
“Preacher” is a nine volume long comic series that tells the tale about how one man, Jesse Custer, got fed up with all of life’s inexplicable bullshit and decided to stick it to the Man. And by “the Man”, I of course mean the Big Cheese; the Exec of all Exec’s; Big Beard Grumpy yes, God Almighty himself is about to be called out on all the shit he’s allowed to happen since Creation. Along on this epic journey, Jesse brings only his faithful girlfriend, Tulip and an Irish vampire named Cassidy. But as things develop and plot lines intertwine, the story evolves into as an often times amusing, some times heart-felt, but mostly grotesque revelation on life and the people who try to live it.
No matter what your feelings are about Garth Ennis’ controversial comic opus are, you can’t avoid the fact that it’s one of the most renowned and high-held series ever published outside of the superhero genre . At least that’s the impression I’ve gotten after having talked things over with knowledgeable acquaintances and combed the internet for recommendations. So if you are - like me - in any way interested in comics, then “Preacher” is about as essential as it’s going to get.
However, I cannot with any form for certainty say if you’ll like it. Compared to Warren Ellis’ “Transmetropolitan” (easily the most… graphic comic series I’d read in both style and content before I finished “Preacher”), this series is much more sickening beast all together. I’ve got a thicker hide than a lot people when it comes to things like these, but in this comic’s case I found it to be simply too much.
Let me explain: Where “Transmetropolitan” uses shocking devices in its storytelling, it does so to tell the story in the best and truest way possible. From volume 4 and onwards in “Preacher”, I often found myself wondering if Ennis had perhaps lost sight of that. Where the perverse scenes before were funny or compelling in a different manner, the author now seemed to revel first and foremost in the grotesqueness and shock-factor, trying perhaps to always do one better than what had come before, and in doing so, he often lost the heart of the story, which was always the relationship between the three main characters. I also think he did a poor choice with Cassidy’s character development in the fifth volume and the ending of the saga wasn’t anywhere near as fulfilling as I had hoped it would be. It seemed nearly as if Ennis tried to find himself in all the bloody clutter of the previous volumes, but the ending felt very anti-climactic compared to the other high-points of the series.
The thing that I enjoyed the most about “Preacher” though, were the times it took the time to explore itself and explain the motivations of the characters. This I think Ennis did very well indeed. Especially background stories about Jesse, Jesse’s father and Cassidy’s origin story were the gems that I will always look back on with fond memories.
As for the Steve Dillon’s art, there is only praise to be sung. “Preacher” was never meant to be beautifully rendered, and Dillon knew that from the get-go. He always hit the facial expressions dead on and the illustrations were always nauseatingly good. If anything, I think Dillon deserves more credit than Ennis for making the last five volumes work to the extent that they did.
All in all I think I enjoyed “Preacher” quite a lot. I know for sure that the three first volumes are among the best trade paperbacks I’ve ever read, and even though the story shot itself in the foot along the way, I don’t regret spending my time and money on this. I do, however, regret the fact that I think the series could’ve been much better if Ennis had made some different choices along the way regarding the plot and character development.
Also, “Arseface” was never funny. I think he was supposed to be, but I never got over the overwhelming sadness I felt for that character.

Posts
Arseface is one of the stupidest thing this series ever did - and that’s saying a lot. You’re spot-on with my impression when you comment that the series shot itself in the foot with the (in my eyes) pathetic need to ever top its own grotesque inventions with cumulatively more flash than substance. Really a sad thing.
As you say, the backstories of the characters, particularly Jesse and Cassidy, are by far the best aspect in the series. The “gonna get God”-plot feels old and unoriginal, and never goes anywhere exciting despite ridiculous amounts of potential to do just that. The only cool villain of the series is reduced to a punching bag for the increasingly insipid grotesque humour, and his plot suffers heavily from it. Seeing as that’s in many ways the main plot of the series, that’s not good at all. I’m very much in line with you on this post - the series started out as a very promising story that got lost in a rather unoriginal plotline filled to excess with inane and mostly unsuccessful attempts attempts at being shocking and funny. I would by no means describe the first four volumes as some of the best I’ve ever read, but there was indeed promise of something very good in them - something that got further and further away the more Ennis wrote.
Considering how famous and popular this book is in the graphic novel-loving crowd as a whole, I must say I was tremendously disappointed in the whole thing.
8. July 2008 @ 10:36 ( Permalink )
I love Preacher, and feel that its black humour combined with the graphic violence, and cross-over between genres works perfectly.
I’ll be the first to admit that the last 4 volumes are a tad weaker than the rest of the series, but I think it remains overall strong through out its entire run.
The war against God plot is hardly original, however Preacher executes it brilliantly. The battle against God, is usually a spiritual war, while in Preacher it’s more of a literal, and physical - or possibly metaphysical - one.
