The Marvel Encyclopedia (HC)
Writers: Tom DeFalco, Peter Sanderson, Tom Brevoort, Michael Teitelbaum, Daniel Wallace & Andrew Darling
Artists: Too many to name
Company: DK Publishing
Back at my previous site (*cough*don’t mind the link, fellas!*cough*), I had written a glowing review of DK Publishing’s DC Comics Encylopedia. Then, a couple months back, I wrote another glowing review of their Guide to Conan. I had every reason to expect greatness from their new Marvel Encyclopedia. Maybe those heightened expectations help explain my disappointment. Maybe it’s the involvement of current Marvel editorial in this edition, as contrasted with DC’s freelancer-driven version. Maybe it’s that there are major glaring character omissions, as opposed to the minor ones that first struck me with the DC Encyclopedia. Whatever the case, though, while the Marvel Encyclopedia is hardly a disaster, it’s certainly a big letdown after seeing what DK Publishing is capable of previously.
I should start by saying that, aside from the Essential Official Handbooks Marvel has produced, this is still the best game in town. It’s got gorgeous production values, is obviously the product of a lot of hard work and features more characters than your average fan will encounter in their comic-book reading lifetime. The basics of the Marvel Encyclopedia are exactly the same as the DC Encyclopedia. An alphabetical listing of characters, as comprehensive as possible, with art selected from throughout Marvel’s history. And in terms of basic structure, the book is still a treasure, especially for those with only a mild knowledge of the Marvel Universe. If you’ve never put your hands on an Official Handbook, if you’ve only been reading for a few years, if you’re a young reader who just wants to read about a ton of characters, the Encyclopedia will do you just fine. But if you’re one of those longtime fans who just loves these character and universe guides, who grew up on the Official Handbooks and were hoping this would be a long-overdue update… well, get ready for some disappointment.
The mistakes in this Encyclopedia are relatively minor, but they’re systemic. You can’t flip more than a page or two without hitting something that seems wrong. Maybe Marvel just had more of a flood of bad art in the ’90s and the ’00s than DC, but it seems like some really weird artistic decisions were made here. The Encyclopedia is more the place for definitive looks, rather than experimental takes. Why use Joe Madeureira’s version of Magneto, or the godawful ’90s version of the West Coast Avengers or the Clayton Henry version of Alpha Flight, when a Jim Lee Magneto, John Byrne West Coast Avengers and Alpha Flight are all easily available and far more definitive? I’m not saying that only old art should be used, as the Encyclopedia makes good use of modern work by Adi Granov (for Iron Man) and Tim Sale (for Gwen Stacy and Mary Jane), but for God’s sake, why is Elektra done by Mike Deodato (from the forgettable ’90s series) instead of Frank Miller? Yes, it’s nitpicking, but this kind of project deserves that kind of scrutiny. Especially when the DC Volume placed the bar so high.
To be fair, the Encyclopedia really does cover the obscure, and in some cases the best left forgotten. You’ll find all sorts of relics of the ’90s here, from Sugar Man to Terror, as well as recent questionable characters like Chuck Austen’s Azazel. The focus in a lot of ways seems to be on obscure characters who have premiered since the last Official Handbook, which is probably wise on the surface, except that so many of those characters are so bad, and they get full write-ups where more interesting obscura from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s are lightly touched upon. One also can’t help but notice that co-writer Tom DeFalco’s Spider-Girl universe and Clone Saga stories are unusually well-represented, disproportionate to their popularity. The character write-ups are inconsistent, sometimes featuring up-to-date continuity but oftentimes out of date or just plain wrong. Emma Frost leaves off with Generation X, with no mention of her New or Astonishing X-Men doings. Bucky’s entry mentions that he is the Winter Soldier, but there’s no indication of what that means, and no entry for the Winter Soldier. Meanwhile, the Runaways are nowhere to be found, except for a mention in Swarm’s entry. Given that they’re probably the most enduring new characters created for Marvel in the past few years, this seems like a pretty notable error. Sadly, it’s but one of many.
If you’re a fan who bought the DC Encyclopedia to read with your kids, then the Marvel Encyclopedia will not disappoint. There are thousands of colorful characters and write-ups, complete with power listings, height, weight, all that good stuff. It’s all very well organized, with a spiffy index in the back, and while a lot of the art seems miscast, there are certainly some good choices in there as well. The book looks terrific at a casual glance. But it seems like it was put together with the same care for continuity with which Marvel puts together all of its books these days, which is to say that it’s sloppy and inconsistent.
