BLACKEST THOU ART, BUT NOT COMELY

'"I'll explain to you, then,' said the gentleman, after another and a dismal pause, 'why you wouldn't paper a room with representations of horses. Do you ever see horses walking up and down the sides of rooms in reality - in fact? Do you?"'-- Thomas Gradgrind (Charles Dickens spoof of utilitarians), HARD TIMES.

Since a certain online utilitarian, whose perceptions are at least on the same wavelength as those of the fictional Gradgrind, recently saw fit to equate pluralism with liking any piece of comic-book crap out there, it's as good a time as any to review BLACKEST NIGHT #1.

Prefatory remarks first. I've already spoken in the "adult pulp" posts as to the possibility that things like hyperviolence and perverse sexuality in superhero books, which may or may not travesty the normative figure of the superhero, may have some positive connotations. Thus I agree in principle with what Scipio states on this post of THE ABSORBACON:

'I appreciate when DC takes advantage of an 'event' to do more than simply tell a story. Legends, for example, made complex points about heroism. Blackest Night is a commentary (criticism?) of comic books' Revolving Door of Death. As longtime readers may remember, I am an admirer of the Ivory Soap Method of marketing. "Blackest Night" is an astonishingly bold example. DC has said, "Let's take out two most damning criticisms == that we violently kill off our characters with foolish abandon and that we keep bringing people back from the dead == and make those the central issues in our coolest company-wide story of all time." That's sheer genius.'

As a concept, I agree. As execution, not so much.

Though I don't have anything in principle against pitting superheroes against their zombified brethren, both GREEN LANTERN #43 and BLACKEST NIGHT #1 don't really give me much bang for my eight bucks. The art is as cheerfully lurid as the best grotesque-work of Jack Cole and Bill Everett, but Geoff Johns' story isn't working as either thrilling superheroes or mordant horror.

So though I think that the combination can and has been done well in the context of adult pulp, Johns pretty much blows the potential here.

I thought this remark from this BN review by Curt Purcell, a newbie reader to current superhero comics, spoke to the main deficiency I see:

"I've seen any number of comments along these lines--readers who weren't horrified so much as reminded of previous shoddy treatment of these "lighter," perhaps beloved characters, apparently for the cynical purpose of darkening and badassing things up, and who saw this zombie episode in that context. My impression is that Johns somewhat misjudged how this treatment of these characters would be received."

The "beloved characters" to whom Curt refers (as is made clear in the earlier paragraph) are four in all: Hawkman and Hawkgirl, who are attacked and killed by revenant versions of their former JLA teammate Elongated Man and his wife Sue.

Now, my problem is not that Johns put these characters through the wringer. I like them all, but I don't mind seeing them travestied, if it's done with some imagination.

But the attack of EM and his zombie wife upon the Hawk-couple, which should be full of angst ("to save you, why must I kill you" and all that) and maybe some interpersonal baggage, was no more than tediously functional. It's no more than a utilitarian's view of how to stage a good "my brother my enemy" battle.

Most of BN #1 is like that: the work of a journeyman going through the paces, without much attention to style. Only one moment in the story grabbed me as it did Curt: when one of the Guardians, Scar by name, suddenly breaks up a Guardians of the Galaxy kaffeeklatche by viciously fanging one of the other Guardians in the throat.

It wasn't subtle, but unlike the Battle of the Hackwork Zombies, it was something that I hadn't expected, and consequently it at least raised both my eyebrows.

(BTW: I later found out that Scar is female. I thought all the Guardians, by fiat of Steve Englehart, had always been male. Obviously I'm behind on current developments.)

With the possible exception of GREEN LANTERN: REBIRTH, most of Johns' work has struck me as that of a competent journeyman. I mildly enjoyed assorted issues of his JSA, FLASH, and HAWKMAN, but I don't think of him as a skilled craftsperson. I've yet to read anything by him that ranks with the best craftworks of Gail Simone and John Ostrander.

I'm not sure if I'll read any more of BLACKEST NIGHT at this time. But I have a feeling it's not going to make my list of All-Time Best Adult Pulp Comics.