The graphic violence and obscenity did not repulse me in anyway, on the contrary I enjoyed it very much - Then again, I also bathe in the woe of man, and drink in the suffering of mortals.
But it all boils down to taste.
I agree that the background stories of Jess and Cassidy were arguably some of the most interesting parts of the Preacher tale.
I remember it was Cassidy’s “Blood and Whiskey” story that caught my attention to Preacher, back in the “Inferno” days.
Anyway, for me, this graphic novel hits right home. But, as I said, it’s all a matter of taste.
9. July 2008 @ 03:34 ( Permalink )
I suppose it is. I feel the literal “battle against God” is way more interestingly played out in, say, “Lucifer”, the “Sandman”-spin-off.
As for the human woe, I don’t mind that. I just mind the excessively graphic and, quite frankly, repulsive ways Ennis keeps finding to humiliate and degrade his characters. It’s unnecessary, it’s revolting, and it detracts from the story when every character you meet that’s not one of the main three needs to have a fetish, a disability or a handicap (or a combination) more ugly and speculated in than the last. To me, that’s the writer trying to impress me with how shocking he can be, not the writer trying to make a good story.
By all means, it’s not bad, it’s even often rather good. But as a whole, it REEKS of unrealised potential so much that I can’t enjoy even the good bits without feeling thoroughly let down.
I quite like the artwork, though, on line with Amras there,
9. July 2008 @ 06:24 ( Permalink )
“suppose it is. I feel the literal “battle against God” is way more interestingly played out in, say, “Lucifer”, the “Sandman”-spin-off.”
Or even - and this should give you an inkling how unsatisfied I was with this plotline in “Preacher” - in “Sagaen om Isfolket”. I know. Five different shades of blasphemy even thinking that, probably. (On the flip side, I’ll admit that “Preacher” is probably suprerior to “Isfolket” in most other ways.
)
9. July 2008 @ 06:26 ( Permalink )
I liked the _three_ first volumes the most, not the four first. The fourth is a one-shot collection or something that contains background story on The Saint of Killers (killed the devil? Is that supposed to be cool?) and Arseface (suicidal, emo stuff) if I remember correctly.
“The war against God plot is hardly original, however Preacher executes it brilliantly. The battle against God, is usually a spiritual war, while in Preacher it’s more of a literal, and physical - or possibly metaphysical - one.”
Brilliantly? Really? Just because they decided they didn’t want to go into anything too deep, because it wouldn’t fit in with the rather shallow themes of the book, doesn’t by any means make it good. I found it simplistic, and frankly, something of a cop-out.
And as an addendum to the artwork, I want to add that while Steve Dillon’s work was top notch all the way through, I never appreciated the cover art. I suppose that they tied nicely into the story with their symbolism and whatnot, but they were u.g.l.y.
@Loki: Isfolket? Really?
Really?
9. July 2008 @ 10:37 ( Permalink )
I was sixteen and read everything remotely fantasy in the local library - and the selection wasn’t too big. So yeah, of course I read the fourty-some books Isfolket made out. (Though I read something called “Heksemesteren” first, which was rather fun, written by Sandemo as well and which shared continuity with “Isfolket”, the last straw that made me give in and check it out instead of re-reading the Belgariad for the tenth time) Actually a read I’m very happy I’ve done, it’s given me insight into a type of literature and genre I never would’ve had otherwise, and I did it at a point in my life where I read so much so often that it wasn’t more than a few months undertaking. If I set out to do something like that today, it’d take me five years - i.e. I would never be able to do that now. So I’m doubly happy to have read them. And honestly, aside from the repetitive nature of the middle 60% of the series, I remember it as surprisingly entertaining at times. Sandemo might be a fruitcake when it comes to her real life beliefs, but they work very well within the context of the story.
“The Saint of Killers (killed the devil? Is that supposed to be cool?) and Arseface (suicidal, emo stuff) if I remember correctly.”
Thank goodness that I wasn’t the only one who felt like that. The Saint of Killers in particular left me going… why? Why not use an actual mythic character as your attempted epitome of awesomely unstoppable? Just yet another of the many shallow attempts at being shocking and cool and spectacular that really just felt like a boring mythology where instead of making use of the thousands of fantastic myths and horrors you could tie into a Christianity-based mythology like this one, he just sat down and made up a new one in five minutes and figured that if he killed the Devil, then that’d make him cool by default.
9. July 2008 @ 10:52 ( Permalink )
Well, it’s not like 90 % of the people at my local library are any better than you, so I guess I shouldn’t be so judgemental. It’s just that I’d read damn near anything before I’d pick up a series like that.
