Comments on: Review: Peter and Max (SPOILER FREE) http://www.bsicomics.com/2009/09/13/review-peter-and-max-spoiler-free/ We've got issues! Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:14:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Till Noever http://www.bsicomics.com/2009/09/13/review-peter-and-max-spoiler-free/comment-page-1/#comment-7303 Till Noever Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:20:26 +0000 http://www.bsicomics.com/?p=1232#comment-7303 Even though I am a long-time Fables reader, I actually didn't have a problem reading through the exposition at the start. It's certainly no worse than the common fare in so many series of the novel-kind. I've battled with the issue myself in my own writing, and eventually settled on a Vancean (that's Jack Vance) approach, which is to basically put an entirely optional introductory section at the front, which is usually labeled 'Precursory'. It seems to work for most readers. Willingham is a genius, in my not-so-humble-opinion. Between Fables and Jack, which is much more all-out satirical allegory, I don't know how fairly tales could possibly have undergone a more deserving resurrection. Even though I am a long-time Fables reader, I actually didn’t have a problem reading through the exposition at the start. It’s certainly no worse than the common fare in so many series of the novel-kind. I’ve battled with the issue myself in my own writing, and eventually settled on a Vancean (that’s Jack Vance) approach, which is to basically put an entirely optional introductory section at the front, which is usually labeled ‘Precursory’. It seems to work for most readers.

Willingham is a genius, in my not-so-humble-opinion. Between Fables and Jack, which is much more all-out satirical allegory, I don’t know how fairly tales could possibly have undergone a more deserving resurrection.

]]>