A review by hollowspine
Womanthology: Heroic by Joamette Gil, Mado Pena, Ming Doyle, Kayla Cagan, Fiona Staples, Stephanie Buscema, Lauren Burke, Jill Pantozzi, Stacie Ponder, Gail Simone, Katie Shanahan, Amanda Mcmurray, June Brigman, Chrissie Zullo, Martel Sardina, Nei Ruffino, Kelly Thompson, Mariah Huehner, Maura McHugh, Tanja Wooten, Jessica Hickman, Trina Robbins, Kimberly Komatsu, Rachel Autumn Deering, Megan Brennan, Stephanie Haas, Samantha Newark, Bonnie Burton, Suzannah Rowntree, Anya Martin, Danielle Soloud, Mary Bellamy, Janet Lee, Amanda Deibert, Sarah Becan, Sarah Elkins, Colleen Doran, Rachel Pandish, Jenna Busch, Lois van Baarle, Nicole Falk, Jenn Corella, Barbara Randall Kesel, Kate Leth, Valia Kapadai, Jessica Deering, Ann Nocenti, Thalia de la Torre
2.0
I was ultimately disappointed by this large anthology of comics written by women. Although I was impressed with many of the authors and artists contributions to the book, they were often dragged down by stories that weren't quite there yet and art that lacked the quality set by other artists.
My feeling is that due to the web-forum based, facebooky construction of the graphic anthology, it became more like setting one's Stumble to comics and then clicking through at random. Some of the stories lacked coherency, it felt like the reader was just dropped into a situation with no prior knowledge of story or characters - and no explanation was given. Some were just one panel illustrations that seemed out of place amongst the unthematic comics surrounding them.
I feel that this was more due to the various editors than the artists and writers themselves. There were areas where I felt if only slight change was made the whole would have been much improved.
If the editing had been a bit more critcal, I think this would have been more of a success. Sometimes details were left out of illustrations, toe nails in one illustration would have taken it from bizarre to spot on. Other times there were unclear jumps in the panels, a close up that wasn't linked to the original object so that it became a puzzle to figure out.
Overall, like using Stumble, sometimes I was impressed by what I saw, other times I just clicked again. There are authors/artists to watch in here, but it's a bit of a muddle trying to find them.
My feeling is that due to the web-forum based, facebooky construction of the graphic anthology, it became more like setting one's Stumble to comics and then clicking through at random. Some of the stories lacked coherency, it felt like the reader was just dropped into a situation with no prior knowledge of story or characters - and no explanation was given. Some were just one panel illustrations that seemed out of place amongst the unthematic comics surrounding them.
I feel that this was more due to the various editors than the artists and writers themselves. There were areas where I felt if only slight change was made the whole would have been much improved.
If the editing had been a bit more critcal, I think this would have been more of a success. Sometimes details were left out of illustrations, toe nails in one illustration would have taken it from bizarre to spot on. Other times there were unclear jumps in the panels, a close up that wasn't linked to the original object so that it became a puzzle to figure out.
Overall, like using Stumble, sometimes I was impressed by what I saw, other times I just clicked again. There are authors/artists to watch in here, but it's a bit of a muddle trying to find them.