9. July 2008 @ 12:27 ( Permalink )
Hey, it’s a family saga that you follow until you’ve got the seventh son of a seventh son teaming up with the son of Lucifer (who is someone quite other than Satan) to kick the ass of the by now almost demonic warlock ancestor of the family to end a curse it’s been struggling with for centuries. Only big issue it’s got is that all the mystical stuff is very veiled and vague in the first half of the series because the publisher thought it wouldn’t sell if it was too apparent. (Thus it’s ironic how in the later parts the author has more control and the witches and warlocks actually do some impressive stuff, and the ghost of a famous witch from early in the books is summoned to help them (as she is way more gifted than the present-day folks) despite us never having seen her do anything remotely as awesome as what these guys can…)
And the more I think back, the more I realise I mostly read it because of “Heksemesteren”, which was actually pretty cool. (And only 12 books)
9. July 2008 @ 12:35 ( Permalink )
“I just mind the excessively graphic and, quite frankly, repulsive ways Ennis keeps finding to humiliate and degrade his characters. It’s unnecessary, it’s revolting, and it detracts from the story when every character you meet that’s not one of the main three needs to have a fetish, a disability or a handicap (or a combination) more ugly and speculated in than the last. To me, that’s the writer trying to impress me with how shocking he can be, not the writer trying to make a good story.”
I don’t think it’s supposed to be shocking at all. I mean, this is a Vertigo comic. People who are shocked by Vertigocomics are in the wrong shelf, and are better off going back to the regular DC ones, or Marvel comics.
And I think Ennis knows that his no matter what he writes, his readers won’t be shocked.
People shocked by Vertigo comics are the same type of people who are offended, or shocked by the X number of goat skulls or the numerous mock-crucifixions at a Gorgoroth concert.
Whether or not the obscenity, and the punching-bag syndrome is unnecessary is difficult to say, especially when it comes to a comic where pushing the main story arc, is not its only purpose.
“The fourth is a one-shot collection or something that contains background story on The Saint of Killers (killed the devil? Is that supposed to be cool?)”
No, it’s supposed to define the character. The act of shooting the Devil for shit talking him is a demonstration of his personality, nature and his abilities.
“Brilliantly? Really? Just because they decided they didn’t want to go into anything too deep, because it wouldn’t fit in with the rather shallow themes of the book, doesn’t by any means make it good. I found it simplistic, and frankly, something of a cop-out.”
What you desire would ultimately change the shape of the main story arc, and would in all likely hood not, as you said, not fit in with the rest of the story, as well as the style and themes of the entire tale. This isn’t Sandman or - I suspect - Lucifer. It’s a dark, dirty, gritty and relentless.
But I am unsure on what exactly you mean by “deep”? Input on your views on the matter, as well as your suggestion for an alternative would be greatly appreciated.
“Thank goodness that I wasn’t the only one who felt like that. The Saint of Killers in particular left me going… why? Why not use an actual mythic character as your attempted epitome of awesomely unstoppable? Just yet another of the many shallow attempts at being shocking and cool and spectacular that really just felt like a boring mythology where instead of making use of the thousands of fantastic myths and horrors you could tie into a Christianity-based mythology like this one, he just sat down and made up a new one in five minutes and figured that if he killed the Devil, then that’d make him cool by default.”
Originality? I mean, countless of actual mythological creatures have already been used in various Vertigo comics. Hellblazer have probably used every mythic creature imaginable in its long run
Almost every being, every name and every prophecy have already been used in books, films, games and especially comics. Whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Judaic or Satanic mythology, comics like Sandman and Hellblazer have all taken their share of the mythological pie, some more than others.
I mean, it’s so used. I praise Ennis for at least being a little original. And I prefer a cowboy cross-over between Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, walking around with Colts forged in hell, collecting souls and not taking shit from anyone, and that actually fits with the rest of the story.
I mean, the last thing a story like that needs is an angel of death, walking around speaking in fucking riddles.
10. July 2008 @ 01:24 ( Permalink )
Clint Eastwood’s role in Jesse’s mind is the only really original and interesting thing about the story, if you ask me.
“And I prefer a cowboy cross-over between Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, walking around with Colts forged in hell, collecting souls and not taking shit from anyone, and that actually fits with the rest of the story.”
Indeed - because of the rest of the storyline is almost as melodramatically splashy and, well, shallow. It’s the Frank Miller-thing - “let’s make something that sounds awesome and super-butch and if it looks cool enough, it’ll be mistaken for nuance and depth for sure!” - and honestly, that kind of approach only really works when you’ve got a world like Sin City to put it in where everybody is like that.
Vertigo? Please, I’ve read tons of Vertigo. “Pride of Baghdad”, “V for Vendetta”, “Watchmen”, “The Fountain”, “Lucifer”, “Sandman”, “Swamp Thing”, quite a bit of “Hellblazer”, and there’s no autopilot in the line that the books in there needs to be speculatively gross in their use violence and sex. Ennis clearly tries to be anyway. I find that crude and uninteresting and undermining of the general story. But, of course, that’s just my opinion.
