Tag Archives: At the Circulation Desk

At The Circulation Desk

Leave a reply

Serious About Serials: Eat The Rich, vol 1
a Review for the horror-comic reader

(c) 2021 Sarah Gailey
   Audience: Mature
    Publisher: BOOM! Studios (May 24, 2022)
    Length: 128 pages
    ISBN13: 9781684158324
Spoilers below! Read at your own risk.
6 minute read

Gailey’s implications are in changing a system from something that has never had to resort to cannibalism to an actual system which did.

By James Johnson

Sarah Gailey, 2018 Hugo Award For Best Fan Writer, pens this latest horror series from Boom! Studios. Eat The Rich has middle class Joey, a law school student, visiting her boyfriend’s parents at their family home, Crestfall Bluffs, in the land of the 1%. Schmoozing with the upper class is not something Joey’s comfortable with, but if she want’s to join the elite and start her life, she’s willing to swallow a little social anxiety for the sake of her beau, and his connections of course. Joey thought she could handle the eccentricities of the rich and the famous, but what’s in store for her is a stomach churner, with a side of bizarre hope, topped with a ham-fisted helping of socialist revolutionary sentiments.

Kudos

Pius Bak’s illustrations ask us to return to the pulps of the 70’s, with his edging and panelling focused on the characters and their engagements with one another. With a stylized retro feel, Roman Titov’s decision to use sepia and a perpetual dusk (or is it dawn?) as majority lighting, adds a level of displacement from the plot, as though one were either waking from – or falling into – a dream. Gailey’s plot has the engine to make this a true page turner. While not perfect, this title fits well on your Pride Month reading list.

Peeves

This book has problems. Though Gailey’s story has the potential to strike fear in the reader, she misses her mark in several categories. It’s clear that Joey is an awkward, nervous weirdo that we’re supposed to relate to. Her stress and erratic thinking in the initial pages indicate an internal struggle, whether brought on suddenly at the sight of the luxurious Crestfall Bluffs community, or by something mulled over ever since buying Astor’s drunken, freshman charm. The relationship doesn’t fit naturally with the story.

With sparse retail space for exposition in the panels, Gailey needed to do a better job of convincing us Joey belonged with, and was therefore willing to sacrifice her soul to, the uppercrust of Crestfall Bluffs.

We learn that Joey and Astor are starting law school, and Astor’s major challenge during this intense summer family vacation (aside from avoiding his slipping into old habits with his bender-enabling hometown friend “Bump”) is popping The Question to our anxious heroine. As for the credibility of this affair, with post-graduate studies and marriage in the works, we’re led to assume she’s been with Astor for a reasonable length of time. This makes the concept of Joey meeting Astor’s parent’s for the first time, at a most vulnerable moment, difficult to appreciate. Even more so, as this time of the year appears to be crucial to their ritualistic contract fulfillment, and the premise of the plot.

Your challenge will be accepting the this twenty something, lower-middle class law student with the social-emotional skills of a 13 year old, has the desire to bed and wed the Chadliest of Chads in order to rub elbows with the elite and “swing an internship at a major firm”, all under the pretext of a moral dichotomy. Bak’s portrait of Joey matches her constant anxious language, but the character development through Gailey’s writing makes it all the more contradictory. The audience is left asking: “why this path for Joey?” She’s meek, unsure, and entirely out of her element while vacationing with these people. Imagine working legal cases with them! Again, with sparse retail space for exposition in the panels, Gailey needed to do a better job of convincing us Joey belonged with, and was therefore willing to sacrifice her soul to, the uppercrust of Crestfall Bluffs.

Sinking our teeth into the main plot, Joey discovers that the lavish lifestyle of the 1% includes personal staff with bizarre dedication to the service of their masters and mistresses – Even unto Death! For the wealthy have discovered that employing the most vulnerable and hard-pressed people, and throwing cash at their problems, will have them signing their own death certificates. It’s not explicitly explained why the rich eat their employees at end of service (retirement). In fact, we’re shushed into quiet compliance with the classic “it’s tradition” explanation.

Honestly, if you’re an adult with a basic understanding of 20th century world history, you’ll come to understand fairly quickly that the brutal cannibalism undertaken by the elites in Eat the Rich is a clumsy allegory of the industrialist-worker dynamic, and the union revolutionary ideology which shaped the entirety of the last century. If socialist subtext wasn’t clear in the panelling, Gailey discusses it in an author postscript, answering the singular plot-hole seemingly posed to her: why would anyone willingly sacrifice their lives, their actual flesh and blood, for money?

