Cocopiazo could have been dire. From what I can ascertain, Cocopiazo seems to be about the art of writing. Sure, series creator Daniel Warner can put main character/lush John Victory into limbo, having Death and Job try to put one over on Victory by proving how unsuccessful Victory will be as an author (he writes one book that goes into the bargain bin, if you're wondering). There can be asides to the world of "creative writing" and just how much mental masturbation there is out there. Sex and art can be writ large as a story arc. None of this matters if the comic books are unfocused, creatively bankrupt and generally awful.
Cocopiazo is not awful. Sure, the comic book is essentially concepts with some semblance of plot to keep it coherent, but the only time it ever really seems to veer into dodgy surrealism is with the denouement to Issue #3 - how does John Victory get out of limbo? Well, limbo disappears, and...uh...oh look, Jose the Birthday Monkey! Even given the nature of the series, it seems like a hasty wrap-up. Maybe I'm wrong - John Victory doesn't seem to be any good as a writer, and the monkey seems to be his creation. Either I'm not reading enough into Cocopiazo or Daniel Warner rushed to make deadlines. That sort of ambivalence makes Cocopiazo what it is.
Frankly, what Daniel Warner's doing is difficult to pull off with some semblance of quality. Matt Howarth could do it, but his Bugtown was a literal city of anarchy and Warner's not doing science fiction. Even so, Cocopiazo's rambling quality works as what Warner says seems to ring true. Cocopiazo is firmly within the realm of the alternacomic but manages to say something about the nature of writing, and something meaningful at that. David Warner doesn't seem to be afraid of even picking himself apart, and isn't afraid of throwing in some violence without it being a sop to male audiences. He's appropriating Satan, Cthulhu and other mythic figures as characters, but they aren't there merely as exercises in divergent characterization. Warner's artwork is stylized without being off-putting, and his dialogue is intelligent without being disingenuous. That Daniel Warner can be intellectual without seeming up his own arse gives me hope for the future of independent comic books.
Article comments
1 - Nico
My take on Cocopiazo was very similar to my take on this review, even. On first glance, you're not sure what to make of it, but as you wind yourself towards the center, you realize what is really being said.
I like that both make subtle strokes but with bold points. Cocopiazo is the kind of comic book that you can sit down and enjoy without feeling that you need a reference book handy, or without being compelled by INFINITE CRISIS kind of character bins or story arcs. It's modern, it's crazy, and it's kind of cheeky.
I like it a lot - I read it, feel kind of good about myself, remark on how interesting the writing is and feel compelled to mix a good martini. Not many comic books can do that for me.
2 - Bree
"That Daniel Warner can be intellectual without seeming up his own arse gives me hope for the future of independent comic books."
This is on point. And I would like to also note that your review is intelligent without being up your own arse. So many reviewers are more interested in writing witty, complicated reviews that it is difficult to see the work they are reviewing.
As a fan of Cocopiazo, I enjoyed this review very much. As a journalist, I loved it.
3 - plungingforward
(Warning! Contains Spoilers!!!)
Despite my Lovecraftian leanings, my favorite scene in this book to date isn't Howard the Bellhop (though he's up there on the list) but the smarmy writing teacher having hot coffee poured on his face. Who among us hasn't had that particular fantasy at least once?
As for the monkey, isn't that an excerpt from the book Death brings back from the future? (Maybe this DOES sound a bit like INFINITE CRISIS.) I consider it an "appendix" to the actual story, which ends abruptly with a bottle to the head.
I really liked your review. This - "(Cocopiazo) is essentially concepts with some semblance of plot to keep it coherent," - hits the nail squarely on the head. I appreciate your willingness to raise meaningful questions rather than invent meaningless answers. Your knowledge of the medium is used to assist in your speculation and assesment rather than, as is all-too-frequently the case, just a showcase for itself (Oh the things I know!). Two thumbs up from this review reviewer!
/Note: 3rd graph, 5th sentence, wrong name used for author -CW-/