As someone who has never read a graphic novel and was never really into comics growing up, I was initially most aware of all the formatting uniqueness of Shooting War. Which bubble do I read first? What about the text boxes? Are there really no page numbers? O how no page numbers will foil all of Dr. Lennon's creative group assignments ahahahaha. I was maybe expecting more of a consistent format/illustration, but I did really like that each page was completely unique in terms of size of illustrations, how the text was presented, what type of illustration was used, real photographs (is that cheating - should it be called a photo novel?), tv representation, magazines mock-ups, etc. I think Lappe and Goldman did a great job of using all resources and keeping things fresh from page to page. Mostly because of this I have to disagree with those of you are saying this was not a quick read. I am not a fast reader by any means - and I flew through this in a couple hours. It was interesting, funny, and definitely relevant to most of our lives. Who hasn't seen their favorite bodega or dive bar swallowed up by American Apparell, Lucky Jeans, or Urban Outfitters? Who doesn't hink that the political and military portrayals are at the very least a possibility? I think Lappe and Goldman are especially talented in their mocking of the news media - their tv, magazine, newspaper visions were hilarious and right on the money - I have no doubt we WILL see some of those headlines in the near future. But let's be honest, will Staten Island ever be cool? Ok I'm glad we all agree there.
There were many parts in the book that I thought were very cliche. I think many will say - "that's intentional you thick-headed infidel! It's a satire, they're making of the genre as well as mainstream America." I guess this is true to an extent, but I think this very good graphic novel is a few original scenes away from being great. Scenes like bar scene with Crowley, slipping Dan Rather the memory cards, humvees getting blocked by rubble, etc. It didn't seem as much satyrical as it was an overly convenient and familiar way to move the plot along, introduce characters, or solve a problem. Was Crowley's character really any different in your mind than the millions of movie seargents we're used to? I partially feel this way because other aspects of the novel were so creative - suitcase nukes, Communist Iraqi's comparing the U.S. to Russia. I guess it was hard for me to separate at times what was satire and what was poor character or plot development.
More interesting moments/good times in Shooting War -
I love a jacked up badass Dan Rather texting warnings and spouting cheesy lines.
I definitely thought Jimmy was having sex with Sameera at first, not the New York Mag reporter, that was well done. I was waiting for that moment the whole novel in disgust and was happy that it did not happen. An example of the afforementioned originality missing from other perhps satyrical elements of the novel.
As others mentioned - the newscrawls on the bottom of GlobalNews were hilarious! Along with the Post, New York Mag, etc.
What if Jimmy Burns really did work for the Sword of Mohammed the whole time? I think this makes sense, and kind of like it - as if Jimmy Burns were a successful John Walker.
How do you feel about the last two pages explaining the authors/illustrators intentions?
I was impressed that the whole thing was digitally drawn.
Why did the American soldiers have the bluelight eyes? A skull, a cross, darth vader? It seemed a little out of place as a dialogue on christian influence, etc. Did this really contribute anything? What was intended by it?
Are we supposed to think Jimmy Burns has held true to his corporate hatred ideals in the end? Has he changed? I'm not sure. What is the effect of the anti-corporate stuff in the novel, does simply placing a kfc, mcdonalds, and starbucks at army bases really say anything?
BS
No comments:
Post a Comment