Where the DC Encyclopedia surprised me with its loving tribute to all characters, the Marvel Encyclopedia seems to show favoritism towards pet characters of the writers and the characters in modern use, with the others given a bare minimum of attention. What impressed me about the DC Encyclopedia was its all-encompassing, something-for-everyone approach, and that approach is not to be found here. If someone puts this under your Christmas tree, thank them, because any comics fan will probably get a kick out of the book… but I can’t quite give the “rush out and buy this” recommendation I gave the DC Encyclopedia two years ago.
Loading ...
Thanks for the review. I’m dissapointed that this book doesn’t rate up there with Conan or DC’s. I have a 10 month old son, so I’ll probably end up buying it anyway and giving it to him when he gets older. As I kid I always loved these books so maybe he’ll be the same. Love the site!
31 Oct 2006 at 2:05 pm
QuoteThanks for the kind words, Randomize It. Glad you like the site.
I’m a completist at heart, and though I own this book and like it, it’s got some problems. I was puzzled by the many characters that were missing. I know it’s not possible to put every single one in but when you’re including Justin Hammer, Golden Archer, Bloodstorm & Skids while missing people like the Runaways, Sleepwalker, the Deaththrows, Master-Man, The Owl, Jigsaw, Epoch, Jack O’Lantern, The Fixer, Pyro, Hate-Monger, Two-Gun Kid and the Crusader, one has to wonder what exactly happened?
Also, I’m not quite sure why Patriot of the Young Avengers deserves his own entry but none of the others get one besides the team entry. It’s a bit wonky, I tell you.
I agree with Randy that the art choices were a bit *strange* too. I’d have rather seen classic takes on characters instead of Age of Apocalyspe Magneto or the art from the Marvel Masterpiece card set for Havok. There are much better representations for these characters. And I personally take it as a cheap shot to call Beta Ray Bill, Beta Ray Thor. Even if the name is correct, which I hope it isn’t, it’s not the name I remember him as.
31 Oct 2006 at 3:02 pm
Quote“The focus in a lot of ways seems to be on obscure characters who have premiered since the last Official Handbook”
You mean since last month’s issue?
Speaking of omissions, Randy’s omission of the current Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe– which has been in publication steadily since 2004– is unusual. Are we not your cup of tea, Randy?
Nick– Beta Ray Bill has gone by Beta Ray Thor in the past (around ‘90), but it’s a seldom-used alias.
MH
31 Oct 2006 at 4:29 pm
QuoteI was about to mention the current Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe which I think has done a good job showcasing some of the more obscure characters of the MU, I mean when they have entries for the Game Cock and the original Black Widow, the one who worked for Satan, you gotta respect that.
It is too bad this book wasn’t cooler, I got the Conan one and have enjoyed reading it, and Marvel zombie that I am, I was considering getting this one too, but when I paged thorough it at the store it just didn’t grab me, and this review seems to cement that view.
Nick I can’t speak to the other exclusions, but as much as I love Jack O’Lantern thematically, in fact he’s one of those characters I sorta follow, but one reason that he might not have been included as that half the time Marvel doesn’t seem to know who is wearing the suit theses days, just a guess, though I suspect it’s more along what Randy said and author preference has perhaps taken too heavy a hand.
31 Oct 2006 at 4:49 pm
QuoteMH said:
You mean since last month’s issue?
Speaking of omissions, Randy’s omission of the current Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe– which has been in publication steadily since 2004– is unusual. Are we not your cup of tea, Randy?
Well… that’s what we call a polite omission. But since you asked…
Nope, the current stuff is not my cup of tea. The A-Z format is a good idea now, but unfortunately it’s not comprehensive, skipping over the stuff already covered. And it’s not being traded, so if you’re a kid who really wants to know about the Fantastic Four (as opposed to maybe Molecule Man or whatever Four villain/ally is being covered in the current A-Z), you’re shit out of luck.
Then there are the art selections, which generally suffer from the same problems as the Marvel Encyclopedia (including weird things like having other artists add feet or hands that don’t match the rest of the illustration) and the design, which is way too text-heavy, leaves out the great action art selection of the original OHOTMU. I also really miss the Eliot R. Brown tech specs, which were some of the coolest things about the original OHOTMU, even though I understand that Quesada is not a fan. It’s a tough job, maybe an impossible one, so I can’t bring myself to be too hard on the guys doing it, but it’s not up to snuff with the previous versions. Like the Encyclopedia, it’s passable, but it’s not great.
That’s why I specifically refer to the original Official Handbook. The current Handbooks are the Marvel Universe in name only, and I don’t consider them the same book. I doubt you’d find too many fans of the original who do.
