The Epic imprint finally arrives, with Trouble #1.

Except that statement is true only in two respects.  One, it's a romance book, and Marvel don't do those - satisfying the "broaden the output" criterion.  Two, the Epic logo is on the cover.  In every other respect, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Epic line.  If Epic is about discovering new talent, it's a little difficult to see where Mark Millar fits into that.  Or, for that matter, artists Terry and Rachel Dodson.  And Epic is, at least theoretically, meant to be a line where the editing is left to the creators (though this doesn't seem to actually accord with anyone's publicly recounted experiences of the line).

In any event, this is edited by Axel Alonso.  In short, it's an Epic book in name only.  Trying to draw any conclusions about the line from this would be pointless.  Best to take it on its own terms.

According to Millar, Trouble is trying "to do for romance comics what Spider-Man and Fantastic Four did for superhero comics."  By which he presumably means that he hopes it will revive an almost entirely moribund genre, give it a twist that adds some more dimensions to the format, and if things go really well, start to rebuild the romance audience for the future.

Of course, the difference is that the superhero genre and superhero comics have largely been the same thing.  Romance, on the other hand, didn't die out when romance comics bit the dust.  It just moved into other media.  The competition for Trouble is popular romantic fiction aimed at teenage girls.  Leaving aside the question of how exactly they're supposed to have heard of it, which may be better addressed at the stage of the trade paperback release, Trouble is only filling a void if your view of the world is based entirely around comics.  The intended audience for this series are already getting their light comedy romance, if indeed they want it.  Trouble has to convince them that it offers something new.

The gimmick of this series, if you can call it that, is largely irrelevant to those readers.  The gimmick is that the four main characters are supposed to be Spider-Man's parents, together with his future Aunt May and Uncle Ben.  If rumours are to be believed, the idea is that this series involves Peter Parker's conception, and Marvel are waiting for the audience reaction before deciding whether to leave it in as continuity.  (Millar says the story is canon.  The house ads say it isn't.  Marvel say they're not sure.)  One might have thought an obvious barrier to canonicity is that it would impose a twenty-year age gap between Peter and May, and the true age gap is clearly something closer to forty, because she's a grandparent figure.  But whatever.  It's irrelevant to the actual story.

Richard, Ben, Mary and May all head up to the Hamptons to work at a holiday camp over the summer.  There, they meet one another.  The grown-ups who run and visit the place are all assholes, but the kids... well, just kind of meet and get on, really.  This is where we hit the problem.

There's no doubt that Millar is trying to stretch his wings here.  His usual mode is violence and cynicism, with a somewhat left-wing political slant.  Aside from a general "stick it to the grownups" routine which could be taken from a thousand teen movies, none of that really applies here.  For this story to work, the emphasis has to be on the characters.  Unfortunately, rounded characters are not exactly Millar's strong point.  His idea of what makes a sympathetic character often seems alarmingly narrow; his X-Men included at least four iterations of the same personality, for example.  That's the fundamental glitch here - Richard, Ben, Mary and May are all the bloody same.  Not only do I not identify with any of them, it took several re-readings before I could even remember which was which.  Save for the fact that one of the girls will do it on the first date when the other one won't, I struggle hugely to remember any character traits that differentiate the four of them.  And then I fail.

And as you can probably imagine, if I can't even remember which one's which, I certainly couldn't give a toss whether they get laid or not.  Fortunately, they don't need me to care, because nothing seems to be stopping them.  So in short, we've got four interchangeable characters who want to find love-slash-sex and do.  It's not exactly big on dramatic tension.  The idea of romantic comedy, traditionally, is that you set up a couple the audience wants to see together and then put obstacles in their path.  The only apparent obstacle here is the employers, but they don't seem to be all that effective at blocking anything, so what's the problem?

A certain coyness about period creates a problem as well.  The opening caption says "Some years ago", though if they're even remotely serious about putting it in continuity, we'd be talking decades.  The clothing and design look rather 1950s.  A reference to Vietnam seems to suggest 1970s.  And if they really are doing a story about teenage pregnancy, the time period has to be relevant.

It's got the usual crisp, attractive art that you'd expect from the Dodsons, and yes, there are mildly amusing moments in amongst the cliches.  But if the intention is a romantic comedy-drama then it founders on all points - it's not all that funny, it's not dramatic, and it's not all that romantic either.  I'm not sure whether I'm meant to be shocked, but I'm not shocked either.  It all just leaves me cold.

Of course, I'm not a teenage girl.  But I can't see this dragging them back to comics.

Rating: C

back | continue