Two reviews of Sequart’s The Devil is in the Details: Examining Matt Murdock and Daredevil describe the volume’s strengths and weaknesses.
A review by Gereg Jones Muller calls the book “fascinating” and contains this passage:
Anyone who grew up on Daredevil in the ’60s, anyone who admired Frank Miller’s redevelopment of the series in the ’80s, or any more recent fans whose recollections of the character may not stretch back any time before the 21st century, will find these articles intriguing and informative.
Dr. Wesley Britton’s review on bookpleasures.com singles out the book’s longest essay as “especially well done” and recommends the book for Daredevil fans.
Both reviews mention the diversity of the collection, which includes essays that are somewhat more fannish and others that are somewhat more academic. That diversity’s very important to us, and we believe that there’s a place for both. Hopefully, these strains meet somewhere in the middle, with both sides being analytic but accessible, although any given essay might fall more on one side than the other. Forging that middle ground is kind of Sequart’s point.
We certainly appreciate reviews of our books and movies, whatever their viewpoint, and we encourage our readers to check them out! Thanks to all concerned.
RSS feed for Julian Darius
@JulianDarius
on Facebook
on Google+
on Amazon
“The essays that rather show some academics have too much time on their hands look at the character through very high-brow perspectives indeed.”–Dr. W. Britton
Well, the first review of a published work of which I’ve contributed an article where I’m mentioned by name… ha, ha, ha! If ONLY I did have too much time on my hands. :) Nonetheless, it was a fun article to write & I’m appreciative he took the time to read it all the same.
Yeah, to each his or her own. It’s a shame that this is the first time a review’s mentioned you by name, but it won’t be the last!
I’ve had my own writing receive good and bad reviews, and I’ve realized that whether I’m proud of a work matters far more, at the end of the day, than whether I agree or disagree with a single other opinion — or even the body of such opinions. I try to understand that even a negative review is a legitimate viewpoint, even if it’s not exactly mine. And there are positive reviews that don’t focus on what the writer thinks is going on or really good about a piece!
I do mean what I said in the above piece: I’m proud of the diversity in the book. I like having some more academic pieces, along with some fannish ones. And I think we’re all stronger forging a community of comics criticism in which both can comfortably coexist.
But this is usually the thing that reviewers object to, if anything: either a book isn’t analytic enough or it’s overly academic. Inevitably, any work has to balance this. Whatever a reviewer’s preferences (or mine), it’s a fair criticism, and I’m seriously always glad for the input!
Anyway, I’m glad you’re in the book! And glad people are reading it and thinking about it! And I’m hoping you’ll be writing for Sequart for a good long while!