I'd seen a previous work by this author, "Gast," highly recommended by several "best graphic novel" lists, but someone suggested I try "Foodboy" instead -- it was shorter and more concise, they said, and a better read. Having read this, however, I not only have to question the tastes of the person who recommended it, but whether I actually want to read "Gast" now. "Foodboy" is hailed as a masterpiece, but to me it was a confusing, badly drawn mess.
I'll be honest -- I wouldn't have understood the story had I not read the summary on the back of the book. It seems to be about a man sneaking food out to a friend of his who lives in the wilderness, but the plot is so bare-bones that I know nothing else about these characters. We're given no explanation as to who they are, what their bond is, or why the one has chosen to eschew society and live like a feral creature. I know not every story has to have everything explained, but how am I supposed to care about either of these characters or what happens to them if I know nothing about them? It doesn't help that a lot of the story seems to be told in flashbacks, and it's rarely made clear what's a flashback and what isn't.
The art style doesn't help matters either. I'm going to sound picky, but the art is awful, consisting almost entirely of rough pencil sketches with only rudimentary shading. I'm not expecting a masterpiece out of every graphic novel I read -- graphic novels such as "Maus" and "My Friend Dahmer" are powerful despite the shortcomings of the artwork -- but this art felt like a mess, more like it had been lifted out of a teenager's sketchbook than done by a professional comic artist. Perhaps this is the preferred style of underground comics? If so, it's not for me.
I can't understand why people, including the legendary Alan Moore, hail "Foodboy" as such a masterpiece -- it was a mess of bad artwork and barely-there story to me. And it makes me very hesitant to pick up "Gast" now.