Explaining that this is the life cycle of the working class, minimum wage earner in America, Gailey argues that the poor strive for the services the rich so easily attain, particularly regarding medicine and therapeutics. While private and public health care options in America are certainly a modern concern perhaps requiring a fresh perspective, signing your remaining healthy years away in pursuit of wealth – however meagre and with the goal of it becoming generational – is actually the most believable plot point of Eat the Rich. One could say it’s easy to swallow.

The author chose to neglect this harsh truth. They chose not to acknowledge the results of the system for which we are support razing. That is, there has never been a time where the quality of living, nor the likelihood of human potential fulfilled, been greater than now.

Some reviewers of Eat the Rich have shared their feelings that the Joey-Petal love affair was a cultivated relationship over the course of the events leading to the climax, approximately five weeks. We aren’t shown this, as a blackout panel wipe is applied. This proves nothing. Rather, it makes the actual blossoming event of their “new love”, as the notion appears to persist, unbelievable. The reality is, Petal and Joey had bashed Astor’s brains in, passionately kissed, then cannibalized him. It is erotic, violent, and certainly a shift in power dynamics. But it’s inorganic, post-traumatic, and hardly something to be celebrated. Under different circumstances, Petal and Joey would be great together. Now, as victims(?) of this Hunger, are we to believe they will perpetrate the same horrors out of necessity, and not the exuberance of their former masters?

It’s the same fulfillment every utopianist pontificates in public but practices privately. Sure the wealthy fall, become supplanted with alternative systems, but the poor are those who inevitably suffer the greatest. The author chose to neglect this harsh truth. They chose not to acknowledge the results of the system for which we are to support razing. That is, there has never been a time where the quality of living, nor the likelihood of human potential fulfilled, been greater than now. Like it or hate it, we are and continue to be, much the better under the imperfect economic capitalist system.

Perhaps this sentiment came through in the final panels of Eat the Rich, where we are treated to a portrait of a bloody, insatiable Joey and Petal, staring at us, post-revolutionary coitus, posing the metaphorical question: “are you with us or against us?” Any potential for this lesson is lost immediately in Gailey’s postscript: “If you take enough away, its easy to get workers to accept jobs that ask for too much and don’t give enough back . . . jobs that feed on human lives to nourish profit margins.” It’s hard to imagine Gailey is talking to her audience of North American English speakers. A message to the sweatshop worker in Communist China, okay, but the eighteen year old making $16 per hour (with health benefit options) at insertcorporatemachine? That is perhaps the hardest to swallow. One can’t help deduce that Gailey’s implications are in changing a system from something that has never had to resort to cannibalism to an actual system which did, and doing so boldly and unironically. While not perfect, our world is a far cry from the grinding serfdom and enslavement implied in the pages of Eat the Rich.

2.5 out of 5 stars. Check it out and support your local comic book sellers.

At The Circulation Desk

Leave a reply

Serious About Serials

Tearing Staples And Cracking Spines:

Reader’s Advisory For The Horror Movie Magazine

By James Johnson

It should be prefaced that current readers of either title might actually consider Rue Morgue punching down and out of it’s weight with this month’s Versus instalment. I would agree with them on one point: these two titles are unique organisms. Either has contrasting characteristics, features, style, contributors, and even political ideologies. However, they both share a media landscape that we have culturally coined, and subsequently use to categorize, as Horror and compete in a market with truly forgiving consumers. I’m not recommending one over the other. Read both. Read more serials! Objectively, either of these titles can satisfy some fans of horror. The point of this versus series is to highlight titles of the same subject to expose new readers wishing to explore the options available to them. Too few library professionals advocate serial readers advisory, and that’s a shame in our opinion.

It becomes obvious as soon as you pick up this Halloween’s copy of Rue Morgue that there’s a level of authority assumed in the general quality. Perfect binding (a new feature I believe, since every prior issue I have is saddle stitched), heavier paper poundage, and custom cover art. Whereas SCREAM lends this reader a particular reminiscence – the fanzine wave (and decline), the slick pages of medium to low poundage, saddle stitch binding, and tacit Gonzo-Journo obsessive contributors, mark it as a true genre classic, even though it’s only 11 years in publication compared with Rue’s 24. Obviously, these thematic mags play at different speeds. I can easily see a Rue Morgue reader picking up a copy of SCREAM, and vice versa. Horror genre film critiques in print are not as common as general interest serials, such as US, Harper’s, or Cosmo. I think it’s fair to say that both titles are most likely bunk-mates on the toilet tank of the Horror movie fanatic and that’s why they’re in focus.