Nick– Beta Ray Bill has gone by Beta Ray Thor in the past (around ‘90), but it’s a seldom-used alias.
Beta Ray Thor is *technically* correct, but it’s still just wrong. If you know what I mean.
31 Oct 2006 at 5:15 pm
QuoteTerror? I LOVE Terror
as for JOE Q not liking elliot brown tec specs
HE LIKES the money he gets from reprinting them and really has he EVER expressed any unreserved love for anything before he took over? “that was an idea for it’s time” is all he ever says. Oh yeah and “the Defenderes were the scrub Avengers” Thank god for the New AVengers!
01 Nov 2006 at 3:08 pm
Quote“Game Cock”
Oh, how the 13-year-old in me wants to snicker…
Anyway, I’m sad to say this isn’t the first negative review I’ve seen of the Marvel Encyclopedia. Oh well, maybe they can add more characters and fix the mistakes in later editions.
I haven’t checked out the monthly A-Z handbooks, but they’re being done in the same format the 2004 X-Men handbook, the Marvel Knights handbook and the others were, right? I didn’t think the format for those were bad, but I checked out one of the Essential trades of the original OHOTMU recently and man, was it amazing.
“And it’s not being traded”
You know, I thought I read somewhere that Marvel was planning to collect some of the monthly handbooks into trades. Is that on the agenda, Marvel Handbook gang?
01 Nov 2006 at 11:33 pm
QuoteHas anyone else noticed that in the Marvel Encyclopedia, under Lockjaw, he is described as being a child transformed by the Terrigen Mists into a dog with powers? One who keeps his human intellect, but has some canine tendencies?
Either they screwed up, or Marvel changed their minds again about Lockjaw’s origin.
06 Nov 2006 at 3:50 am
QuoteMy guess would be the latter, but then, there are any number of screw-ups of this nature in the Encyclopedia, so who knows.
It’s weird, given DC’s constant revamping of their continuity, you’d expect them to have more trouble keeping the various versions of characters and histories straight. But there were no weird switch-ups like this that I recall in the DC Encyclopedia, while the Marvel Encyclopedia is filled with them.
I also have to wonder, given that DeFalco was former EIC and Brevoort is a current Executive Editor, if this weak attention to detail is a big part of Marvel’s character and history inconsistency these days.
06 Nov 2006 at 1:32 pm
QuoteFinally back to respond to Randy…
The current series is comprehensive, just not in the way you wish it to be. Readers who have been following the current incarnation of the OHOTMU since its debut in 2004 have better appreciation for this year’s A-Z format because it doesn’t repeat the characters from 04-05. If you take the 04-06 series together as a whole, they are far, far more comprehensive than any prior incarnation of the OHOTMU (including the Master Edition).
As for trades, ERB tech spcs and new art…I agree, and these are things we’d like to see too.
Personally, I’m a huge fan of the original OHOTMU. And the Deluxe Edition (which is what I think you mean when you say “original?”). And Update ‘89. I even like the Master Edition. Even if they didn’t bear my name, I’d still be proud to have the 04-06 next to the other editions on my desk, ’cause the Deluxe Edition won’t explain to me who Death’s Head is, how Spider-Man’s powers changed, or who the Hobgoblin ultimately turned out to be.
MH
08 Nov 2006 at 1:59 pm
QuoteThe current series is comprehensive, just not in the way you wish it to be.
That’s fair enough. I just took a look at the ’80s Legacy handbook and, though that is absolutely my era, I didn’t know who half the characters were. It focuses on obscure characters to the exclusion of characters who belong in there. Dazzler, for example. Alpha Flight, for another. Meanwhile, characters from one obscure graphic novel get a full-page write-up. The joy of these kinds of projects is in giving the obscure characters their due, but there are plenty of characters who really only need a paragraph and a single image to cover them.
I was also struck once again by how text-heavy the whole thing is. It’s just a wall of text. And unfortunately, the focus is on a crazy in-depth history, with only a paragraph given over to powers/abilities. There’s too much detail in some sections, not enough details in others.
I should point out, I’m not saying I could do better… it’s a remarkably tough job. And I’m well aware that y’all have to deal with Marvel editorial restrictions, and to say I’m not in synch with Marvel editorial these days is kind of like saying that Venom kinda dislikes Spider-Man. So that’s definitely a big part of the disconnect, just wanting different things out of it.
I’m just saying that for my purposes, nobody has gotten it better than the OHOTMU Deluxe. I suspect that the missing ingredient is probably Mark Gruenwald, who had both an encyclopedic knowledge, a fan’s love *and* was a talented writer and editor as well.
08 Nov 2006 at 4:11 pm
Quote