10. July 2008 @ 03:39 ( Permalink )
“No, it’s supposed to define the character. The act of shooting the Devil for shit talking him is a demonstration of his personality, nature and his abilities.”
Oh, and for the record - I get that. That’s exactly what I find crude about it. “I need to show that this guy’s Super Hardass, so I’ll have him kill the Devil to define his character and then I won’t have to bother with any characterisation beyond that.” Really? Killing the Devil is something you EARN in a story. When you use it to *set up* a character, it’s boring, easy and uninteresting. *I* could write a story about a character who is cool and scary because he killed the Devil. There’s nothing challenging, nothing interesting, nothing really noteworthy about it to my mind when I’m reading it because of that. You don’t have Dexter kill Brian in the pilot. You earn it, you make the characters cool in their own right, and THEN you can do something like that. Having a character who’s so far really only gotten a sad origin story that’s tragic and a little impressive but hardly feels like a once-in-world-history-event kill the Devil who’s got basically no introduction, characterisation or purpose at all because he’s trash-talking him is cheap and uninteresting. It’s “tragic man kills obnoxious man” with cool names, because neither of the two are much more at that point. It’s killing the Devil so that you can say that the character killed the Devil. It gives me nothing.
10. July 2008 @ 04:02 ( Permalink )
“Clint Eastwood’s role in Jesse’s mind is the only really original and interesting thing about the story, if you ask me.”
It’s John Wayne, actually.
“Indeed - because of the rest of the storyline is almost as melodramatically splashy and, well, shallow. It’s the Frank Miller-thing - “let’s make something that sounds awesome and super-butch and if it looks cool enough, it’ll be mistaken for nuance and depth for sure!” - and honestly, that kind of approach only really works when you’ve got a world like Sin City to put it in where everybody is like that.”
Well, by fitting in with the story, I meant themes and style of the series, but never mind.
I am curious of how you define this shallowness and lack of depth?
I will agree that Preacher maintains a certain simplicity, but it is, however, not what I in my opinion would consider a flaw. I mean, can you imagine the cowboy preacher Jesse Custer (Who, is, unfortunately, a tad cheese on toast) sitting down to contemplate if his quest was right or wrong, what the meaning of it all was? And who he was as a person? I am reminded of Tony Soprano’s statement of “What happened to Gary Cooper? The strong, silent man”.
The reason why I think the Saint works so well, is not only due to his originality, or the fact that he fits in with Custer and the western, and southland themes. But because of the ruthless honesty he possesses.
“Vertigo? Please, I’ve read tons of Vertigo. “Pride of Baghdad”, “V for Vendetta”, “Watchmen”, “The Fountain”, “Lucifer”, “Sandman”, “Swamp Thing”, quite a bit of “Hellblazer”, and there’s no autopilot in the line that the books in there needs to be speculatively gross in their use violence and sex. Ennis clearly tries to be anyway. I find that crude and uninteresting and undermining of the general story. But, of course, that’s just my opinion.”
My argument still stands, though. Vertigo is, after all, a sub-label directed towards adults, and is often described as the “adult” section of DC. And when comics are described as “for adults” it usually involves graphic violence, high complexity or explicit sexual contents.
It’s weird enough to actually be shocked by any drawings as an adult.
And I believe that the violence in Preacher is there, first and foremost, to entertain.
10. July 2008 @ 05:25 ( Permalink )
“Oh, and for the record - I get that. That’s exactly what I find crude about it. “I need to show that this guy’s Super Hardass, so I’ll have him kill the Devil to define his character and then I won’t have to bother with any characterisation beyond that.” Really? Killing the Devil is something you EARN in a story. When you use it to *set up* a character, it’s boring, easy and uninteresting”
I think the slaying of the Devil was necessary to the plot. Was he supposed to come back back, far later in the story and say “oh, by the way” *boom*!
I get that that’s not what you’re saying, by the way.
I don’t think that writer’s should be compelled to follow the every standard convention of storytelling. In my opinion, killing the devil was the best way of demonstrating, not only what Custer & Co is up against, but also that neither, devil nor angel have a hold over him, and ultimately, his role in the sage.
I think spending too much time trying to characterize someone like the Saint would detract too much from the original storyline. It’s not like he’s the main antagonist.
It’s not supposed to be very noteworthy, it’s simply meant as a way to underline a point. Though I suspect that’s what your main gripe is.
I don’t think the Saint is supposed to be a very complex character, he’s meant to be a pure force of retribution. “The strong, silent man”.
10. July 2008 @ 05:50 ( Permalink )
“It’s John Wayne, actually.”
