Written by: James Robinson
Art by: Greg Hinkle
Publisher: Image
My first impression, Airboy is a pretty ballsy move. Normally, I really appreciate ballsy but in this case I wasn’t as impressed. So allow me to descend into a myriad of issues while attempting not to spoil the story’s happenings, whatsoever.
I appreciate the struggle of the modern writer, I’m not so certain I care all that much about the struggle of the modern male writer. You get this glimpse of the THEN devoted wife and the implication that she’s supporting her husband. Some of us know how that story goes all too well, supporting the dream chaser as they walk all over you… carelessly. But of course from this angle, the angle of the narrator, she’s cold hearted, cruel and unsupportive rather than fet-up, used and overlooked.
I feel like the narrator is trying to be self deprecating in that charming way, presenting all his gritty faults but it continually struck me as egotistical and smarmy. Maybe that was the intent? Whether Robinson is actually anything like the coke fueled, alcoholic he’s translated himself into for this series, I don’t personally know. Perhaps he is the image of self control, celibacy and abstinence.
They say people love the asshole but the older I get, the less I care about the David Duchovny attitudes of the 90’s. The less I want to know alcoholics full of self-imposed tortures. These sort of characters worry me. We don’t need another Hight Fidelity. Nick Hornby’s book High Fidelity (turned cult music movie) followed a complete elitist asshole who worked in a record store. His stormy discontent, self loathing, laziness and shit attitude caused him to be unsuccessful in love, and career. The movie created an entire generation of music elitists who treated women as horribly as the main character simply because the viewers were too stupid to realize that John Cusack’s character was a £$%^ing prick and not someone to aspire to. Incidentally, although the American movie with John Cusack is how most people remember the book, Nick Hornby is actually British, as is the author of this comic, James Robinson.
If you are unfamiliar with his work, James Robinson has been around for a couple decades, best known for his work Starman (reiterated in this issue). You will most remember Robinson for his work with DC including up to 2013 with his bits for the New 52 and Earth 2. Robinson expresses his deep lack of fulfillment working for DC in Airboy leading this reboot to be less of an actual reboot and more of an exercise in some Grant Morrison-type-Reality-meets-Fictional Character- from Story Book Universe. Image describes it as “Worlds and minds explode in a brand-new series!” Whatever. Maybe it’s just supposed to be really funny, that um.. “hipster indie ironic” that Robinson pokes fun of. I suspect that he’s poking fun at himself although I don’t really consider this type of story to be new. Kind of reminds me of Woody Allen’s Deconstructing Harry but with the crashing of reality by a fictional character that wasn’t created by the author (and main character).
I think one of the things I found even more incredulous about the issue was the quotes at the end. They were all from the new comic elite. Jeff Lemire, Brian K Vaughan, etc who all must be close personal friends. Unsurprisingly, none of them female. Ultimately, I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me. I know a lot of people are going to love this book and I know that a lot of them (if not all of them) are going to be men. Who was the book written for? I think it was written for James Robinson.
First of all, I’d like to say that I enjoyed reading the two reviews available on this site, having two almost completly contrasting viewpoints was really refreshing and has convinced me to pick up a book I would otherwise have skipped. Seeing more of this sort of thing in the future would be interesting, if possible and was better coordinated.
I want to congratulate Amy Brander on this review. I liked her linkage of the style of the book to other works such as Grant Morisson’s runs and the background that was given to the writer, although I feel as though the other review did this in a superior fashion. (That bit on High Fidelity really could have been written differently as it feels a bit long and off the rails due to its length, especially when talking about how, ‘viewers were too stupid to realise John Cusack’s character was a &£!?ing prick.’)
The second opinion didn’t mention the art at all, despite it being mentioned as a pro in the summary (the original did expand on this though, so I suppose that’s ok but if you’re going to give an opposing two cents why not cover all the base? If you agree with the original, mention it, don’t just say what you disagree with).
Amy brander did seem to be coming from a more personal space with this review. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, her passion definitly shows and i think the review overall benefits from it (although my usual gripe of reviews lightly glancing over the plot of the book exists here). Unfortunatley it seems to pin the review down at points, by not offering any consession to the opposite side when raising new points not covered in the contrasting review and may alienate some people who read it. For instance, why does she specifficaly not particularly care about the struggles a male writer may experience?
Another oddity I found in this review was some of the word choices, especially towards the end which, coupled with previous points, really gives the review a sense that it was rushed out the door quickly after seeing the original (which, i believe, is due to the upcoming release date but if this practice were to continue, could joint reviews be arranged ahead of time?)
I’m left rather baffled by the pros and cons of this review, I mean why is gratuitous nudity a pro while the glorification of drugs and alcohol abuse a con? (I can’t comment on whether or not the abuse actually is glorified as I have yet to read the book yet). Surely the use of the word ‘gratuitous’ implies that it’s over the top and distastefull? This is never explored in the review.
The line ‘not suitable for any readers with a conscience’ leaves a horrible taste in my mouth for three reasons:
It’s not really a con or a pro, but rather a summation that would’ve been better in the first paragraph instead of that awkward second ‘ballsy’ comment. (I do love the actual summary and think the last line is golden although i can’t say whether or not i agree with it for obvious reasons).
It reminds me of kotaku’s ‘should you buy this game- yes/no’ which seeks to tell the reader what to do rather than guide them to their own descision.
It’s a downright insult, not only to readers who will enjoy the book, but to Amy Brander’s own fellow comics journalist who wrote the original review, which i feel lacks any courtesy for others’ interpretations which may contrast with Branders view.
I hope that I don’t come off mean spirited or angry in this comment, I’m simply saying these things because I love comics as well as this site, and want to see them improve. I really do like this format of double reviews and hope it can be taken on better in the future. I am glad to see the improvement in both critics’ styles that has occured over time, especially with this second opinion which I feel may be the most in-depth review i’ve read by Amy Brandon, although it did go off track every so often and as an agruement against the original could’ve been formed better (but time constraints likely had an effect on this).
Not at all Craig! Thank you for the excellent feedback! You seem to know your stuff too, if you ever are interested in writing for a site like We The Nerdy please let me know!
Sorry, I’m only seeing this now. That certainly sounds very interesting and I’d love to get in touch to talk about it.
email contactus@wethenerdy.com if you are
Why do you think the portrayal of Robinson’s wife showed her in a negative light? To me, the fact that she puts up with Robinson at all makes her eligible for sainthood. She doesn’t even loudly reprimand him for his behavior, she just exhaustedly tells him to try and come in more quietly and then tries to help him a bit with his work. She comes across as very supportive, far more than he deserves, obviously. Maybe from the character’s viewpoint she’s standing in his way or something (not likely considering he flat out says he’d be lost without her), but I think it’s a mistake to see a character’s views as representative of the author’s. The story seems to be setting itself up as a criticism of the egomaniacal, hypermasculine attitude displayed by Robinson. In order to criticize something, you have to put it on display in one way or another, and that is all they have done here. Robinson outright refers to his own behavior as sad and pathetic, a desperate attempt to make himself feel important. I fail to see how that can be viewed as supportive of the behavior he demonstrates. Yes, some people may misinterpret the story and see it as a glorification of a self-destructive and disrespectful lifestyle, but can you fault the art itself for other people’s misunderstandings? I don’t think you can. It is, however, a point worth discussing, and I am glad that it was brought up here. It’s hard to walk the line between glorification and criticism, and I think I will have to read the rest of Airboy to see whether or not it succeeds in its criticism. I don’t appreciate being told that I have no conscience for being intrigued by the story, however. This review certainly could have done without the implication that anyone whose opinion differs from yours is morally bankrupt.