Reviews of the Scandalous Marlene
A funny thing happened a couple of weeks ago. I got an email from Rich Johnston, who writes the gossip column "Lying in the Gutters" for Comic Book Resources. He asked me if I was aware that many comic book retailers were "up in arms" about Marlene by Peter Snejbjerg, a horror comic that came out at the beginning of the month. They were upset that it didn't have a rating label on it, even though it had some pretty graphic sex in it.
No, I wasn't aware of it, nor was anyone else in the office, because the retailers had chosen not to come to us directly with their grievances but to voice them on their industry-only forum for the Comic Book Industry Alliance, a forum I don't frequent. Some retailers were upset that the book was listed as "Mature Readers" in the Previews catalog from which they order, when they thought that it should have been listed in the "Adult," catalog -- the information for Adult comics comes in a separate catalog that retailers have to choose to receive. It's often referred to as the "porn ghetto."
Dan and I responded with an apology that there was no rating on the comic's cover (there should have been), but also let them know that we had made Marlene returnable and that it was Diamond's choice to not only list the book as Mature rather than Adult, but to make it a featured selection. We had sent a preview of the whole comic to our Diamond rep, so they knew what was in the book. I threw in a little editorializing (whaddya want, I'm an editor) and mentioned that I don't think that Marlene is porn. The sex scene is part of the tone of the comic and reveals something about the characters.
By that time, the discussion about ratings and decency and all that on the forum had gotten so heated that most of the retailers who were most upset about Marlene didn't see my posting until I pointed out that it was there a few days later. But, anyway, it turns out that all this uproar hasn't really resulted in mass returns of the scandalous comic, and reviewers are cluing everyone in to the fact that if you're a grown-up person who doesn't mind some graphic nookie in your comics, Marlene is a damned good read.
It gets ten out of ten tomatoes at Rotten Tomatoes, where the reviewer writes, "Snejbjerg's tale is a perfectly paced horror tale, from the first shadowy appearance of a monstrous killer, to the final stand-off between Michael and his quarry."
Rich Johnston wrote in his "Lying in the Gutters" column that addressed the kerfuffle, "Written and drawn by own of my favourite comics artists, Peter Snejberg,[Marlene] tells a gripping story about a murder investigation of a peeping tom that turns into pure horror." You can also read Dan's response to the whole thing there.
And in the Best Shots column at Newsarama, Corey Henson writes, "[Snejbjerg's] art on Marlene knocked me on my ass. The comic is in black and white, with grey tones judiciously applied to enhance the story’s spooky atmosphere. The artwork is beautifully detailed, and Snejbjerg does a terrific job visualizing the various different tones of the story. His characters are expressive and vibrant, the horror scenes are disturbing and surreal, and his depiction of the unhinged artist Uno Jensen is humorously maniacal." As for the sex, Henson's on the same page as we are here: "...while the sex scenes are fairly graphic, they fall a bit short of being explicitly pornographic, and aren’t the least bit gratuitous. Yes, the story could have been told just as well if the sex was implied and off-panel, but in the context of the story, it fits."
Owwww. Why am I typing so much when I have an injured wrist? Really, I'm fine, but you should see the succubus (we call them "vagina monsters," and you can see one in Marlene) whose ass I totally kicked. I messed her up bad. Oh yes.
-JdG