Damn, I knew something was wrong there. (I’ve never seen a movie with either, though, so to me, the names are about the same…)
I’m not shocked by the drawings or the story. I just feel like it’s unnecessarily, often outright stupidly repulsive on purpose, where every new villain needs to have a handicap, fetish and/or injury to top the previous one. It feels as though Ennis doesn’t think he’ll be able to paint a character as a badguy without making him somehow perverted or repulsive, It’s no one thing in particular, it’s that virtually all of his evil characters have som form of severe injury, disability or perversion. It’s honestly putting me off the story, because A. it’s simplistic, B. it’s rather boring and easy that only the good guys get to have good qualities in the story, and C. it seems to be there mostly as sensationalism anyway, going “hey, look at this story, it’s got the craziest villains you’ll ever see!”
I never needed Jesse to sit down and have a deep inner journey or some bullshit like that. I never had any problems with his character, nor with the other two main characters. Sadly, the plot they were put in did not feel in any way worthy of the characters in it. When I say things are simplistic, I mean the story, the world, what I could pick up of themes, and the secondary characters. Not the protagonists.
“I don’t think the Saint is supposed to be a very complex character, he’s meant to be a pure force of retribution. “The strong, silent man”.”
I know that. I just don’t find that to be at all interesting. Seems to me like that’s 50% Marv from “Sin City” and 50% pure plot-device. I like my stories based on character-interactions.
I’m not saying the Saint was done in any way poorly considering what Ennis no doubt wanted to do with him. I’m just saying that what he did with him, to me, was relatively uninteresting. There’s nothing cool about a strong, silent man who’s strong and silent for being strong and silent’s sake. That’s like watching the wind blow. I’d not be particularly impressed if a story had the Devil killed by a tornado, and I’m not particularly impressed when he’s killed by the Saint.
Ennis no doubt made exactly the story he wanted to. It’s just a story which time and time again failed to impress me despite originally holding a lot of potential to do so. Others, most others judging by the book’s popularity, no doubt are more able to appreciate whatever about this Ennis himself thought would be cool. Like you clearly are. I, sadly, wasn’t.
10. July 2008 @ 08:41 ( Permalink )
I agree that almost every villain have a certain something that “makes them look the part”. The exception being Jody, the Saint, a few Grail members and perhaps God.
Regarding Herr Starr’s “development” I’m glad Ennis maintained a self irony when it came to his numerous disfigurements.
And while I do not consider it to be sensationalism, due to aforementioned reasons, even I felt He could have done something slightly different at a few places in the saga.
I don’t think the Saint is strong and silent, just for strong and silent’s sake . I think the three most prominent villains each play their own individual, and different aspects of the concept that is an antagonist. Starr being the vindictive sociopath, God being insane “mad scientist” like character, with a deep love for his own voice, and the Saint being the mysterious, raw force of opposition, motivations often unknown.
I find the concept of the Saint to be a much needed element in stories, and a refreshing break from the sometimes overly talkative villains that is the case in so many tales.
And though I usually favor character-interactions myself, there comes a point when action must speak for itself.
It all comes down to taste. Some find Preacher to be brilliant, some find it mediocre, some find it simply revolting, and some are simply not impressed.
While the core elements of Preacher very much appeals to me, I can easily understand that it is unappealing to others.
11. July 2008 @ 03:19 ( Permalink )
Some good points there that I hadn’t thought about, with the three villains of different aspects in particular. That doesn’t really make me retroactively enjoy it more, but it does at least make me respect the idea a good bit more and would maybe make me like it better if I ever re-read it.
As to your last paragraph, I find that the core PREMISE of Preacher very much appeals to me - but the core elements they then play the premise out through, sadly, do not. Thus it’s disappointing to me - if I felt meh about the premise, I’d not have high expectations to what they did with it. I remain unimpressed _because_ I feel drawn to the premise and then feel let down by what they do with it, not because I find it uninteresting.
11. July 2008 @ 04:35 ( Permalink )
“I don’t think it’s supposed to be shocking at all. I mean, this is a Vertigo comic. People who are shocked by Vertigocomics are in the wrong shelf, and are better off going back to the regular DC ones, or Marvel comics.
“And I think Ennis knows that his no matter what he writes, his readers won’t be shocked.
People shocked by Vertigo comics are the same type of people who are offended, or shocked by the X number of goat skulls or the numerous mock-crucifixions at a Gorgoroth concert.
Whether or not the obscenity, and the punching-bag syndrome is unnecessary is difficult to say, especially when it comes to a comic where pushing the main story arc, is not its only purpose.”
Firstly, I’d like to point out that if Ennis didn’t think his readers would be shocked, then Ennis wouldn’t be writing it. I’m not saying that I, nor anyone else for that matter, is shocked to degree that they shit their pants with the audacity or something like that - I’m saying that everything he centres this story around revolves on something fundamentally shocking to our culture, and that’s fine with me if it serves a purpose, if it tells the story, and in “Preacher”’s case, it just didn’t do that for me all the time. If you’re shocking someone just to get a, “Dude, that was so wickedly gross!” - high-five moment, then I think any Vertigo aficionado have a right to feel any way they like about that. Vertigo is a brand that pushes high quality comics with high quality story telling, I never liked something that goes for the cheap and crude instead of the well-thought-out and intellectual.
