For the record, though, Ramona (the character with the hammer) is definitely not what I'd call "sweet." I think the initial comment was a bit vague, to be fair, and there's a lot about the character we don't know yet, but as of book 3, I'm not even sure how much she's likeable.

It is clearly not impossible to care about what is going on with the characters in the story, but I suspect that doing so rests on being able to color the book's loose, simple framework with personal life experiences. Mine color the framework with the feeling that Scott's world is a shallow, artificial one, populated with persons of shallow taste and motivation, and I don't really care to read about it when putting up with it sickens me enough already.

(And yes, this isn't the first time someone's commented that I appear to be reading Scott Pilgrim in a parallel universe. I really have no idea why I find it very negative and off-putting, when most people seem to find it good fun at worst. But frankly, why should my reaction be somehow illegitimate or incorrect simply because it's not what most people are having? Someone else's opinion hardly proves mine wrong, merely "different"; and the gap between them, I find, does more to illuminate what's interesting bout a story than mere unadulterated praise.)

Also, just for the sake of posterity: actually, the "little princess with great big honkin' violence hammer" is not just a video game stereotype, but one that is utter, hoary cliche. Perhaps the most perfectly trite example of it is Amy Rose, who showed up in the 90's to help ruin the Sonic the Hedgehog games. There's other specimens of her, though: dig through any Japanese shovelware from around the mid-90's to about a few years ago, and she's always waiting for you there, blandly sweet and just a little bit violent to keep her from being wholly offensive. Instead, she's just mostly offensive... especially to someone like me, who sees her trotted out ad nauseam as a lazy writer's shorthand for a woman who is assertive, but not in a threatening or, frankly, remotely interesting way.

So I guess I don't see why you phrased that as an argument against my point; it seems to be almost exactly what I'm saying - that these particular criticisms of Scott Pilgrim come from critics who aren't fully making that "crucial distinction" - critics who are saying "elements of the narrative are immature, therefore the narrative as a whole is immature."

(Although admittedly, I don't see what's so bad about being nostalgic.)

If a critic doesn't think O'Malley's managed the necessary ironic distance to achieve the same effect as those works (which themselves have been accused of not achieving enough ironic distance), I guess that's an arguable criticism. But for a critic to not even acknowledge that, quite simply, O'Malley's perspective isn't the same as Scott Pilgrim's perspective - that just seems sorta stupid.

I’m not even a particularly big video game player, but I can see the obvious potential in employing video game ideas and narrative structures into storytelling. The movie “Run Lola Run” did much the same thing–did O’Neill think that movie was inherently worthless, too?

Alex Garlands book The Beach (never seen the film) had whole chapters devoted about playing Gameboy, and references to Asterix and Obelix, and yet it still managed to sell huge, get great reviews, and be a damn good read as well.
Best 'airport' novel I've ever read (and I don't think the term actually applies as it's only structured like a thriller due to the main characters wish to be caught up in one - most of the book is people sitting on a beach).

Proving that for at least one reader, it is the story and not the trappings that appeal.

Also fond of the strong characters and the humour, with special mention going to Scott's thought balloon regarding the things he knew about Italy (The Pope? The Pope of Rome?)

Personally, while I find the videogame references charming in their own way, they're really kind of one-offs for me. It's the story and the characters that keep me coming back. Oh, and Mal's art - which is just fun (even if I liked it in Lost at Sea better).

As far as O'Neill's outright dismissal of SP because of his weird anti-videogame dogma, I confess I don't get it. Where do these blind spots come from? I accept that someone could not be the biggest fan of the book, but I'd at least hope that a thinking person would have a reasonable criticism. My wife doesn't like the series half as much as me because she has a hard time identifying with the characters' interactions. Fine. Reasonable. Lynxara's criticism is valid (though I think she's mistaken). Not liking the book because of a prejudice against a book that isn't based on videogames but merely utilizes some of the medium's past themes? That's kind of juniour high of him.

And I was never part of the gaming generation, but I enjoy the book immensely. And the guy above who said this book only appeals to single or once single men is nuts. This book is the definition of cute and many women dig that. And it's got fun characters and stories so who wouldn't enjoy that? My girlfriend loves it. Vegan power!

One thing that is particularly realistic and entertaining is the complicated web of relationships among the characters. The way a group can end up with so many tangled histories and not everyone gets along with everyone else and some members have successively dated way too many other members of the group for comfort and so forth.

I'm not even a particularly big video game player, but I can see the obvious potential in employing video game ideas and narrative structures into storytelling. The movie "Run Lola Run" did much the same thing--did O'Neill think that movie was inherently worthless, too? It's not even related to whether you think video games are an "artform", or worthwhile, or whatever--it's simply a case of an artist ranging afield for influences and ideas. The fact that the artform that O'Malley is relying on is new and, of neccessity, rather juvenile, shouldn't disqualify it from serious consideration; all great art forms and modes, from Impressionism to Rock 'n' Roll, were once held up as ridiculus by "serious" critics of the time, fit only for an audience of young turks who clearly had no taste for the finer things...

But then, if it was published in the Comics Journal, I guess I shouldn't find it surprising. This is a publication that's founded on the idea of stirring the pot, often through wild exaggeration, rather than legitimate discussion.

I think it just boils down to the fact that I can't stand the writing in the book. I think the guy reviewing the movie script for IESB put it best when he remarked that "the characters have an emotional complexity rarely seen outside of Taco Bell commercials," because every single character managed to make me want to punch them in the face within 5 pages of their introduction.

You totally got across why Scott pilgrim is so awesome, way better than I ever could.

Great post.

Can't wait for book 4.