(... well, apart from Top Ten, Watchmen and Supreme, that is...)

I received the complete run of 1602 on Friday, very much looking forward to a new Neil Gaiman comic. Having read them all, I can say that I appreciated the artwork (nicely crafted) and it's as clever as most of what NG writes, but at the same time it left me with a profound feeling of "So?"

I must say, I don't know too much about Silver Age Marvel superheroes (or DC, for that matter) beyond what I've picked up in Top Ten annotations, the movies, or the NG boards, but I knew enough to get a large part of the references. However, they never became more than that to me. The whole comic in the end seemed not so much about plot or character but comics... Few of the characters came to life IMO without having the background of regular Peter Parker, Matt Murdoch or the Fantastic Four, and the plot itself was really exclusively about the comic universe in the end.

That's not a bad thing in itself (unless you're not really into Marvel superheroes) - but in NG's other works I was always interested in the characters. The clever intertextual links never took over from the plot. I *cared* about what was happening. None of that in 1602.

Are there any other Neil fans who read 1602 without a PhD in Advanced Marvelology? Or even comic fans who felt similarly? Or did I simply 'not get it'? Because all things considered, I'd rather not leave it at feeling "So?"

Your reaction is entirely unsurprising.

I myself am a Marvel Zombie of sorts... which is to say I believe I picked up on damn near every reference, in-joke, etc. throughout the series. I enjoyed it for these characteristics. However, I believe I enjoyed it mostly for these characteristics, and therefore expect that it would be largely unsatisfying to a non-marvelite.

To be honest, I myself was somewhat unsatisfied. The story really did leave an empty feeling of "And...?"

I can't imagine a life where I don't know about Peter Parker and Matt Murdoch... and i'm the kind of guy who cheers at the obscure refs in the Spider-Man movies... so i figure when i do pick up 1602, i'll enjoy it.

I must say that the intertextual stuff really helped me enjoy Sandman... a line like "Mr. Dent just tried to strangle himself" is hilarious from the context of a comic book fan.

Why don't you educate yourself? Pick up some of the Ultimate line, or some classic storylines-- Kraven's Last Hunt or The Death of Gwen Stacey or Frank Miller's Daredevil run. You'll enjoy them

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thirith:
(... well, apart from Top Ten, Watchmen and Supreme, that is...)

I received the complete run of 1602 on Friday, very much looking forward to a new Neil Gaiman comic. Having read them all, I can say that I appreciated the artwork (nicely crafted) and it's as clever as most of what NG writes, but at the same time it left me with a profound feeling of "So?"

I must say, I don't know too much about Silver Age Marvel superheroes (or DC, for that matter) beyond what I've picked up in Top Ten annotations, the movies, or the NG boards, but I knew enough to get a large part of the references. However, they never became more than that to me. The whole comic in the end seemed not so much about plot or character but comics... Few of the characters came to life IMO without having the background of regular Peter Parker, Matt Murdoch or the Fantastic Four, and the plot itself was really exclusively about the comic universe in the end.

That's not a bad thing in itself (unless you're not really into Marvel superheroes) - but in NG's other works I was always interested in the characters. The clever intertextual links never took over from the plot. I *cared* about what was happening. None of that in 1602.

---

I got the same feeling about Supreme sometimes, and i get most of the references... same with Top 10, a bit. They're both mostly references to other comics (though not as much as 1962, Alan Moore's complete tribute to 60's Marvel stuff), and that left me a bit cold...

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
I got the same feeling about Supreme sometimes, and i get most of the references... same with Top 10, a bit. They're both mostly references to other comics (though not as much as 1962, Alan Moore's complete tribute to 60's Marvel stuff), and that left me a bit cold...

---

That's the thing, though... Top Ten also played the spot-the-reference game, but in between it had a compelling plot and fascinating characters. Regardless of whether I spotted the Silver Age Batman as a wino in the background of panel 3 or not, the death of a character touched me.

***SPOILER SPACE***



***SPOILER for 1602***

When Jean Gray dies and her body is burned, the flames revealing a fiery phoenix against the sky, I saw that as a reference only. It didn't move or touch me in any way beyond "Ah, clever...".



In a way, 1602 felt like a slightly stale fancy-dress party to me. Once you've figured out who's wearing which costume, it's back to the same old conversations, and in this case they weren't that interesting to me to begin with.

quote:

---

I myself was somewhat unsatisfied. The story really did leave an empty feeling of "And...?"

---

I'm sort of an in-between comics fan-- I'm definitely not diehard, and I tend to get more of my knowledge from animated series than from actually reading comics-- so some of the references I got right away and some I was like "Hee, Von Doom, that's a funny name..."

But yeah, I did feel sort of unsatisfied with the ending. I did enjoy reading each issue, but... that's it? That's all? That was all that was building up to?

I think maybe the more you know about comics, the more you enjoy each individual issue... but maybe regardless the ending is... well. I don't know. I've been meaning to re-read it and see if it does something more for me the second time arond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thirith:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:
I got the same feeling about Supreme sometimes, and i get most of the references... same with Top 10, a bit. They're both mostly references to other comics (though not as much as 1962, Alan Moore's complete tribute to 60's Marvel stuff), and that left me a bit cold...