Which brings me to…
“No, it’s supposed to define the character. The act of shooting the Devil for shit talking him is a demonstration of his personality, nature and his abilities.”
I’m sorry, but am I supposed to buy that someone this one tragic guy who admittedly had a hard time while he walked the earth, is supposed to become so Ultimate Bad-Ass by just having a ice-cold wish for vengeance? Puh-lease. There are probably millions upon millions of people who’ve died with a stronger reason than this sad loner who, by some miracle, suddenly gets-up and kills one of the universes’ most powerful beings? You’re right about it defining him, though, because that it most certainly does; he’s become an un-killable, unstoppable, murdering psychotic that Ennis can use whenever his story’s in need of some divine intervention. It’s bad story-telling, just like Jesse’s Word is bad story-telling because it effectively gives him power over everyone except God.
“What you desire would ultimately change the shape of the main story arc, and would in all likely hood not, as you said, not fit in with the rest of the story, as well as the style and themes of the entire tale. This isn’t Sandman or - I suspect - Lucifer. It’s a dark, dirty, gritty and relentless.
But I am unsure on what exactly you mean by “deep”? Input on your views on the matter, as well as your suggestion for an alternative would be greatly appreciated.”
Oh, by all means, I could never have written something as good as “Preacher”. Such a proposition is of course laughable. However, if I were to have written it, I wouldn’t have topped of the second climax with a nuclear bomb. I’d've made the story more personal and even - yes - grittier, by actually involving the characters beyond the point of lining them up and showing off their sick damage points. I’d”ve also driven the bond between Cassidy and Jesse deeper and had Tulip being the one who’d make a mistake for a change and give into Cassidy’s approaches. This way you could justify Jesse’s detour better (all though I probably would have done that differently, too), given both Cassidy and Tulip some real angst that the reader would have to deal with in stead of us knowing that Jesse was alive the whole time. This would also result in a better climax for both of the relationships.
Oh, and I’d have any time left in between, I wouldn’t have ruined Starr, I would never have had God appearing from time to time, I would’ve killed off Tulip’s best friend, I would’ve made the Saint of Killers into a real character and not a single-noted monster.
And I’d probably ruin it totally by doing all of these things.
“Originality? I mean, countless of actual mythological creatures have already been used in various Vertigo comics. Hellblazer have probably used every mythic creature imaginable in its long run
Almost every being, every name and every prophecy have already been used in books, films, games and especially comics. Whether it’s Islamic, Christian, Judaic or Satanic mythology, comics like Sandman and Hellblazer have all taken their share of the mythological pie, some more than others.
I mean, it’s so used. I praise Ennis for at least being a little original. And I prefer a cowboy cross-over between Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin, walking around with Colts forged in hell, collecting souls and not taking shit from anyone, and that actually fits with the rest of the story.
I mean, the last thing a story like that needs is an angel of death, walking around speaking in fucking riddles.”
Yes, riddling angels would be a poor idea, that much we can agree upon. However, the very idea that the world’s mythology being so completely ransacked that we need to invent a new one to cause a stir, is ridiculous. Besides, you know, a “killed the devil” plot is hardly something that Ennis drew up, all shiny and new-like, from his Magician’s hat. It’s been done before, and it’s been done better. The only thing that “original” plot served was to kill off any chance that the Saint might actually become something more than a plot device.
I think the slaying of the Devil was necessary to the plot. Was he supposed to come back back, far later in the story and say “oh, by the way” *boom*!
Heh. No, any writer that knows more about writing fiction, beyond the fact that involves stringing words together into sentences, can tell you that every character needs to be built up and properly introduced before he can partake in the story. What you’re describing is - excuse the pun - a deus-ex-machina situation worthy of a five-year old.
11. July 2008 @ 12:24 ( Permalink )
I can relate to that. I suspect it’s the same feeling that I get when watching a movie, reading a book etc that’s just the right genre, right premise, yet somehow I do not like it. I had a similar feeling with the first season ofThe 4400.
Execution is everything when it comes to plot. So many tales have been ruined because of a writer’s bad judgement when it came to executing the plot.
So I believe I understand how you feel, despite the fact that we differ on Preacher.
11. July 2008 @ 12:48 ( Permalink )
Gah, curse my refresh-laziness!
To Amras:
I think we may differ on the definition of shock.
I am not in any way suggesting that people aren’t allowed to feel how they want to feel. I was merely pointing out that I feel that going *gasp!* by reading a graphic novel directed at adults is about as absurd as going to a black metal gig and be offended by what happens on the stage.
