Army @ Love: Like Swallowing Bile

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Second issue and I only have one thing to say: What an awful, awful, awful series. Shame on Vertigo for publishing this trash.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 30 April 2007 06:59 (nineteen years ago)

Well, at least this thread won't be biased.

― David R., Monday, 30 April 2007 13:14 (nineteen years ago)

It's a little... it reminds of something Pat Mills would've written 15 years ago. Which is sort of a compliment. But no, it isn't very good -- I'm very surprised it was commissioned as an ongoing rather than a miniseries. I'm kind of glad it exists though -- and Vertigo publish a lot worse (The Exterminators, for example).

― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 30 April 2007 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

See, this is why the preferred formulation in the earlier days of IL* was "Classic or Dud?" To open up the possibility of debate.

I actually like it a bunch--I think it misfires a lot of the time, but I'm very fond of the idea of doing a super-snarky satire about the war; I don't know who else is doing that right now.

Mordechai, what about it in particular gets your hackles up?

― Douglas, Monday, 30 April 2007 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

It's pretty gonzo for a DC title and I'm glad someone's publishing Rick Veitch stuff (The art really reminds me of the Sleaze Brothers, for some reason.)

The satire aspect does seem a little light to me, though -- it doesn't have that pivotal "I can't believe they're doing that" quality that, say, the first couple episodes of Battlestar Galactica did early this season. If anything, it needs more bile.

― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 30 April 2007 15:30 (nineteen years ago)

It's an ongoing?!? I had no idea. I don't expect it to be ongoing for very long, if that's the case.

I wish Veitch was inking his own stuff. Alcala is the only other inker I can think of who did Veitch justice.

Also: I hope the scope becomes broader. I don't know that there's enough here to maintain an ongoing.

But: I'm very excited for Veitch that he has a regular gig, even if it's not my favorite thing he's done. I'd probably place him in my top five comics people ever.

― Deric W. Haircare, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 00:18 (nineteen years ago)

I really want to like it, but it really isn't very good. And the whole, "O no, the story will get out, the scandal, THE SCANDAL!" thing is pretty stupid, because, well, duh! Plus, and this is probably my own fault, I couldn't remember who any of the people (except the cheesy general) were from the 1st issue when I read the second. Looking at the sales numbers, this isn't going to be ongoing in any meaningful sense.

― James Morrison, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 00:23 (nineteen years ago)

What bothers me? Well, the sexism in the first issue. The complete disconnect between telling a story about war and telling a frat-boy tale about the army. The lack of motivation, developed characters, or compelling plot. The objectification of the Arabs in the comic. I could go on and on. Basically, the scene in the first issue when she removes her uniform and does a sexy pose to distract the Arab soldier so that her sex-partner could kill him. That sums up everything I hate about this title.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:16 (nineteen years ago)

And I really have no idea where the satire is. What exactly are they mocking?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:17 (nineteen years ago)

Mordechai, while I'd agree that it isn't the greatest thing ever, I'm guessing that a lot of your distaste would be settled if you were familiar with Veitch's work. He has a very particular steez wherein satire is stretched and so overloaded with surreal grotesquerie that it doesn't resemble meat n' potatoes satire per se. Although, again, I'd agree that he's not doing his thing very well in Army @ Love thus far.

(And I'd somehow totally forgotten about his run on Aquaman. I don't think I've really hardcore dug any of his stuff since Greyshirt at least.)

― Deric W. Haircare, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:35 (nineteen years ago)

At any rate, the objections you raise (sexism, objectification) are, I guarantee, presented as objectionable very intentionally on Veitch's part and will be dealt with. Granted the series lasts long enough for him to deal with them.

― Deric W. Haircare, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:38 (nineteen years ago)

Well, it's engaging enough that I'll keep reading. I'm just stating my objections. Hopefully they're unfounded.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:39 (nineteen years ago)

Ah, OK. Here's my take on it: it's a totally vicious satire of American propaganda and militarism that gets its jokes out of pushing their iconography and ideology to the breaking point. The whole thing--its sexism and its objectification included--is a Fox News version of the Iraq war, cranked up until its awfulness becomes comedy.

For instance: If you look at recruitment ads for the armed forces right now, they don't play up the idea of duty or public service or politics or even American identity the way that similar recruitment campaigns used to--they're all about how cool and personally character-building military service is. So Veitch pushes it one step further, to the idea that you can sell young people on the idea of going overseas and killing people by making it seem sexy--"spring break on steroids." The military makes a big point of how cutting-edge its tech is; in #2, we see Magoon directing a bombing run by plugging a guitar into a laptop. Healey, the jocular colonel, passes out candy bars to street urchins, in a version of the scene we see over and over after every U.S. invasion, but this time the subtext of that bit of propaganda is slammed into our faces: "I hear you're all Islamo-fascists in this neighborhood!" "No! We love freedom and democracy! Give us something!" "Okay! But remember--haha--without globalization there won't be chocolate bars!" And so on.

― Douglas, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

I guess that just seems really crude to me. And there are sexist narrative problems - that aren't explained away by satire.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 03:29 (nineteen years ago)

The "plugging a guitar into a laptop" scene was the first point where I was like, "Yes, Veitch. Yes."

― Deric W. Haircare, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 05:21 (nineteen years ago)

and Vertigo publish a lot worse (The Exterminators, for example).

Dude, Exterminators ROOLZ. what are you, some kind of cockroach lover?

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:17 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, so Mordechai, you're saying "shame on them for publishing this; can't wait for next issue"? (More seriously: can you explain the "sexist narrative problems" a little more?)

