Cochlea & Eustachia

Cochlea & Eustachia #1

by Hans Rickheit

Cochlea & Eustachia appear to be twin human girls, but this has yet to be confirmed. Their actions seem to be motivated less by curiosity than boredom and an inclination towards purposeless destruction. Any connate objective remains to be determined. They never stray apart from each other, out of an unspoken proclivity. Perhaps they keep together because they resemble each other; a mixture of vanity and comfort is the foundation of their constant companionship. They seem to consider any creature with dissimilar features as inept or untrustworthy. They are suspected of giving hypnotic suggestions to cats. They do not seem particularly malicious, just meddlesome. This new graphic novel from the author of the acclaimed Squirrel Machine is lighter in tone than his previous works, yet its myriad charms remain as sinister as Rickheit fans would expect.

Genres: Comics, Graphic Novels, Horror, Fantasy, Fiction, Graphic Novels Comics, Art

80 pages, Paperback

First published November 26, 2014

About the author

Hans Rickheit has been an artist and cartoonist for over 25 years with a devoted following of readers and fans. His comics and drawings have entertained and educated people worldwide, having been featured in publications such as THE STRANGER, KRAMER'S ERGOT, PROPER GANDER, PAPER RODEO, LEGAL ACTION COMICS, BLURRED VISIONS, HOAX and TYPHON. In addition, his work can be found in other media, from posters and TV shows to movies and art galleries.
Currently living in Hawley, Massachusetts, he is the man responsible for CHROME FETUS COMICS and the Xeric-Award Winning Graphic Novel, CHLOE (200?), with the latter being serialized online as you read this. Recent published works include THE SQUIRREL MACHINE (2009), and the newly released FOLLY (2012), both from Fantagraphics Books. Original, ongoing serialized projects include the comics ECTOPIARY--a six hundred page graphic novel in the making--and COCHLEA & EUSTACHIA, a story that Hans promises will be "completely unencumbered by tempo, character development, plot, or logic."

Reviews

[Sam Quixote · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first page: a small man with black hair, spectacles and a rolling pin for a head emerges from a cavity in a hollowed-out tapir wearing a ruff and blue blouse with a window in its side.

Puzzled? Reviled? Enticed? That first page is representative of the rest of Hans Rickheit’s Cochlea & Eustachia - one long nightmarish, surreal sequence bursting with bonkers imagery - and determines whether the reader is up for what it has to offer or not.

Cochlea & Eustachia are two scantily-clad young women in domino masks trying to escape the rolling-pin man’s bizarre gothic mansion surrounded by a sea of red bird skeletons. That’s about all I can figure as far as story goes. Seeing as the characters have hearing-related names in a dream setting, maybe they represent subconscious/repressed sexuality being heard/acknowledged by the author, trying to escape his “head” (the gothic mansion)? Really though I’m grasping at straws in trying to understand the subtext, if there is one; it’ll be a surreal dream story to most readers - any symbolic value was lost on me!

But if it’s just a dream story then perhaps that’s why the women are practically naked and why there’s a sense of menace and horror throughout: when we sleep we have multiple dreams and they blend together. So the author has a sexy dream which becomes a disturbing horror dream which becomes a tense escape dream and so on. It’s the style dictating the story.

While the narrative didn’t do much for me, I really liked Rickheit’s artwork. The blurb compares his style to Jason Lutes and Charles Burns which is accurate - if you’re not familiar with their work, it means clean lines and startling moments of body horror. There’s a lot of imagination in Rickheit’s creations and his strange house in the middle of nowhere is both a fascinating and unsettling place. The positive part of having an obscure story like this is the freedom it allows the artist to draw absolutely anything he wants and Rickheit takes full advantage of that here.

Because Cochlea & Eustachia’s story is so unfathomable, hard to follow and seemingly random, it’s hard for the reader to get truly invested in what’s unfolding but the art does a lot to make up for it. In the end it’s a bewildering comic but enchanting in its dark ambiguity and I feel it’s worth a look for the unique imagery over anything else. Fans of Jim Woodring will especially find plenty here to enjoy.

[Fabian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Do NOT let the art deco cover fool you. Yup, its an undeniable beaut that ALMOST becomes iconographic. No. This is one style-over-substance trashy ass mess. It wants to be horrific but is actually whimsical in a tasteless (never gonzo!) bad way. But, thank our lucky stars, it's short!!

[CS · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bullet Review:

There are so many pubescent naked @$$ shots, I'm pretty sure I hear police sirens. Seriously, how does this camisol work, conveniently exposing the booty yet somehow always covering the va-jay-jay?

This artist/author is completely beyond my capacity to understand. I need to figure out a way to pay my coworker back for loaning me this.

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 3 out of 5]

A kind of surreal dream/nightmare/hallucination featuring two girls named Cochlea and Eustachia who are half dressed, nubile. My friend Jan probably correctly identifies this as exploitation. They may not even actually be girls as they seem to replicate, are identical twins, seem to be able to regenerate parts. They are not benevolent creatures; they seem to revel in destruction. The domain of Woodring and Burns and probably Crumb, with architecture and technology thrown into the mix. A dark Jungian dream house of horrors, with some Chthulu imagery explored by two young spritely girl creatures.

A short, entitled "How it Works," follows the main story, and this comically does not help us understand what is going on, exactly, except to the extent that it lays out the kind of dream logic at work here.

[Serena · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am speechless and disturbed in the best way.

[Malum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alice in Wonderland meets H.P. Lovecraft. Don't read it for the plot (there is none), read it for the mind-bending art (which is actually really awesome).

