appealing to a very small child, but I would think that parents would object

to their child reading something so violent. (I know, different times and

all, but I’m thinking of the reprint.) I wondered whether there was

something here I just wasn’t getting. But no “sense of wonder” in the good

sense.

“unbridled imagination”
Complete lack of causality or sense would be more accurate. When I’m

impressed by someone’s imagination, it’s when they think of something crazy

and make it work. Just having everything happen randomly, and not following

any rules or logic or internal consistency in your stories doesn’t strike me

as particularly imaginitive.

“unlike anything else out there”
That’s probably true, but that might just be because this is so bad that it

did not have much influence on what came later.

“the characters are beautifully ugly”
You know, I’ve written

about the idea of the interaction of ugliness and beauty in art, so I agree

that it can be important. But Mr. Hanks art is just ugly.

“world really comes alive”
Couldn’t agree less – there is no character developement. No plot point

ever unfolds – it’s just dumped onto the page, often with little or no

connection to anything that came before or after. There’s no sense of life

or movement or flow, it’s just a sequence of static events.

“like a portal to some surreal dream dimension”
Okay. Good art can have a dream-like quality (like The Sandman), or it can

just seem like a random, meaningless dream (like Fletcher Hanks’ work).

“a unique comics talent”
Unique – true. Comics – True. Talent – I disagree.

“brilliantly bizarre”
One of the fun things about comics is their ability to really make the

bizarre work in a way that is difficult in most mediums. But bizarre for

bizarre’s sake is unappealling to me. (And it should be clear by now that I

don’t agree with applying “brilliantly” to this work.)

Thanks for pointing those lines out. Other standouts were:
“weird, violent, stupid”
“reads like a fever dream”
“his grasp of anatomy appears nonexistent”

And in the first comment we see:
“So bad it’s good”

And, thank you for not insulting me. Last time I disagreed with one of the

Reasons I was insulted by different readers, but very few actually responded

to my comments. I really do appreciate your response.

Hey, Tyson…no need for anyone to insult you…but did you read the column you’re responding to? I thought Bill spelled out why he felt it was good fairly decently:

“fills the reader with wonder
unbridled imagination
unlike anything else out there
the characters are beautifully ugly
world really comes alive
like a portal to some surreal dream dimension
a unique comics talent
brilliantly bizarre”

Why don’t you start from there and either challenge those assertions or explain why you think that isn’t enough to make a comic good?

After all the praise for this collection, I was quite excited to pick it up. Once I got it home and read it, I was surprised at how bad it is. This book seems like a caricature of what non-comics readers often expect from comics – plots that don’t really make any sense, zero character or situation development, bad art – these stories are just incoherent messes. Every aspect of this thing was just terrible.

There are a lot of comics that I may not like, but I understand why others like them. But, with the exception of people who nostalgically recall first seeing these stories when they were 3 years old, I actually can’t figure out what anybody sees in them. It’s almost like all the praise for this book is some kind of elaborate hoax. Well, the emperor has no clothes.

I am now prepared for the fanboy assault. But, in addition to insulting me, if you could take a moment to explain what it is that is actually good about these comics (since Comics Should Be Good), I’d honestly be interesting in hearing it.

If you like it, why not bring the book to your LCS and wave it under the owner’s nose (or, better yet, his eyes) and insist that he order a truckload or face the frightful wraith of Stardust the Super Wizard.

To find out it was actually old reprints, and then to read the last story about the guy who finds the artist’s son and talks to him, wow, it just brought everything together.

I collect a lot of old reprint comics and this volume is one of the best I’ve obtained in a long time.

And I agree, km: it’s very difficult to appreciate the art, but not the artist himself. The life of Fletcher Hanks is a strange one. I think we’re far enough removed from that personal past to be able to view his work for what it was, and his life for what it was, and not have the two mingle– but I understand where you’re coming from. Hey, we’re in a place now where people hate certain creators just because they’re jerks– so it can be tough to wrap one’s head around featuring a bad guy like Hanks as a reason to love comics, but I’ve done so, hence the disclaimer.

Let’s just say that in principle I have serious issues with putting the man on my personal list of Reasons to Love Comics, and agree to disagree.

Note to Stealth: As much as I appreciate the kind words of Mr. Reed, I must beg to differ with part of his assessment.

I believe that Hanks’ work really is so good it’s good.

Listen, who are the best comic book artists of all time: Jack Cole, Carl Barks, John Stanley, Robert Crumb (the list goes on). What do these guys have in common with Hanks? They were all auteurs who wrote, pencilled, inked, and (in Hanks’ and Crumb’s case) lettered their own stories. This level of control and involvement works much better than the usual Ford assembly line approach in creating first-rate comic book stories.

Hanks’ tales are weird and twisted. His approach to anatomy is unique. But his tales are told in a straightforward fashion with distinctive and powerful style. This stuff is solid…and a hell of a lot more fun to read than 99% of anything else in comic books…ever.

Note to KM: You are not giving tacit approval of Hanks’ wretched behavior by reading this book. The guy is long gone and his son (now in his late 80′s) is tickled with amazement that anyone likes this stuff.

In my comics Afterword, the 16 pager, “Whatever Happened to Fletcher Hanks”, all is explained and hopefully the reader will begin to understand why these stories are so peculiar, simmering just under their newsprint surface with righteous fury. Knowledge about what a louse Hanks was actually deepens ones’ appreciation of his work.

-Paul Karasik

I mean, ‘not a great person’ I can live with. ‘Pushed his son down the stairs in an alcoholic rage’…I really, really don’t want to give that anything close to even tacit approval.

Interesting to note, Stardust has apparently fallen into the public domain, and is being revived by Erik Larsen as part of his “Next Issue Project” over at Image. I’m curious to see if Larsen can re-create that trippy, somewhat deranged craziness that Hanks instilled in his strips…