![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayI've been following the work of Gareth Hinds for several years now. We were briefly colleagues, but then he left his job in the games industry to pursue his dream of being a graphic novelist, a brave move which I have always admired.
His latest book is an adaptation of William Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice". I am sad to report that I found it rather disappointing. Not actually *bad*, mind you, just sort of... pointless.
It's a straight-up rendition of the story, albeit in modern costumes. But this story, while entertaining, doesn't in and of itself make very good *comics*. There is very little action, and vast quantities of talking heads.
Hinds draws his actors with faces and postures which are both expressive and effective, making them good 'actors'. But they have very little *room* to act, with an average density of around two to three sentences per panel. The two most famous speeches, "Do we not bleed?" and "The quality of mercy" each are consigned to a mere two panels. While this is not *quite* as bad as the infamous Classics Illustrated placement of "To be or not to be" in a single, indigestible panel, it isn't that much better. (In one of his books about creating comics, Will Eisner drew a version of "To be or not to be" which ran, if memory serves, over 8 pages, with rarely more than one clause per panel. This technique would obviously lead to extremely lengthy adaptations, but I'd still like to see someone try it for a full play some day.)
The rendering is almost entirely realistic, which again strikes me as playing to the weaknesses of the medium, not its strengths. There are a few moments of graphical whimsy with Shylock, such as a delightful panel where he has a huge metaphorical tornado/raincloud above his head, but the vast majority of the shots might have been stills from any community theater production of the play. This was especially disappointing after the book started with some truly imaginative endpapers: a map of Venice reimagined as a fish with a hook through its mouth. I wish the story itself had contained graphic play on that level of inventiveness.
As regards the text, Hinds takes some surface liberties, such as updating the servants' prose dialogue, but he leaves most of the poetry intact. He trims for space, but all the relevant story beats are present. His afterword comments briefly on the racist themes and the homosexual overtones, but he takes no stand on them, either in the afterword or his telling of the story itself.
I am left wondering why Hinds undertook this project. He imposes no personal vision on the play. The story is told competently enough, but this telling brings nothing new to the table. If this were a lesser-known work that he was trying to make more accessible, that would be a good reason -- but there's a good recent film of this story which is, frankly, a far more succesful adaptation, not least because it plays to the strengths of its medium.
I admire Gareth for having given up his day job to pursue more creative endeavors. I hope his next one has moreactual creativity involved.
His latest book is an adaptation of William Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice". I am sad to report that I found it rather disappointing. Not actually *bad*, mind you, just sort of... pointless.
It's a straight-up rendition of the story, albeit in modern costumes. But this story, while entertaining, doesn't in and of itself make very good *comics*. There is very little action, and vast quantities of talking heads.
Hinds draws his actors with faces and postures which are both expressive and effective, making them good 'actors'. But they have very little *room* to act, with an average density of around two to three sentences per panel. The two most famous speeches, "Do we not bleed?" and "The quality of mercy" each are consigned to a mere two panels. While this is not *quite* as bad as the infamous Classics Illustrated placement of "To be or not to be" in a single, indigestible panel, it isn't that much better. (In one of his books about creating comics, Will Eisner drew a version of "To be or not to be" which ran, if memory serves, over 8 pages, with rarely more than one clause per panel. This technique would obviously lead to extremely lengthy adaptations, but I'd still like to see someone try it for a full play some day.)
The rendering is almost entirely realistic, which again strikes me as playing to the weaknesses of the medium, not its strengths. There are a few moments of graphical whimsy with Shylock, such as a delightful panel where he has a huge metaphorical tornado/raincloud above his head, but the vast majority of the shots might have been stills from any community theater production of the play. This was especially disappointing after the book started with some truly imaginative endpapers: a map of Venice reimagined as a fish with a hook through its mouth. I wish the story itself had contained graphic play on that level of inventiveness.
As regards the text, Hinds takes some surface liberties, such as updating the servants' prose dialogue, but he leaves most of the poetry intact. He trims for space, but all the relevant story beats are present. His afterword comments briefly on the racist themes and the homosexual overtones, but he takes no stand on them, either in the afterword or his telling of the story itself.
I am left wondering why Hinds undertook this project. He imposes no personal vision on the play. The story is told competently enough, but this telling brings nothing new to the table. If this were a lesser-known work that he was trying to make more accessible, that would be a good reason -- but there's a good recent film of this story which is, frankly, a far more succesful adaptation, not least because it plays to the strengths of its medium.
I admire Gareth for having given up his day job to pursue more creative endeavors. I hope his next one has moreactual creativity involved.