R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis

Following The Wolverton Bible is R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis. Crumb states a number of things in the introduction, things helpful in foreshadowing what one can expect from the book. What I point to specifically are two instances:

"I, ironically, do not believe that the Bible is 'The Word of God.' I believe it is the words of men."
"I approached this as a straight illustration job, with no intention to ridicule or make visual jokes."

Just as Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men," his illustrated Genesis is the scribblings of a single man, a mundane and down-to-earth interpretation that, at the end of the day, I don't have much to say about. I managed to churn out a rant when given The Wolverton Bible, but Crumb's Genesis is altogether drab. I can leave this book in a corner to gather dust or toss it in the trash, as opposed to Wolverton's, where I would maybe cut out a few choice scenes to save then positively incinerate the rest of the book.

Crumb is conservative in his illustrations. And it's something he acknowledges. He doesn't see the Bible as something to mess around with and treats it so. I'm not familiar with his other work, but from what I can see in this book, Crumb's expressions aren't terribly expressive. He doesn't show a terrible lot of variety in his art; all of the supposedly attractive women are round and chunky with ugly wide lips, brows are constantly furrowed (and that's about as expressive as they get), and the panels almost never depict scenes with more than a handful of people (I think the battle in the Valley of Siddim was the one with the most, and that was only 1/6th of a page). There's more I can tick off, but Crumb falls into the same rut Wolverton did: repetition, staleness. It doesn't help that the constant lines of text make me feel that I'm actually reading the textual Genesis rather than something which is supposed to be illustrated.

Now let's do some comparing. Wolverton and Crumb. They're similar in that I'm not a fan of either. I think they're both ugly. Crumb does however seem to show a higher level of technical proficiency in his anatomy, even though his "attractive" women rarely are (When Adam and Eve were frolicking in the brush it took me a while to figure out who was who. This should never be the case with the first man and woman). Wolverton on the other hand shows a greater level of care in his cross-hatching. Crumb's shading at its worst looks lazy and careless. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It works for the details he puts on the logs making up Noah's Ark, it's absolutely brilliant for the fires raining down upon Sodom and Gomorrah, but it falls flat whenever he shades naked thighs. (Try and guess which sort of scenes show up more in this book.) His crosshatched flesh doesn't work in other situations, but the thighs are what get to me. In every sexual scene in the book, my eyes weren't taken by the actual sex (I'm sorry, Crumb's women are too ugly. His men are ugly too, but that wouldn't matter in any case.) but rather how the crosshatching on the thighs and flesh looked horrible.

Style aside, we can look at their depictions of the Bible. The Wolverton Bible was a compilation of his illustrations organized in a sort of logical way. It's not terribly successful, but at least Wolverton's illustrations try to tell stories individually, and he did take the time to do some more grandiose scenes (some of the better stuff in his book). Crumb's pictures are boring. He's letting the words do the talking, not the pictures themselves as much. In the end I feel that Crumb was rather too conservative in his depiction of Genesis, much as a child watching a documentary might suddenly stand up and say, "this is supposed to be about a war. Where are the explosions!?" I mean, I was bored. I'm surprised I even got through it. But I guess it's only fair after sludging through The Wolverton Bible.

The Wolverton Bible is a man trying to show the glory and wrath of his god and tripping a good amount of the time.
R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis is a man playing it safe. I'm reminded of an episode of Hell's Kitchen where Gordon Ramsay scolds a team (I think it was blue) for creating a menu that was too safe and not challenging enough. I don't recall which season it was.
Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men." This belief is reflected in his own delivery of the text, in both his depiction of God and of men. I would elaborate, but it's late.