SCREAM Magazine #68

ISSN: 2045-2128
Audience: Adult

Boasting the title of “the world’s no. 1 horror magazine” (unverified!), SCREAM serializes bimonthly “100 bloody pages of content”. The words include surface to mid-depth analysis of modern and classic horror movies, often focusing on European and British Cinema, such as the Hammer and Giallo classics. Generally, the cover art or layout has an emphasis or theme which will be featured in the principal article. This cover (like every other so far) is a collage of iconic movie imagery arranged in such a way to inform the reader of the contents. It’s standard for this level of production value, though the colour choices, fonts, and arrangements are pleasant and engaging.

I have always had issue with magazines that boast the number of pages of content they’re selling. In my opinion, I think at best it’s misleading and at worse misinformation. The front and back cover should not be consider “pages of content” yet they are. Quarter, half, and even full page Ads are also not “content” in my opinion. If you’re trying to sell me something I can’t buy with my attention, but actual cash, I’m probably not going to refer to it warmly as “content”. So be warned, it’s more like 80-90 pages of content. Not bad. Other than the featured articles (#68 is a revisit of two Slashics, Freddy’s Revenge and Dream Warriors), readers can expect interviews, reviews of books and DVDs, retrospectives, and more. Standard genre fare.

The writing has a casual feel of an informed fan with experience in critiquing their favourite films. If you’re looking for a deep dive analysis, you’ll instead find an excellent though ultimately slim review of what the avid fan probably already knows. There’s no pandering, and the language meets the reader and the writer at eye level, increasing its accessibility and reach. SCREAM is a great title for explorers of the genre, eager to dip their toes in the world of horror cinema that’s not overbearingly esoteric. SCREAM wins with it’s gorgeous bright colours, full and rich border-less formatting, and clean presentation.

Pet Peeve: Recurring segments VHS Ate My Brain and Video Nasty are regrettably missing from this issue in favour of more retrospectives. These segments are often compelling and provide gritty insight for the casual consumer. Here is where SCREAM suffers from what most genre cinema zines suffer from at times: stale repetition. This issue continues a retrospective of the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise, where their competition in our spotlight has two solid features, Mexican Gothics and Folk Horror.

Kudos: The Halloween issue (Sept-Oct) could have been released at any season. There’s not a jack-o-lantern in sight. A horror movie magazine that keeps print’s version of click-bait out of its season of the witch issue? I’m impressed. Halloween is everyday in my world, and so it would seem at SCREAM.

Rue Morgue #202

ISSN: 1481-1103
Audience: Adult

Toronto based Rue Morgue sells a different story for our would-be horror readers and that’s not a bad thing! Rue Morgue’s subtitle reads “Horror in Culture & Entertainment”. Where SCREAM highlights modern and obscure films alike, Rue Morgue delves deeper and examines the cycles that Horror sub-genres naturally birth and die throughout time. There’s most certainly a firm hand in editorialship, where editor Andrea Subissati often acts as contributor to many segments. SCREAM seems to have a nice balance of freedom and control that I felt lacking in Rue Morgue. That’s their prerogative, of course, and I can respect the vision and commitment Subissati and the controllers of Rue’s assets have.

The content (articles and interviews) are insightful and creative, informative, and thoughtful. While written in plain-speak, the topics of discussion are often viewed through a post-modernist lens. This could quickly become tiresome, but the richness of the topics covered make it informative, albeit far from a place of neutrality. That may be indeed be fair, as the movie viewer brings with them their own biases and lenses, so why not reviewers themselves? By that metric I can agree, however, that does not mean Rue Morgue wouldn’t benefit from a broader spectrum of ideas and voices.

The advertisements for Rue Morgue products and third party toys and merchandise can get a little loud. Many fans love the exposure to horror collectibles and the latest trends, so this may be a feature many enjoy. The culture and entertainment of horror today is saturated with bits and bobs for the collector, and Rue Morgue advertises plenty of options for the consumer.

Pet Peeve: Over-hyped subscriber mailbag section. Publishing letters from subscribers describing why they’re glad they subscribed is cringe. Perhaps there aren’t many fan mail complaints, but certainly there must be some.

