Gary Lactus’ Vault of Tymbus#12

September 21st, 2009

vot12

Wowzers!  We sure had a lot to talk about last time I visited Tymbus in my vault.  I’ve decided to give it to you in seven handy-dandy sections in the vain hope that it might make the whole experience less tedious.

vault-of-tymbus-12-1 (Fantastic Four # 570)

vault-of-tymbus-12-02 (Archie Comics # 600)

vault-of-tymbus-12-03 (Jack Kirby’s Captain Victory)

vault-of-tymbus-12-04 (Lion)

vault-of-tymbus-12-05 (Asterios Polyp)

vault-of-tymbus-12-06 (Blackest Night)

vault-of-tymbus-12-07 (2000AD # 1650)

Hmmm…  Mr Fantastic looks a bit chunky and wrong

fantastic-four-570-2

As does The Thing with his tiny head.

fantastic-four-570-1

Urgh.

archie

What’s going on?

captain-victory1

What is it?!

captain-victory2

HUH?!  WHAH?!

captain-victory3

Um…

captain-victory4

Ha ha ha (?)

goozlebobber

Classic British adventure from Lion.

te-spider

robot-archie

“I am a Brain-Man!”

gadgetman-and-gimmick-kid

phantom-viking

From 2000AD # 1650

006

Henry Flint gives good space!

016

4 Responses to “Gary Lactus’ Vault of Tymbus#12”

  1. Zom Says:

    With distance I’m starting to find Asterios Polyp more troublesome. The gender based dialectic described is a little obvious, and perhaps runs a little too close to an essentialist view of gender that I am very uncomfortable with for ethical and intellectual reasons. In short, I’m concerned that the book is very clever when it comes to form and narrative, but much, much weaker when it comes to the underlying ideas.

    Will need to reread.

  2. Gary Lactus Says:

    I took this essentialist view of gender to be Aterios’ viewpoint and not the book’s. I also need to re read but Tymbus has taken his copy back. Suppose I’ll have to buy my own. Boo!

  3. Zom Says:

    Yeah, I know that’s the counter argument.

    Like I said, a reread is necessary

  4. Tymbus Says:

    Wow I’m commenting on my self. The problem is as Gary pointed out, the story is narrated by a male figure. The narrator argues men divide the world in two and then argues that there are ways in which a) these two parts might interact and b) that actually dividing the world in two is flawed so c) male’s don’t only divide the world in two because a male envisages it otherwise. So where’s the issue? ( think I’ve got it right?)

Leave a Reply