3 out of 5

Edited by: Brendan Wright

This is coming from a non classic Creepy reader – so, fresh eyes on the reboot, picked up as a fan of anthologies – especially horror themed ones.  I mention my lack of history with the title because it’s possible I just don’t get it.  Creepy, to me, is supposed to have that Tales from the Crypt vibe – a little silly, with Twilight Zone-esque stories that lean heavily on ghouls and murders to tell their tales of revenge or comeuppance.  Eerie, meanwhile, is obviously similar, but the sci-fi focus gives it some leeway to be a bit kooky.  And I think the leeway is what’s missing.  Because Eerie, overall feels right to me, but I cannot see past a sort of veil in the modern Creepy that coats the book in a film of awareness – so it reads like Creepy trying to be Creepy instead of just being its own book.  The regular Peter Bagge features add to this confusion – Bagge’s cartoony style is not what you’d immediately expect for a horror anthology, but they do help create a nice, insular narrative frame of the Creepy household and properly set the tone more toward yuks… But I still can’t shake the notion that the book is intended to actually be horror.  And since tales often have elements that I’d think would land the story in Eerie, it makes me wonder if the editors / authors know exactly what they’re aiming for either.  But again, this could be exactly how the book always was, I don’t know.

Now – if you can ignore any and all assumptions about what a newbie reader might think the book is supposed to be, Creepy absolutely fulfills a woeful need for a horror anthology.  And to be fair, going back to the 90s, 80s, 70s… consistently great horror anthologies are almost non-existent, because you’re stuck telling, mostly, variations on a couple stories, or nostalgic retelling of the same.  So it all comes down to the creators’ representations being entertaining (and I feel like I’ve given this speech before), which Creepy’s definitely are.  Editor Wright gives us a well-chosen mix of recognizable names and up and comers, along with the classic reprint, all printed in very crisp B&W that works perfectly for either artists with a clearer line or those that favor the sketchiness of ‘classic’ horror artists.  And the design meets the quality of Eerie – beautifully creepy covers, entertaining frontispieces and appealingly clear table of contents.

So while it’s hard to get fully absorbed in the book because it doesn’t seem to fully settle into its identity like Eerie, the 4 bucks spent is still worthwhile exposure to mostly good, some great stories that add that small dash of ghosts and goblins into our comics that we sometimes need.