I agree. It’s a great book. I think already optioned as a TV series too. You can see why.
Interesting, I am reading Providence right now and I have a few problems with it but a big one is with the art.
Yeah I mean I should caveat it. I don’t like Avatar art, I think Jacen Burrows is the best of a bland bunch so that isn’t high praise. It’s more I liked the still aspect you see in the likes of the covers that set a creepy atmosphere.
Sorrentino on the other hand I think is a really great artist.
I think the art in Providence is very precise and does its job very well in creating the unsettling atmosphere Gar describes. But I can understand why people feel there’s a lack of life in it.
I liked Burrows better on Neonomicon and Providence than on Moon Knight, maybe because he’s not quite as suited to the dynamism of a superhero book.
I have to agree with Dave here.
Burrows’ art in Providence is possibly one of the best executions of tone and atmosphere I’ve seen paired up in a long time. Especially in something that’s meant to be Lovecraft. I also agree that I can understand people finding it lifeless - but I think it’s stellar in all of the right ways.
My issue with the Providence art is that the story plays out on the cusp of reality and the supernatural yet this guy can’t draw faces unless it’s a 30 year old man so I literally can’t tell if something supernatural is happening or if it’s just that the guy can’t draw.
Edit- I should add that I think his art on Moon Knight is actively tanking the book so clearly I’m just not a fan. (I have said this before but if someone like Steve Dillon was drawing this Moon Knight run we’d be talking about it all the time)
What instances did that happen in?
I thought that the separation, and the blurred lines when they occurred, were pretty distinct.
The border theme notwithstanding.
There was one part where the people in town all had fish faces yet all of his old men always look that way.
Weird, as I read your previously post I was on the verge of responding, “But as a counter to that the people with fish faces were done brilliantly”
Zero books for me this week. First time in a long time.
Almost bought Ve’Nam for the name alone.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree then.
I thought the disconnect there was done well. The subtle differences were pretty great.
Burrows actually reminds me of Dillon in some ways (presumably that’s partly why you mention him as a preference). Although I don’t think he’s as good, I get that same sense of stiffness and face-similarity from both artists.
Ihink Burrows and Ennis work well together. Ennis seems to understand how to gear his scripts towards Burrows’ under-stated, direct style.
Dillon has more of a bold, cinematic style, and imo knows how to frame a scene a lot better.
But I have made my point and I’m not going to slag Burrows off any more. I definitely don’t envy his task with Providence of drawing 12 issues that are 90% people walking and talking. That isn’t easy.
I don’t disagree, Dillon’s art had strengths that Burrow’s doesn’t.
Although on Providence specifically, I get the impression that part of writing an Alan Moore book is that you don’t get that much artistic freedom in terms of choosing that type of stuff.
He is well-known for regularly writing long and detailed panel descriptions with precise requirements for how they should appear. Apparently he also includes the rider “but if you can think of a better way of doing this, go ahead”, (although that always has the air of a challenge to me - “I dare you to deviate from my instructions”).
So it may be a combination of artist and writer that’s to blame for the stiltedness of Providence, although I do think that stiltedness is at least partly intentional.
Anyway, I’ll be interested to hear if your opinion changes at all when things get slightly wilder towards the end of the story, Robert.
He does, you can see it in his script examples. When you see Watchmen pages from Gibbons he actually used a yellow highlighter pen to choose the bits he felt were relevant in the long swathes of text so some dare not to do exactly as instructed to the letter.
Yes, I like those script examples (there are some in the LOEG Absolutes too).
I get the impression that his relationships with Gibbons and O’Neill are some of the most genuinely collaborative in that sense.
It seems consistent.
While there are many stories about Moore’s uppity behaviour when it comes to business deals (Liefeld and Bissette have had issues as well as Gibbons after the Watchmen movie) I can’t say I have ever heard an artist complain about the actual work process of him being too demanding.
Yes, I think he is usually quite considerate when it comes to artists, in terms of putting a lot of thought into his scripts and providing material that plays to their strengths.