I actually first read Everyman on election night, but by the time I got done reading it, the real world election results were interfering too much with my thoughts for me to really concentrate on a bit of speculative political fiction. My initial thoughts were that Everyman was wonderfully optimistic to the point of being a little naive, but that it had a message I could really get behind. Two weeks after the election, I find the notion that the American people would act the way they do in Everyman monumentally naive, but the unrealistic hope that the Brothers Goldman hold out is something I'd like to cling to. Everyman doesn't have the sophisticated dialogue or political savvy of The West Wing or the pop melodrama pacing of Eagle, but it does have some interesting ideas and some compelling characters. I find fault with the logic of the story, which is a pretty big sticking point, but I admire the writers for delving into a relatively untapped genre for their tale.
Everyman has a central premise that you have to buy into in order to accept it. That premise is that if you present yourself honestly to Americans as a good person, and if you really are a good person, you can topple a corrupt regime. This is, of course, patently ridiculous, especially in the wake of the election of 2004 (boy, I can feel the hate mail coming already). The Brothers Goldman have to really sell the reader on the notion that a black novelist and his white, liberal lobbyist girlfriend could win the highest office in the land, and to do so, they resort largely to snapshots of Americans reacting to the candidacy. Problem is, these Americans bear no resemblance to the ones that really exist. There are token nods to racism, political stubbornness and the entrenched power structure, but not enough time is really put in to convince the reader that these two could change things. If you are one of those who honestly believed Perot or Nader were going to sweep into the White House, you might buy into Everyman. If not, you'll probably find yourself rolling your eyes throughout the book.
So, the failure to sell this premise is a pretty crushing blow to the comic, right? Well, yes and no. Honestly, Everyman isn't an attempt at political manipulation, it's just a bit of wish-fulfilment, a comfort to believe that there is a world where idealism wins out over dirty politics, where new voices can be heard above the din of partisan politics. It's more pie in the sky than even the preachiest episode of The West Wing, but if you look at it more as science-fiction than something set in the modern day, it gets easier to swallow. And then you can focus in on what's really good about Everyman, which is the characters.
The Brothers Goldman have created some fascinating characters for this graphic novel. The writers could have done a better job of making them human, giving them flaws and doubts, rather than making them the paragons we're presented with, but there is absolutely truth to be found in the relationships they have with one another. In particular, the revelations surrounding Thomas Womack's father made for some interesting story moments, and I also really liked the friendship between Thomas and his ex-con friend Spence. Watching the plans of these characters come together, involving manipulation of the media on a level usually reserved for corporations, had a nice con job feel to it, but with a refreshing political angle.
The art on Everyman is by Joe Bucco, and it is pretty solid black and white work. The backgrounds tend to be a bit sporadic, but they mostly drop out so Bucco can emphasize the people on the panel, and given that the same emphasis is to be found in the script, that makes perfect sense. Bucco's characters look a little bit stiff and posed to some extent, but he does manage to convey lively emotions in their faces or in their physical reactions, and so the essential humanity of all the characters involved comes through as it needs to.
In short, Everyman is an ambitious project that didn't quite hit the mark for me. Pitted against the current political landscape, it looks too fictional, too implausible, making it somewhat hard to relate to. It's a diverting read for those who retain some element of political optimism, but it doesn't have the ring of truth that I look for in my political fiction like Ex Machina or The West Wing. 5/10