Kudos: Accessible depth. A true challenge with zine word restrictions. Rue Morgue’s in depth analysis and excavation of lost or unexamined relics of cinema’s past puts them at the top of their peers.

At The Circulation Desk

Leave a reply

Cancelled? Banned? Out of Print? The why behind a title’s demise

“Dr. Seuss Celebration at Seven Trees” by San José Public Library is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Estimated reading time of article: 4 mins

By James Johnson

The corporation responsible for preserving the legacy of the late Dr. Seuss’s books has come under fire for ending the print run of six controversial titles. Supporters of this decision celebrate the removal of what many consider to be offensive and racist depictions of minority groups, while critics have slammed this move as yet another overreach of progressive wokeism and cancel culture.

As library professionals, one of the most important jobs we have is collection development. This work usually goes on behind the scenes, and users generally remain blissfully ignorant of it. Developing a library’s collection requires a deep understanding of not only the needs of the reader, but also the needs of other departments and what considerations, if any, are requisite for policy adherence.

Depending on the size and type of library, there may be several departments that operate within the organization. Each of these department’s has there own requirements, budgets, and even users. Departments can work independently of one another in service of the whole. Take the children’s section of a public library. It’s not often an adult library user checks out the latest Diamond Willow winner. In some cases these departments share budgets with other departments. In smaller cases there is only one budget for the system, and each department allocated a limited set of funds, do with it what they can.

In every case, collection development policy is key. Within the idea of developing a collection is the concept of selecting new titles and removing damaged, irrelevant, or unused ones. This latter process is known as weeding, or de-selection.

Library staff have a difficult job on their hands in weeding. Such a crucial step in developing a collection requires a robust and clear policy so that, no matter the individual conducting the task, a specified path to success can be followed.

The elements of a library policy are unique to the system it serves, however, there are principles that generally guide library professionals in developing good policy. Depending on the particulars of a library’s mission statement or goals, providing access to resources for the purposes of learning, entertainment, and discovery is almost always the prime directive of a publicly accessible library system.

Publishers choose to stop printing their property for many reasons. I believe Dr. Seuss Enterprises actively believes their policy of encouraging inclusion and support of reading and seeks to meet and exceed the expectations it sets forth, but don’t for a minute think this act of removing “wrong or hurtful” titles is solely in response to a policy of inclusion and support of reading. Dr. Seuss Enterprises makes money. That will always be theirs and every other for-profit business’s primary motivator. Whether you agree or disagree with the move, Dr. Seuss Enterprise will benefit from this. Their image and bottom line.

When library’s weed it serves a few purposes. We look at the items use (has it circulated well), condition, whether it has remained relevant or has been superseded, and whether alternative copies can be acquired or accessed easily elsewhere (frees up much needed shelf space in tighter quarters.

What effect does a publisher’s decision, like Dr. Seuss Enterprises, have on a library? Hopefully very little. A library should not base their development criteria on any outside sway. A robust and clear policy created in-house represents their unique users better than any third party influencer could ever establish.

The New York Public library said it well. They’re not in the business of determining what people should read. Removing an item from the collection on the grounds it has been challenged (for accuracy, relevancy, or negative attributes) takes careful consideration. As part of a healthy library’s collection development policy, new titles must be selected on the basis of relevancy, accuracy, and user need. Old titles, equally, require reflection when considering their place (or not) in the collection.

A publisher’s decision to end a print run is their prerogative, however they choose to spin in. Take a closer look at the parent owner of this subsidiary and you’ll find they choose to print material many people find offensive, hurtful, and wrong. I may not agree with the decision Dr. Seuss Enterprises made with this move, but it was a business decision first and foremost. Sure they support reading, so does Chapters Indigo. That doesn’t make them a library, and they don’t have to follow the same democratic principles that guide them.

Alternatively, a library has no place in determining the right and wrong of an item based on someone’s feelings. There is plenty of stuff I can’t stomach, content I find offensive and demoralizing. What authority do library professionals possess in removing access to such works, particularly those of publicly funded societies? We may as well claim rightful mastery over the contents of peoples skulls.

Library professionals have politicized the field far longer than I’ve been alive. Whatever side of the “battle” you find yourself on, I hope the purpose of the fight remains relevant to you. That you think for yourself, read what you wish, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Happy reading/streaming.