It’s an interesting look, I am now curious if those type of comics existed. That pictures are creative a bit horrifying and sexual. It’s def they for mature artist of graphic novel readers. More pictures than story but interesting none the less

Thanks NetGalley and Fantagraphics for this arc!

2/5 stars

The covers are well drawn, I'll give this that much. But these were honestly too weird for me - and I love weird stuff! I'm glad it was just a collection of could have been comics and nothing real, otherwise I would have dnf'd this so fast hahaha 🤷🏼‍♀️

Charles Burns' art may sometimes be unsettling and weird (as in "weird fiction," the style of science fiction horror pioneered by HP Lovecraft) but it's always effectively presented, drawn and colored with obvious care and passion, and never boring.

A collection of covers for Comix that never existed. Twisted, fun, dark and at turns erotic.
An amazing artist, I wanted a bit more of a narrative from Burns, but it was still good.

Just ok for me. Collection of art comic book covers. Great art but no story. Maybe I had different expectations

Burns is a comics artist with an extensive backlist, a distinct style (my partner, who is also a comics artist, catching a glimpse of this book my shoulder: "Is that by Charles Burns? Is Fantagraphics the publisher? That looks like something they would do")—and a love of comics from the 50s and 60s. Here, he's created a collection of comic book covers, inspired by that era, for comics that never existed.

For the most part the covers fall under two categories: otherworldly (think tentacles, think fleshy pink blobs, think apocalyptic landscapes) and contemporary—though a contemporary world of fifty years ago, and with an emphasis on the ways in which the Western world is not a safe place for women. Some of the inspiration is clear, such as one character who repeats across a number of covers and would fit into Tintin's world without a blink. Several images—though one in particular—could be pulled from a vintage Archie, and I imagine that those better versed in comics of the era would be able to easily identify other sources of inspiration.

The ARC I read was all but textless, and in my ideal world the final version would have at least an introduction or some analysis at the end or something—not sure whether that's a possibility. In particular, I'd love a discussion of how much these covers are, or aren't, subverting expectation. I'm not an expert in comics (of the 50s and 60s, or at all), and I wasn't enthusiastic about how many of these images show half-naked women and promises of sexual violence; I'd have loved to see something talking about how these differ from older comics (other than perhaps making some of it more overt) and how much can be expected.

I wouldn't necessarily want to read most of the comics imagined behind these covers, but if you're a fan of Burns' style, you'll likely want to hang some of these on your wall.

Thanks to the author and publisher for providing a review copy through NetGalley.

In between the devotees on either side of the AI art debate, one set far too convinced by the supposed wonders of technology and the other by the equally implausible brilliance of humanity, there's the more sensible position which says yeah, the machines may not be anywhere near emulating true genius, but a lot of the pap that goes down well, they're pretty close to getting that. Is it any surprise that one of the big test cases in music was Drake, that whole swathes of the internet are clogged with robots pastiching Wes Anderson's pastiches of Wes Anderson? Similarly, in comics, while you could easily picture DC opting to give their 16th monthly Bat-book to an algorithm and not getting noticeably worse results, Comics Journal types should pause before hooting, because some of the auteurs are going to be just as easy for our new robot overlords to rip off. And I'm not even speaking here only of ones I don't like - though yes, maybe I am thinking a little of that Secret Invasion issue where Skrulls assigned to impersonate Hank Pym keep killing themselves instead, and applying it to programs which despite lacking any sense of self would rather self-destruct than keep churning out the work of Chris Ware. Charles Burns, though - I like Charles Burns, or I wouldn't have bothered grabbing this from Netgalley. The suburban body horror of Black Hole is one of the high points in the whole well-regarded-by-the-broadsheets, self-consciously arty end of the medium. This, though? I'm not saying it was done by AI, to be clear - just that it might as well have been. It's billed as 80 covers for comics that don't exist, and yes, to some extent that's always going to be a frustrating format, but I've seen other creators work wonders with it, hilarious or mind-boggling teases of concepts that probably couldn't exist as whole stories, but imagine if they did... Whereas this is just 80 Charles Burns stories that look like they'd be well within the regular Charles Burns parameters if Charles Burns could be bothered to fully Charles Burns them. Many feature a post-apocalyptic Tintin figure stumbling across distorted landscapes and weird, stunted figures; these are also among the ones that really dovetail with AI art by being titled in an alphabet that looks almost readable until you actually try. Elsewhere it is English, like Diary Secrets, where the romance comic lettering jars with an image in which the heroine regards a horrid phallic chrysalis that lies dribbling in the wilds. But apart from anything else, there's just not enough variety to make the concept feel worthwhile. One issue of Sex Decoy magazine ("GIRLS: NAKED, NEEDY AND NUMB") is a valid, bleak satirical stab, but what do we gain from three? Another repeat publication, Huss, has hints of strangeness on some images, but one is just a guy looking mildly concerned. The whole thing feels unnecessary, extruded arthouse comics content.

I received an ARC from NetGalley.

I'm not sure what I think about this. This is a collection of unmade comic book covers, so there's no story, just snapshots of weird situations. There is a lot of nudity, and when there isn't nudity, there are often nipples that can be seen through shirts or other phallic entities. I probably would have liked it more if I had previously been a fan of this artist.

Charles Burns trains his imagination by drawing 80 covers of vintage comics that never existed. If the drawing is impeccable (i.e. extremely polished, but also extremely inexpressive) the imagination... is conspicuous by its absence. Nothing here felt new or even remotely original to me.
The most interesting theme of the volume, which takes up about a third of it, is a grotesque parody of Tintin, full of huge flaccid penises waiting to squirt their juices (I don' need to say what the main hero's head looks like). Other themes: hidden abuse (adult hands on the faces of submissive teenagers) or highly visible abuse (a series with voyeuristic, tentacled aliens), victims revenge (a feminist vendetta with housewives holding alien sex organs cut off with kitchen knives) and so on.
OK only because the art is nice and some covers actually made me laugh.

Disclaimer: I received this book from NetGalley in exchange for a fair review. This didn't influence my opinion in any way.

A great collection of imaginary cothers for non-existent 80s comics. Now I want to read the books themselves! This is fine and fun art, giving ways to imagination, and making you guess - what story could hide behind a cover like this? What danger or passion lurks inside these non-existent pages?

Playful, engaging, and technically accomplished, these covers for comic books that never were, (or will be), capture the fun of the genre.