2 out of 5

Given that there’s a Dead Universe Comics shop advertised in the back of this compilation, and that there’s no price tag, I’m going to assume that this was an imprint started out of the shop of the same name, and that this issue could’ve been a bag stuffer / giveaway, accompanied by some “check out the books…” prompting by an in-store clerk. With that framing, and likely the additional comfort of being prompted by a familiar face at your LCS, and probably also consistent promotion of the books in the shop, Dead Universe Year Own was probably effective at getting some new readers.

Outside of that, it’s… a tough sell. Let’s completely set aside perceived quality of the contents – these are all indie artists, and there are writing and art tics that feel rather zine-y / self-published as a result – and just assess the book as a sampler; as a promotion tool. We have a table of contents, which is nice, and a foreword that underlines the “we’re not Marvel / DC but we try” passions of the publisher, and then creator bios before the contents.

Putting the bios before comics is nice, as it gives faces to the work, but can also create some bias – you might read or see something that makes you question their contribution for whatever reason. Additionally, the bios are alphabetical; the contents are sequenced differently. It’s just a bit wayward.

These are kind of subjective quibbles, though. Where I’m mostly knocking off points is when it comes to the contents themselves: they hardly tell you much about each title, except for giving you a sense of the art and writing style. And maybe that’s enough, but two pages is rarely enough to provide context for books that are wholly unknown to a reader, and not always the clearest genre-wise – these ain’t Spider-Man or spandex heroes – making the experience of sifting through these previews pretty uninvolving. Again, with a helpful word from a comics shop clerk, sure; but on your lonesome, there’s not much to sink your teeth into if the art style doesn’t grab you. Furthermore, I’d say there are some strips that are written with a bit of a “you know what I’m talking about” vibe that may have been true for locals, but falls flat to this American reader, a decade+ after the fact.

Are these fair judgments? Isn’t it more likely people were reading this in the context of the initial frame I mentioned? Yeah, but I’m reviewing it from my frame, alas, and even knowing at least one strip featured here – Apes ‘n’ Capes – I’d say those two pages are not great representations of that book, which makes me suspect my feelings about the remaining contents are not so out of line.