Now available at your nearest well-stocked newsstand, CRYPTIC MAGAZINE‘s cover proudly announces this “first amazing issue.” And I have to agree. Except for the “amazing” part.
Though generous in page count, Dead Dog Publishing’s CRYPTIC is amateurish in execution, sporting juvenile writing that reeks of first-draftism and design that tries its damndest to be unpleasant, if not outright unreadable. (Have you ever tried reading tiny red lettering in a medieval typeface on a black background in body copy? You’ll get your chance!) This “hey, we’re true horror fans, not pros” approach might be forgivable if CRYPTIC were a photocopied zine affixed with a single staple, but it’s a full-color glossy asking for your eight bucks. You’ve worked too hard for that money to give it up.
CRYPTIC’s selling point – and the one that swindled me – is its stated aim to emulate the late CREEPY and EERIE, dedicated to running original horror comics in a magazine format. The editor’s error-ridden letter claims “no one was publishing anything along the lines” of such, but readers of IDW’s excellent DOOMED – now in its second issue – know otherwise. The half-dozen comics here aren’t poorly drawn by any means, but they’re so deadly dull that there’s zero life in them. The one exception: a nearly wordless chain-reaction gore tale of Rube Goldbergian proportions, scripted by the all-too-generous Joe R. Lansdale.
The non-illustrated pages of CRYPTIC are far worse than any half-baked comic short. The book reviews are an eyesore (thanks to the aforementioned font fiasco), the profile of DAY OF THE DEAD‘s “Bub” says nothing and the “article” on CREEPSHOW 3 reads like an unedited press release. There’s a column called “Dr. Hall’s House of Forgotten Horrors,” which sounds promising, but its subject of NOSFERATU is hardly what any horror fan would consider “forgotten.” The cover-teased article on Dario Argento’s disturbing DEEP RED: THE HATCHET MURDERS is little more than a two-page plot summary.
It’s obvious the guys behind CRYPTIC are horror junkies, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the magazine format is not the ideal forum for them to exercise their love. When you pay $7.95 for a magazine, you expect a certain level of professionalism. It can’t be found in this, where the writing reads like 7th-grade journalism class assignments (with apologies to the word “journalism”), where not a paragraph goes by that isn’t in need of severe red-penciling, where the overall tone is so DIY that it’s off-putting. There’s a difference between typos and carelessness/ignorance; you already know into which category I feel CRYPTIC falls.
I really hate to be so harsh, but in this case, the criticism is well-deserved. As a horror fan myself, I want to support good horror magazines. CRYPTIC is craptic. –Rod Lott
Related posts:
- Comic fans are DOOMED in October
- Doomed
- RADAR sticks it to the Cruise
- EW tells history of WATCHMEN
- Daughters of the Dragon: Deadly Hands Special
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Awesome! At least you read the magazine, though. I will take any critique. Per my article, I did just as requested. I promoted the film in a positive way. Granted there are typo’s in the magazine that I promise weren’t supposed to be there, it’s a nice, first step forward.
I don’t ever mind getting ripped on a critique, either. In fact, I do the same thing for screenwriters worldwide. I’ve also optioned a few scripts and will film another very soon.
Much appreciation for the publicity, and we will strive to get better.
Duane P. Craig