we are all familiar enough with Dixon's other works to be familiar with his writing style. Now, we all know how high I regard writers in this process to commenting on his "Paint by numbers" style means 0 to me and tells me nothing of his work on Infestation. And some of the phrasing you use is a bit perplexing as well. What does "paint by numbers" even mean in terms of writing a comic book? I don't mean to knock your style, but you do seem to focus more on the writing/editorial/corporate side of the comic rather than the content itself. What happens in Infestation that makes it a "paint by numbers" tale? That's what we're wanting to know. Not whether or not Dixon has pulled crap like this before.

[Dominic]

"Paint by numbers" means "cliche to the point of being a text book example of the genre". Dixon's writing has tended towards "and this is the part where _______ is supposed to happen in this kind of story, so it will". Cliches and predictability have become almost obligatory in his writing over the last decade or so.

Beyond that, if you want a detailed summary of that kind of book, there are plenty of them to be found elsewhere. Failing that, you can always read the book yourself, which would likely take about the same amount of time.


Dom
-wonders if people want detailed summaries to avoid reading/buying the actual book.

[Shockwave]

Beyond that, if you want a detailed summary of that kind of book, there are plenty of them to be found elsewhere. Failing that, you can always read the book yourself, which would likely take about the same amount of time.


Dom
-wonders if people want detailed summaries to avoid reading/buying the actual book.

I guess but reading a summary of "that kind of book" wouldn't exactly tell me how it's been interpreted into Transformers.

And it's not like reading the comic in the store to read the story without buying the comic. That's not the point. What we're saying is...

Ok, how about this: It's almost like you're reviewing the author and the editors rather than the story. And then subsequently commenting on the state of the industry as a whole. When I read a movie review, I'm wanting a review of the merits of that movie, not the director or producers. Same is true of comics. When I read a comic review I want to know the merits of the story, not the author or editor writing it. And, A well written review can summarize without it being overly time consuming or tedious. Most times you'll really only need about one or two sentences at most and the review from there should focus on whether or not the comic sucks and what in the story supports that conclusion.

Or... When I read a review, there's certain questions that I want answered:
Is the story good? What about the story makes it good? Is it the plot? The characters? The setting? The ideas being expressed or the point being made? Is the art good? If so, what's good about it? And these questions work in reverse too. If the story is bad, why is it bad? Bad characters? settings? plot? and if so, what's bad about said characters, settings or plots? These are really the base questions that should be answered in pretty much any worthwhile review.

You can review all of that using the plot points as examples without rewriting the whole damn comic.

[Dominic]

I guess but reading a summary of "that kind of book" wouldn't exactly tell me how it's been interpreted into Transformers.

There are certain sub-genres and basic stories that are more or less the same regardless of the characters in them. For example, plenty of series have the "evil twin" episode, the "very special" episode pertaining to drugs, alchohol, literacy or death, and so on. Those really are not going to be very different, regardless of what characters are in them.


Dom

[Shockwave]

I guess but reading a summary of "that kind of book" wouldn't exactly tell me how it's been interpreted into Transformers.

There are certain sub-genres and basic stories that are more or less the same regardless of the characters in them. For example, plenty of series have the "evil twin" episode, the "very special" episode pertaining to drugs, alchohol, literacy or death, and so on. Those really are not going to be very different, regardless of what characters are in them.


Dom

True. But, my point is still valid. While there are similarities (sometimes almost to the point of plagerism) there are sometimes significant differences too.

Also, I think I know why Dom reviews the way he does: He's a fan of writers first, content second. So when he reads a book, he's really just reading the "writer" rather than "that Transformers book". Which makes sense for that approach but doesn't help folks like me who read content first, writers second.

[Dominic]

I am generally more interested in what a writer is doing with a book or an idea than the book itself. (This is why I will read Cornell on "Action Comics", but not some other guy.)


Okay, got two this week:

TF #2:
Wow, this one actually suprised me....for being *more* anemic than the first issue. Optimus shows up and jobs the Lovecraftian monster with saw blades. Seriously. Bayformer Prime had more trouble with Shockewave's non-cosmically spawned driller monster in the movie. If I was a fan of Lovecraft, I would be offended. Hell, I am kind of offended for Lovecraft fans. Tesla shows up, and just makes this seem like a bad fanfic. (Yeah, Dixon gets historic details like Tesla losing the tech race because he failed to understand economics. But, that really has nothing to do with the story.) The only good thing I can say about this story is that it is not connected to the main IDW book. If Hasbro or Fun Publications ever needs a timeline to destroy in a big stupid event story, I nominate "Hearts of Steel".

Dixon did a worse job than I would expect from the Fan Club with this one.

Grade: F


D&D #1:
Another flip through review. This one gets points for reading like a D&D comic would. And, Lovecraftian stupidity is less out of place with D&D than in TF. Still, I ain't gonna bother.

I will do flip-through reviews of other chapters on weeks that I go to the stores, Do not expect me to get to all of them, but I am specifically curious about the 2 IDW owned books that are involved even if I will refuse to reward IDW by paying for them.



Dom
-you know it is bad when I am not bothering to type full titles....

[Dominic]

GI Joe #1:
I was not going to bother with this. But, Raicht impressed me enough on last year's comics to tempt me back this year. As was the case last year, Raicht makes the best of a bad situation. And, as was the case last year, the results are far from great, but much better than one might reasonably expect.

The plot holds together better in this case, without an assumed previous battle happening off panel. (That battle having happened at all raises the question about how/why Britt and the zombies only manifested once in each alternatie universe. But, nobody really wants to get in to that, right?) Stuff happens. Cobra finds a Lovecraftian thingamadoozits. Stuff happens. Raicht makes use of a few characters from last year's crossover, (who are apparently "his"), and some stuff happens. Given how coy IDW was about setting last year, it is difficult to be sure where/how this fits in with the main book. But, the first "Infestation" is clearly referenced, and the characters are similar enough in tone to IDW's modern comic to make it reasonable to assume that "Infestation 2" ties in with the main "GI Joe" book.

One thing that I do find interesting is that despite the franchise itself not being as healthy, the "GI Joe" portions of "Infestation" have been considerably better than the TF portions for both years. And, in both cases, Raicht was writing. This just goes to show that that the writer is ultimately what makes or breaks a book.


Grade: C/D
I do not know what Raicht's deal is. But, IDW needs to stop wasting him on crap like this and just give him a regular book to work on.


Dom
-would be even happier if IDW stopped wasting out time with this crap.

[138 Scourge]

I can kind of see Lovecraft monsters fitting in with G.I. Joe. Wouldn't be the first time, right? There was that one in Destro's basement in that one episode, so what's another one gonna hurt?

[Dominic]

GI Joe #2:
And, it ends predictably. The titular Infestation is contained and no major characters die. Raicht seems to be treating "Infestation" as his own personal playground. Interrogator does not get much page time in "Cobra" or the main Joe book. Raicht made a point of bringing back Raptor and bringing in Razorclaw. I am willing to bet that one of them will die next year in an attempt to create a "nobody (within reason) is safe". Raicht makes "Infestation" as good as it can be. While that is "not very", the fault lies with the concept more than the writer (who does much better than one might reasonably expect).

IDW needs to put Raicht on a regular book and stop wasting him on this kind of shit.

Grade: B/C


Dom
-would likely subscribe to a Raicht book.