I can agree that some of its vulgarity and violence is a bit over-the top and unnecessary in regards to plot. I however saw this as pure entertainment, and reveled in it.
The Saint was already pretty munchkin, even before he arrived in hell. All he gained from hell, was immortality (in the invulnerable sense, as well), and a pair of neat imba Colts. His brutality, relentlessness and his skills were all aspects he had retained from his mortal life.
If we are to discuss who has a more reason to rise up and wreak vengeance upon the world, then we need to pull out our calculators. Because all it’ll come down to is mathematical variables. People react different to actions against them. Some are not very vindictive, and do not feel the same need to inflict punishment on those that have wronged them. Others can not rest, can not focus until their lust for vengeance is fulfilled. Who’s to say that one person does not have a good enough reason for becoming a Saint of Killers, while others have carte blanche?
And the though I realise that the Saint is first and foremost a plot-device, I do not consider him to be just something Ennis brings out as a divine intervention.
Oh, and don’t think God is excluded from being affected by Jesse’s Word, as God orchestrated the creation of Genesis, in order to obtain the love of something that was a legitimate threat to him.
Hm, I am curious as to why you would kill off Tulip’s friend?
I agree that God’s appearances could have been more limited, as long as he appeared at least once before the end.
I do not believe that the creation of the Saint was purely motivated by the fact that practically all existing mythological beings have already been used. I think Ennis created just the character he wanted to, without regard to the the issue. I still do not see the problem with creating an entirely new character, in stead of using one that’s already existed in scriptures for thousands of years.
I never stated that the “killing the devil” plot is original, and I am aware of the fact that it’s been done numerous times before. Hell, Ennis has done it before.
I can’t comment too much on your last paragrapgh, as I am, shamefully, unfamiliar with the term, apart from the how it translates.
11. July 2008 @ 13:56 ( Permalink )
I’m very much in line with what Amras wrote in that comment, and since we seemed to reach a common note by the end there, I’ll let sleeping dogs lie.
And as I said before, “Preacher” never struck me as BAD. Just disappointing to my rather high expectations.
“I had a similar feeling with the first season ofThe 4400.”
Ditto, actually, if a friend hadn’t lent it to me I’d probably have stopped there and never looked back. If it helps at all, it gets gradually better, and season 4 (the last one before its cancellation) was very good in my opinion and made me glad I stuck with it. It struggles a little with shaking the freak-of-the-week-plots, but even that gets better as the series progress. If you’re okay with a slow but sure improvement, I’d recommend you to stay through the show. However - if season 1 so thoroughly wasn’t your thing that watching two full seasons of slow improvement on it doesn’t sound appealing, it never gets so genious that it’s worth the drag. Still, I was very very happy with its last season, and it wasn’t a sudden change at all, so it DOES get better and better as it goes.
11. July 2008 @ 15:38 ( Permalink )
Oh, and “deus ex machina” is a term describing a feature in Ancient Greek plays where a god would frequently show up during the resolution of events near the end and deal out punishments, rewards and last-minute-rescues as he or she saw fit. The actual doing of this on stage was fixed by having the actor portraying the god be lowered from the ceiling in a device - a “machine” - thus giving rise to the expression “god from the machine”, in modern literature meaning something external that comes into the story near it ends and ties up any remaining plotholes, solves any story-telling corners that the writer has painted himself intom etc. In other words, it is a term used to describe a situation where the writer hasn’t put the elements and characters and clues needed to resolve the plot to his satisfaction into the story, and he needs to bring in some kind of external force or event to “fix” things so the end works like the writer wants it to. (An example off the top of my head could be the Eagles in the end of LotR, coming out of nowhere to fix the matter of Frodo and Sam being stranded in Mordor at the end of the plot. I’m sure an argument could be made that that situation isn’t a proper deus ex machina, but you get what I mean anyway.)
11. July 2008 @ 15:45 ( Permalink )
Thanks for the detailed information about the deus ex machina issue. Quite an amusing origin story.
I didn’t think The 4400 was bad, but was merely, like you with Preacher, disappointed. However, if it gets better, then perhaps 4400 will be my next show, seeing as I have finished season 4 of BSG and “Lost”, and m still waiting for season 6 of “Oz”.
12. July 2008 @ 16:54 ( Permalink )
As I said, it’s a gradual improvement that keeps going steadily all the way up until its cancellation. That means that I liked season 2 better than 1, but not a LOT better than 1, 3 better than 2 but not a LOT better than 2, and 4 best of all, not a LOT better than 3 but tons and tons better than 1.