---

That's the thing, though... Top Ten also played the spot-the-reference game, but in between it had a compelling plot and fascinating characters. Regardless of whether I spotted the Silver Age Batman as a wino in the background of panel 3 or not, the death of a character touched me.

***SPOILER SPACE***



***SPOILER for 1602***

When Jean Gray dies and her body is burned, the flames revealing a fiery phoenix against the sky, I saw that as a reference only. It didn't move or touch me in any way beyond "Ah, clever...".

---

That actually sounds really touching.... thanks for the spoiler, though... but it does sound pretty moving

And hey... maybe 1602 can work as a conversion tool. Learn your history... it'll help to appreciate the comic and broaden your life in so many ways.

Until Uncle Ben comes back as a zombie clone
Make Mine Marvel!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thirith:
(... well, apart from Top Ten, Watchmen and Supreme, that is...)

I received the complete run of 1602 on Friday, very much looking forward to a new Neil Gaiman comic. Having read them all, I can say that I appreciated the artwork (nicely crafted) and it's as clever as most of what NG writes, but at the same time it left me with a profound feeling of "So?"

I must say, I don't know too much about Silver Age Marvel superheroes (or DC, for that matter) beyond what I've picked up in Top Ten annotations, the movies, or the NG boards, but I knew enough to get a large part of the references. However, they never became more than that to me. The whole comic in the end seemed not so much about plot or character but comics... Few of the characters came to life IMO without having the background of regular Peter Parker, Matt Murdoch or the Fantastic Four, and the plot itself was really exclusively about the comic universe in the end.

That's not a bad thing in itself (unless you're not really into Marvel superheroes) - but in NG's other works I was always interested in the characters. The clever intertextual links never took over from the plot. I *cared* about what was happening. None of that in 1602.

Are there any other Neil fans who read 1602 without a PhD in Advanced Marvelology? Or even comic fans who felt similarly? Or did I simply 'not get it'? Because all things considered, I'd rather not leave it at feeling "So?"

---

I think 1602 reads well even without understanding all the in-jokes I was in the same situation when I started reading and because I'm so very courious I found on-line various annotation that explained it all. The more extesive is the one from Jason pomerants at comic world news here this is the general page then you can check comments on every sigle issue. There's also an interview with Neil Gaiman that explains few things. Obviously Jason was annotating while the series was in publication so sometime there's a lot of second guessing that's not quite right.

Also you can check Julian Darius' annotation but he annotated just the first 4 issues and Jess Nevins' the first 3.

Everyone was very psycked at first about this title but then interest faded after the forth issue. I think too that the premises were there for a great book but they didn't got developped in their full potential. It's not too bad though as some comic geek seem suggest

I think you misunderstood me, Se - I *get* most of the in-jokes. I just don't think that there's much to the comic apart from them. To me, when one character dies (see spoiler above), there isn't anything to that death apart from a reference to the original character dying. I'm currently re-reading 1602, and it really feels like someone going: "Hey, you know the joke about xyz?" I know the joke, but someone mentioning it to me isn't enough for me to laugh again.

I'm with you, Thirith. I know enough to get references, but I don't really KNOW the characters... It's kinda like the second Books of Magic issue, the one with Constantine. I didn't get any of the references in that one, but I was tied into the story by Tim and Constantine, whom I knew, and they had a bigger story. 1602 felt like that, except without the conection.
But I did enjoy the story, only I might have enjoyed it more if I either related to the characters more, or if there had been no known superheroes at all -ala League of the Extraordinary Gentlemen (ie, in the sense of intrigue an dsuperpowers in a previous time, that is).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thirith:
(... well, apart from Top Ten, Watchmen and Supreme, that is...)

I received the complete run of 1602 on Friday, very much looking forward to a new Neil Gaiman comic. Having read them all, I can say that I appreciated the artwork (nicely crafted) and it's as clever as most of what NG writes, but at the same time it left me with a profound feeling of "So?"

I must say, I don't know too much about Silver Age Marvel superheroes (or DC, for that matter) beyond what I've picked up in Top Ten annotations, the movies, or the NG boards, but I knew enough to get a large part of the references. However, they never became more than that to me. The whole comic in the end seemed not so much about plot or character but comics... Few of the characters came to life IMO without having the background of regular Peter Parker, Matt Murdoch or the Fantastic Four, and the plot itself was really exclusively about the comic universe in the end.

That's not a bad thing in itself (unless you're not really into Marvel superheroes) - but in NG's other works I was always interested in the characters. The clever intertextual links never took over from the plot. I *cared* about what was happening. None of that in 1602.

Are there any other Neil fans who read 1602 without a PhD in Advanced Marvelology? Or even comic fans who felt similarly? Or did I simply 'not get it'? Because all things considered, I'd rather not leave it at feeling "So?"