― Douglas, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 14:21 (nineteen years ago)

I'd have felt a bit more comfortable with some equal opportunities T&A.

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

You mean B&T (bait & tackle)?

― David R., Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

"Mr Happy."

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:18 (nineteen years ago)

Is that allowed at Vertigo?

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

The amount of scorn directed at this comic makes me want to read it.

― Dr. Superman, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

There are many many many many many many more comics currently being produced that deserve much more scorn than Army @ Love warrants on its worst day. Veitch is trying something different, and I'm always in favor of that tack. Even if the end product of that approach winds up being a massive failure, at least it's an interesting failure.

― Deric W. Haircare, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

I love it so far, basically for the reasons Mr. Wolk outlines upthread.

― Oilyrags, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

I wanted to love this, but the preview included in some other Vertigo book (Y, I think) didn't do much for me. The parody just seemed really obvious & over-the-top in an offputting way. Which is probably the point (from what y'all are saying) & RV's usual MO, but it didn't jive w/ me as well as it has in the other places where RV's gone gonzo, & I'm trying to winnow down my monthly swag (which is, um, sorta happening). That is my story.

― David R., Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

I like this book and i really like The Exterminators.

― chaki, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

The Exterminators: Like Swallowing Cillit Bang

― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 21:48 (nineteen years ago)

I remember that Vertigo series 'Codename: Knockout" was intended as equal opportunity T&A/B&T - I enjoyed what I read, but I still had about 10 issues in the unread pile when it was cancelled, and I've still not got round to them.

― James Morrison, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 00:39 (nineteen years ago)

Douglas,
First, I didn't say I can't I wait for the next issue. Just that the comic, for its many faults, isn't boring. For a crude analogy: recent Nicholas Cage films are really awful in a variety of ways, but they're also watchable (contrasted to a really awful + boring film).

Second: I had a problem with a only female nudity. I had a problem with the fact that the woman's job was distracting the Arab, while her sexpartner was able to kill him. I thought that the artist objectified the females in the book by placing them in overtly sexual poses - and I think the cover of the first issue was tasteless. The woman looked dolled up like a tart - the man just looked stoned. For more analysis, here was my review.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 01:47 (nineteen years ago)

I think you might do well to ask "why?" a whole lot w/r/t Army @ Love, Mordechai. A lot of this stuff is wholly intentional and it might be worth considering why Veitch has made the choices that he has. Seriously: check out some of Veitch's earlier stuff. He's coming at this from a different angle than the one that you're seeing.

To be perfectly honest, the objections you've been raising have made me notice a lot of things that I hadn't previously and, subsequently, helped me to enjoy what Veitch is doing a lot more than I did after my initial readthrough.

― Deric W. Haircare, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 03:27 (nineteen years ago)

Mordechai, I think it's strange that you don't think the man on the cover of #1 isn't also objectified and sexualized what with the chiselled physique and perfectly groomed stubble under razor sharp cheekbones. As a whole, the whole cover is a parody of the 'bodice ripper' genre of harlequin romance cover illustration, right down to the woman holding a gun that's positioned in front of the man's groin.

As for the differences between the attitude to nudity inside the book you're right that it's an obnoxious double standard, but I'd bet (on no evidence but the rest of the book) that it's editorially dictated, not a creative choice.

― Oilyrags, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 04:00 (nineteen years ago)

Well, yeah. AFAIK, naked genitals are still pretty much verboten in Vertigo titles (although inconsistently so and for reasons that I don't really understand).

― Deric W. Haircare, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 04:11 (nineteen years ago)

Veitch has drawn plenty of mancock before, I'm sure - wasn't the Maximortal wang-out full-time?

― energy flash gordon, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, but that weren't Vertigo. He did get away with showing ding-dongs and woo-woos in Can't Get No, but I think there are different editorial mandates for graphic novels.

Although, y'know...if I were a Vertigo editor, I'd be thanking my lucky stars that (miracle of miracles) Veitch has deigned to work for my company again on a regular basis, and I'd be awfully hesitant to pass down any editorial mandates that weren't absolutely necessary. Lest history repeat itself.

― Deric W. Haircare, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 14:04 (nineteen years ago)

I seem to remember some prominent and well-endowed woo-wooo in Y: The Last Man.

I'm definitely picking up the second ish on the basis of this thread. The guitar thing sounds funny.

― Chuck_Tatum, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

but that weren't Vertigo

yeah my point!

― energy flash gordon, Thursday, 3 May 2007 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Issue #3 worked for me. Sure, there was the obvious racism (stupid Arabs bombing themselves) and sexism (she'll clearly screw anything at any time), but the issue was funny enough that I didn't mind as much as I did in past issues. For some reason, I found the bomb-catapult hysterical, and Switzer's reaction in the car ("When I was taking about romance, this is the wrong response.") cracked me.

Other things still didn't work for me, though. Army@Love's narrative isn't as poor as Azeralla stuff (Loveless or 100 Bullets), but it still seems to lack a compelling thread. We're three issues in... isn't it time to be developing the plot?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Friday, 18 May 2007 05:34 (nineteen years ago)

I'm gonna say it again: read some more Veitch. Try <i>Greyshirt</i> or <i>Maximortal</i> for starters. They're short, but they're also complete stories that will likely give you an idea of how Veitch works. Plot is something that he often approaches obliquely. I think this would all work better for you if you had a better feel for his style.

― Deric W. Haircare, Saturday, 19 May 2007 01:17 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, goddamn you, BBcode.

― Deric W. Haircare, Saturday, 19 May 2007 01:18 (nineteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

Army Times on Army@Love!

And also the LAT.

― Chuck_Tatum, Thursday, 7 June 2007 19:32 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.