I wasn’t really disappointed in “The 4400″ - I was lent it from a friend in return from giving him access to “Babylon 5″, and I didn’t want to come back without having seen it so I gave it a good, long check-out. My expectations were rather modest, though, so it turned out to be about as interesting as I thought it could be realistically expected to be. By season 3 and especially 4, however, I found myself really getting into it. I’d say that at season 3, it’s a tiny bit weaker than season 1 of “Heroes” - which is similar in many ways, as you’ve no doubt noticed - and in season 4 it’s a tiny bit better. (No single episode as brilliant as “Company Man”, though. I’d frame that episode if I could)
As for the explanation, no problem. Hope I didn’t say anything wrong, I didn’t actually check up any of that…
12. July 2008 @ 19:35 ( Permalink )
I don’t feel a need to comment any more on what you’re saying here, Shirgaal, as it seems we’ve both reached the point where we’re repeating ourselves.
And thanks to both of you for the hefty discussion on this post. I visit a lot of blogs that are, frankly, better written and more worthy of attention than mine, and very few of them receive a lot of talkback. I guess I’m lucky, huh?
14. July 2008 @ 09:04 ( Permalink )
You’ve just stumbled into knowing one of the many guys on the Internet with too much time to satisfy his own verbal diarrhea. Me. My apologies.
14. July 2008 @ 12:20 ( Permalink )
I always appreciate a healthy debate. And I agree with you, Amras, that we have reached the point in this discussions where ammunition is scarce.
16. July 2008 @ 14:10 ( Permalink )
Ammunition? My lord, isn’t someone holding an aggressive view on written exchanges of different opinions.
But yup, I think the topic is relatively exhausted. Still, if I ever do re-read it - doubtful at this point, as it is I’m actually _regretting_ buying volume 1 unread (I borrowed the rest from Obdormio) since it’s not nearly good enough to buy all of and having only one volume of something melts my brain if I think too much about it - I’ll probably go back here and comment further.
16. July 2008 @ 18:33 ( Permalink )
Seeing as I agree with Loke and Amras on some points, and with Shirgaal on others, and as I haven’t read Preacher in three years, I won’t say much, I’ll just comment on this:
“It’s bad story-telling, just like Jesse’s Word is bad story-telling because it effectively gives him power over everyone except God.”
But isn’t the Word slightly better storytelling as, if I recall correctly, Jesse uses it relatively rare, and as he loses it for what I seem to remember to have been half the story?
I mean, if Jesse’d never resolved any problem without using the word, I’d agree that it was really shitty storytelling, but when he only uses it to stick it to the bad guys, displaying a certain regard for the value of perceived “free will” — well, that makes it slightly less bad storytelling to my mind. A tad two-dimensional storytelling, perhaps, but still. God used his ultimate power to set up a maching that would test people and see if they would love him, while Jesse used his penultimate power to at least attempt to topple the ultimate one, even if this would mean that he would lose his own power.
I seem to remember that the story never really got to the point where the hunt for God ended in a satisfying manner, though, but instead drifted out into some rather uninteresting soap opera; however, this difference in how God and Jesse used their powers nonetheless says something about the character of Jesse, even if what it says failed to be noteworthily original.
17. July 2008 @ 02:29 ( Permalink )
“while Jesse used his penultimate power to at least attempt to topple the ultimate one, even if this would mean that he would lose his own power.”
Right. And honestly, that story was told as interestingly in the Qur’an, Bible and Torah apocrypha-stories anyway. Not to mention a certain little thing by Milton.
“this difference in how God and Jesse used their powers nonetheless says something about the character of Jesse, even if what it says failed to be noteworthily original.”
Agreed. But then again, Jesse’s character was always among the book’s stronger elements.
17. July 2008 @ 03:25 ( Permalink )
“But isn’t the Word slightly better storytelling as, if I recall correctly, Jesse uses it relatively rare, and as he loses it for what I seem to remember to have been half the story?”
True, the Word was used sparingly and mostly only then in extremely tight corners and for comic relief, but it can’t be described as good storytelling because it relaxes and disengages the reader when he knows that all Jesse has to do, really, is to mouth a couple of sentences and their off scot-free.
Half _a_ story, perhaps? He lost the Word when he was captured by his grandma early in the series, but God restored it quickly when he realized just how scared he was of Genesis’ power.
17. July 2008 @ 13:43 ( Permalink )
“Ammunition? My lord, isn’t someone holding an aggressive view on written exchanges of different opinions.”
Well, the phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword” didn’t originate for nothing.
17. July 2008 @ 15:38 ( Permalink )
“Half _a_ story, perhaps? He lost the Word when he was captured by his grandma early in the series, but God restored it quickly when he realized just how scared he was of Genesis’ power.”
Ah. It’s been at least three years since the last time I read Preacher, and once again it is proved that I shouldn’t trust my memory any farther than I can throw it.
17. July 2008 @ 17:13 ( Permalink )
Which begs the question; how far can you throw your memory?
18. July 2008 @ 03:06 ( Permalink )