---

oooops sorry my misteake. Well I do agree partially. I believe that initially the charaters and the story were very well sketched, the problem is more that it never went from sketch to actual 3D and remaned flat.
I almost feel like at a certain point he lost his grasp over the characters or may-be there were just too many of them too characterize them properly. Someone once said that Gaiman as a writer is like a cooker and in a way you are saying that 1602 is a defleated soufle. A sofistication without substance and that was meant for subtile palates and doesn't appeals mortals with real appetite. I think insted it was meant to be a pastiche but somehow with all those ingredients it turned out to taste very pourly, maybe he bite a little more than he could chew!! Yet it was fun to read and even when things go wrong with his gastronomic experiment I still like gamaniac cusine better than most of the others!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by clover:
only I might have enjoyed it more if I either related to the characters more, or if there had been no known superheroes at all -ala League of the Extraordinary Gentlemen (ie, in the sense of intrigue an dsuperpowers in a previous time, that is).

---

Yes, but I (in the sense that "I"= marvel fans) might not enjoy it as much.

they could have made the spider-man and X-men movies without obscure comic book fan in-jokes, but they wouldn't have been as fun to Marvel Zombies

I eagerly await Neil's next Marvel project (which is coming, most likely not too long after he finishes Anansi Boys), in the hopes that it will be entirely different. I'd like to see what he does with the characters, possibly with fewer at a time, without having to create a whole new world. See his great skills at characterization and situations applied to a mainstream Marvel mythos.

But I still liked 1602.

i'm sorta glad he's alienated some of the new mainstream fans... he'd gone from being a great comic book writer to a medicore fantasy writer... we've got him back now!

(maybe)

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Lord of Nothings:

Why don't you educate yourself? Pick up some of the Ultimate line, or some classic storylines-- Kraven's Last Hunt or The Death of Gwen Stacey or Frank Miller's Daredevil run. You'll enjoy them

---

No disrespect, but you won't necessarily. I got into comics through trade paperbacks in my local library; Sandman, Invisibles, Enigma. Later I find out about Alan Moore, Los Bros Hernandez, etc. Typical Vertigo kid basically. So, talking to other people who like comics, I inevitably got recommended a whole bunch of DC and Marvel superhero comics, quite a few of which I tried and none of which I particularly enjoyed. Neither Kraven's or Miller's Daredevil struck me as particularly original or well-written, to be brutally honest. I didn't find them very interesting or fun in the way that I did enjoy Black Orchid or stuff by Moore or Veitch. I didn't even enjoy Moore's Superman, to be honest. I did like Killing Joke; that, DKR, Black Orchid and Swamp Thing are the only DC or Marvel superhero comics I could say I do like. I expected to like all the stuff by ex-Vertigo authors but I didn't.

So I don't think 1602 will necessarily work as a conversion tool; the conclusion I've come to is that if you don't come to that stuff quite young, you're probably not coming.

I expect Gaiman to follow up to 1602 with 2061 (the future Cap came from). It'd be the sensible thing to do considering now Sir Nicholas is The Forerunner of Cap's time period. So that's what I think his next project will be, but if it isn't I can only hope that it's Thor. Gaiman would do great on Thor, or maybe on a miniseries where we get to see "Virginia Dare" return as a frequent Marvel character.

Hey Jamie

wellcome if you go to worlds end you get red baloon and cokies for wellcome. I was exactely like you few years back, I enjoyied the vertigo stuff and never wondered in the superhero world that I considered dumb and testosterone-driven. I'm still very much a Vertigo girl but in the last few years I bought incrisingly more superhero stuff. there's a lot of very edgy mind-blowing and art-jaw dropping works in the super-hero world too. And I learn to buy based on the autors I like rather than the staple they write for.
I think you landed probably on the wrong comics. While I love Frank Miller I wouldn't go for the old DD stuff that's a little dated. Have you tryed Elektra Assassin? Love & War? or Elektra lives again? Very good stuff. And Miller didn't write just super-hero stuff, have you ever read one of Sin City stories? Or Ronin? 300?
Other people that write very good super-hero stuff in recent year for me are Bendis and Ellis. If you don't feel like trying the Dare Devil, try Alias (it a finished serie, 28 issue and the trade are available, so you don't have to worry about carring it out forever). Ellis as a very good serie call planetary, that has lot of references to superheros and is very good. An other super-hero title I love is Plastic man but it's not really a super-hero, quite the opposite, but fun.
Also have you tried the Loeb miniseries on Marvel super-heros, like DD-yellow, spiderman-Blue or Hulk-grey, they are miniseries that re-interpret the origin of these characters, when they were a little different, very very good. In a way the are all and in a way Vertigo-like stories.
oh and try Kabuki from David Mack!!

*ponders*

Go see Spider-Man 2. Or Spider-Man. They distill what's best about the comics into an exciting, easily digestiable form. Then follow our suggestions. X-Men is also good, as are the original Batman movie and Batman Returns.

Because 1602's central appeal is the way Gaiman recasts the Marvel heroes in a new era, I think you must have some passion for the original characters to fully appreciate that recasting process. It doesn't suprise me that non-comic fans are left feeling a little cold by it. But hey, you're never to old to get into comics...