REVIEW: Pardners

Story: Dale Lazarov
Art: Bo Revel
Publisher: Sticky Graphic Novels

Pardners is the latest release from indie publisher Sticky Graphic Novels. This silent issue lets the art lay the groundwork, but it will be up to readers to create their own dialogue for this story. This is basically gay comic porn. There isn’t much to the story. A flamboyant, cowboy country singer is strolling through town with his entourage and stumbles across a guitar shop. Upon entering he hits it off with the shop owner, ends up buying a guitar, drives back to the guy’s house and has sex with him for the rest of the issue.

As this is a silent issue the art really carries all the weight here. Artist Bo Revel uses a very cartoony(?) style that seems like it would appeal to a younger reader, which is an odd choice considering this book is super X rated. It’s comes off as a very strange mix and while I’m sure the creators were going for a specific look and feel to this book, it just didn’t register with me.

FINAL VERDICT: While this is not the genre of comics that I read, if this is your type of thing you might enjoy this story.  You can find more at www.stickygraphicnovels.com.

2 out of 5

11 Comments

  • Alan says:

    Hi Michael. I’m sorry you did not enjoy my review. You are correct. I do not understand gay erotica. However, the publishers sent us the book and requested the review. Comic Crusaders does not discriminate, and gives all publishers and comic genres the same opportunity. If one of your issues is with our understanding, that is valid concern. An alternative, and probably more effective path, would be to direct your concerns to where the publisher is sending their titles to. Your assumption that I hated the book before even opening it is just wrong. The truth is, regardless of the subject matter it was not a good comic in my opinion The lack of a scripted story had nothing to do with my opinion. I didn’t enjoy the art style, character design or panel layouts. I’m glad you enjoyed the book and although you didn’t enjoy the review, I thank you for reaching out and engaging us. Fight for what you like!

    • Not discriminating is NOT the same thing as being open as your reviewer proved here. Being open to subject matter means reviewing it with a cold eye. Your review implies the art style is meant for children. Perhaps your “non discriminatory” reviewer is completely unaware that implying gay content is meant to draw children to gay men is completely homophobic, but I doubt it. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing. Its not only discriminatory on its face, it implies that this book and in fact all gay erotica is meant for pedophiles or to recruit children to the beds of gay men. I find that disgusting, not to mention that the implication is completely untrue.
      Having read and enjoyed the book myself, I question if the reviewer was capable of looking at the imagery in an unbiased way, despite your protestations. It is moat assuredly NOT porn it is erotica. There is a relationship between two adult men, not an “entourage”. There are graphic and erotic images in the book. The fact that the reviewer keeps putting himself into the context of the book tells me he has no idea how to conduct a professional review of any kind.
      “It didn’t register with me”… The fact that the two MC’s meet, fall in lust, and then develop a relationship over the course of the book is completely missed by the reviewer. That doesn’t speak to an open mind or a true critique of the work. That coupled with a number of other questionable reviews on this site makes me wonder just how open you really are. You seem to have no issue with other kinds of sexuality, or the giant bosomed bimbos and over stuffed packages in straight comics. So, while you claim one thing in your response. Anyone with an eighth grade education can see just how unqualified your review really is.

    • Dale Lazarov says:

      FYI, Alan: I asked Al Mega “Hey, if you have someone on staff who likes gay erotic comics, I can send you review PDFs :)”

      If Mega had said “no,” I would have not submitted PARDNERS for review.

      • Al Mega says:

        And i said I’d assign someone to give it a chance, in the interest of fairness to this genre, going forward I will not accept such submissions until I find a team member that appreciates such books.

  • Ron Moule says:

    The reviewer ought to have merely explained he was not familiar with the genre, which in the case of sexual material really translated as disinterested or, heaven forbid, unsympathetic. If it were.my site, I would find another reviewer because, while it is enlightening to get reviewed by someone who is not immediately attracted to a range of works, they can often give insight on narrative or treatment.
    A review, however, can be more insidious. it can suggest that the drawing style is juvenile and that it may (be designed to attract) young people.
    What this does not recognise is the validity of graphic novels for men who were deprived of stories of romance, bravery and seduction for.and with theirnown ‘kind’.
    Please re-review it from anoher persective to the standard of your other reviews.

    • Al Mega says:

      I don’t resubmit to other reviewers to re-review, once I find a team member that enjoys this genre I’ll consider getting something else reviewed from this publisher.

  • Why is there not a dislike button? What a wasted review. How unprofessional can a review be? “Not my thing” should disqualified from reviewing. This opinion piece is not a review, its simply a hatchet piece from sime one who hated the book before he ever opened it. How pathetic can a review site be.

    • Al Mega says:

      Hi, First check your spelling, it’s “someone” not sime one, second EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion, the reviewer took a chance on a book like this and he didn’t feel it, however he does NOT bash the book! Third, you insult MY site over one review, goes to show who is truly pathetic!

      • Spelling is your response to a wholly unprofessional review? The reviewer says, its not his thing. The review should have been given to someone who understands gay erotica. Or someone who isn’t overly challenged by wordless comics and having to supply their own mental dialogue. This review is nothing but a cop out. I’ve read it a number of times and still can’t tell if the reviewer is put off by the crisp style. Or, if it’s the lack of words not telling him what to think that’s the bad thing, or if country music is the problem. The lack of clarity is an issue as must as the obvious disdain for the book itself.

        • Al Mega says:

          Have you seen/read the book? It’s a porn in comic format, this is NOT a typical “comic book” we’d review and gave it the benefit of the doubt and my reviewer stated what he got out of it, or didn’t. IF you have seen this book, then let us know here what you think of it, give it your own review, counter the reviewer, engage in communication, not bash the site over 1 review of a book you probably NEVER seen before! Keep in mind not EVERY comic book is for EVERYONE!

Leave a Reply

2560 More posts in Reviews category
Recommended for you
Review: Gumballs #3

Erin Nations’ anthology series titled Gumballs continues its poignant autobiographical exploration of life in this third...