• Dan Nadel offers a devastating — and as far as I can tell, the only — negative review of Darywn Cooke’s The Hunter (which, by the way, has gone back for a second printing already). Lemme quote a bit here:
Even if I’m wrong and Cooke’s reading is utterly faithful, this adaptation doesn’t work very well as a comic book. Cooke’s character design is strangely generic, his storytelling is often unclear, and his drawing, while polished and stylish, is dull. Parker looks like a generic sort of Bruce Wayne, with a face and body language that betrays not a hint of an inner-life. Panel-to-panel and particularly page-to-page Cooke has a difficult time clearly conveying where a scene is occurring and what, precisely, the action and emotions are that he’s trying to draw.
He goes on to use John Stanley as a point of comparison, which befuddles some folks in the comments section.
• Julia Keller of the Chicago Tribune really liked Tim Hamilton’s adaptation of Fahrenheit 451, to the point where she offered this pithy paragraph:
Some of my anti-comics correspondents claim that reading a graphic novel is not really “reading” at all. They’re right. It’s something else again. In the case of “Fahrenheit 451,” it’s more like a life-changing immersion in ideas, words, echoes, symbols, characters, lines, colors, nightmares — and finally, daybreak.
Now don’t get crazy Julia.
• Nina Stone finally catches up with the Buffy comics: “As of now, after this read, I don’t have any interest to read it again.”
• The site Paddy Brown is doing a look at the history of Irish comics, which you should go read because knowledge, no matter how esoteric, is good for you.
• Todd Klein reads the latest volume in the Complete Peanuts saga and exclaims “Top notch book. You can’t have a much better time than reading these collections.”
• Noah Berlatsky has apparently jumped on the “let’s do quick scattershot reviews of new comic books in a snarky way.” Welcome to the club Noah.