Steve Bissette

The Swamp Thing can manifest its consciousness into physical form by manipulating the vegetation of an area. In many of the later stories the forms he takes become increasingly abstract and bizarre as he travels to worlds with stranger and more sparse versions of "vegetation." I think this works as a great metaphor for how Alan Moore managed to get these stories told. DC Comics hired Moore to write a reboot of an obscure superhero and he took that opportunity to craft some amazing scifi/fantasy. But the raw material of superheroes remain awkwardly part of its genetic code. For example there are frequent references to Gotham City and Batman, or other superheroes with backstories the comic assumes you know already will make cameo appearances. I'm a big believer in self-continuity so the sprawling soap opera of superhero comics never appealed to me that much. But even here Moore excels. Even without reading the last one hundred runs of a certain character their personalities, arcs, and general backstories are instantly apparent. I knew nothing of Metron (for example) but his pompous monologue, his casual cruelty, his obsession with his "miracle chair," even his general appearance made him an instantly recognizable foil to the zen and gentle Swamp Thing.
Neil Gaiman managed a similar feat with his Sandman, which also told its own great self-contained story while incorporating elements from DC. Also Moore attempted this again with more mainstream characters like Batman but DC objected to radical changes for their more high profile characters. Instead Moore reworked them into his [b:Watchmen|472331|Watchmen|Alan Moore|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1442239711s/472331.jpg|4358649], which is his most famous work but I honestly don't feel like it does as good a job as Swamp Thing.… (mer)

If ever a book needed an editor!

Clocking in at nearly 700 pages, not only is this an exhaustive look at David Cronenberg's The Brood, it's an overlong look at all the books and movies that might have influenced Cronenberg, or been influenced by his movie.

Bissette frequently goes off on tangents that have very tenuous connections to the film. Was it really necessary to have entire chapters on the books Cronenberg's father might have had on his shelf or on Andrzej Zulawski's Possession? And since the book lacks an index, there is no easy way to find pertinent information.

When he is on topic, Bissette is great. He gives a lot of interesting information on the genesis, filming, and reception of the movie, as well as providing context for it in the landscape of Canadian film. Also of interest are the transcripts of interviews he did with several people who worked on the movie.

I hope someday Bissette revises this book to trim the fat, to fix the myriad typos in the second half, and to include an index.… (mer)