[Hal Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Forget what they're saying about Joe Sacco's Bumf; this is the weirdest comic, with the most naked people in masks getting killed in the most bizarre ways. Sexy naked steampunk clones (?) skulk around a mad scientist’s bizarre Victorian mansion populated by a mechacyclops and animals with orifices in the wrong places. Hans Rickert’s clean line gives this book the look of a European album and a straightfaced realism that belies its surreal violence.

Seriously, Cochlea & Eustachia is twice is weird as Bumf, although, to be fair, Bumf has more naked people in masks, a statistic more objectively quantifiable.

[Mindy Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

two identical girls who sleep upsidedown in walls and use the toilet as a means to travel through the house spot a third girl who is going around causing trouble for the half human, half unknown animalthing mad scientist who is in charge of the bizarre horror show, guillermo del toro freakshow house they all live in, which results in two of the girls getting torn to shreds by the mad scientist's contraptions but don't worry because the third twin staples their bodyparts back together into a haphazard mess and they all escape. this was so fucking beautifully strange and icky and irrational and wonderful. it was perfect. i need more of this exact kind of shit in my life. 5/5

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's not really a plot and in fact none of the stuff that happened really made any sense. But you should treat this as an art book, and in that sense the art is pretty nice. Very intricate and surreal.

[Václav · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3 of 5 for something I'm a bit confused about)
Well, the back of the book didn't lie - Lutes, Burns and Woodring, those are the names I got in mind when reading this. At first - I love that art. Strong ink lines, details and neat colours. That's kind of my thing. But rest got me a bit confused. I accept this is a surreal thing and I loved the scenes, the absurdity of the surroundings. But the erotic sexual but asexual note was a bit against the grain for me and the lack of solid points in the story is always weird for me. If I can call it a story. This comic is not bad, it's good and interesting, but it's complicated with surreal things - I'm not excited about this comic even if I liked some aspect of it and I liked the "disturbed" feeling.

[Donald Armfield · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an odd graphic novel. I mean this in a good way, if it’s your type of thing.

[Simon Brilsby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can be read on my blog: Brilsby's Whims

By convention a review starts with a description of the plot’s setup. I hope you will forgive me if this sounds like the perverted dreams of a feverish addict. Cochlea and Eustachia, two identical girls of uncertain species, wearing only negligees and domino masks, explore the home (?) of a disturbed scientist (?) whose head is a sooty cotton bud. The girls explore the condemned manor, where bloodless viscera vines the walls. They witness another identical girl steal a book from a hairless borrower living in an owl statue. I won’t go on – not for fear of spoiling the story, just that I doubt I could describe it.

Rickheit’s story flows like a dream. Though not a nightmare. A nightmare terrifies. This dream possesses an internal logic, or rather a sensibility, that pushes the plot forward, inuring you to its unsettling insanity. Moments that should unsettle the reader, such as a gynaecological examination from David Lynch’s amygdala, seem natural. The backup story, ‘How It Works’, referring to the creative process, captures this dream style. It depicts the girls approaching Rickheit while he sleeps, opening his head, and laying an ungeziefer in his brain.

That’s the thing, the book seems a dream, and like a dream I’ve little idea what to say of it. I could comment on the Freudian imagery, the sexualised filles, the incomprehensible motives of the antagonist (?), the possible purpose of the not-quite-internal-organs dripping here and there, but that would suppose the images hold a deeper meaning. If all these images arise from a unifying thematic base, then I’ll call this a difficult work, a work I’ve not even begun to comprehend. But I will take the view that Rickheit intended only to craft an aesthetic experience, an alluring grotesquery designed to consume the reader.

Rickheit’s drawing style manages to have tonally disparate images gel. While the two leads look as if they’ve escaped from a soft-smut comic, the world feels conceived by a surrealist coming down from a high. These contrasting tones never jar the reader. They feel parts of the same whole. At times the cute and the unsettling overlap, as with the borrower I mentioned before.

The story-telling helps the reader accept the weirdness in the panels themselves. Panels progress as in a breezy adventure comic. Even without words the reader can grasp the narrative’s flow. That’s no exaggeration. A lot of the comic goes dialogue-less, leaving the reader to put together… whatever there is to put together. Even those spoken words give the reader, at most, a slight insight into the leads’ personalities.

Don’t enter this work expecting to plumb a deeper message. Plunge into its blood-treacle atmosphere, and swim through its uncanny world. And given this slim volume is the first print edition of an ongoing webcomic, those who enjoyed the ride know where to get on next.

[Andrea Mullarkey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Remember when I was reviewing Folly and I described Cochlea & Eustachia as lovely twins "whose adventures have as much mischief as the other characters’s stories but with more whimsy and less gore"? Yeah, I was totally right on the mark there. And here they have their own full-length story. It is indeed lovely and whimsical and mischievous. And I continue to have my mind blown by how odd Rickheit's work is. I don't even know how to talk about it. In fact, when describing it to one of my reliable graphic novel reading patrons I was left making sound effects and abstracted facial gestures because there are simply not words for how this book made me feel. It is a little bit disgusting. By which I mean to say that I felt disgusted by some of the images. I had to avert my eyes at times or even put down the book for periods while I regrouped. But it is such compelling stuff. I don't understand the relationships between the twins (and the third identical, unnamed being in this book!) or between them and the other characters in the book. It is obvious that there are power dynamics and histories and obligations and opportunities. But nothing is ever made clear. Which is probably one of the attractions for me. As is the art. It is meticulously detailed and fantastical while also still having some elements of repetition and natural themes. It is sort of steam-punky and gross and the tiny details are amazing. It is a black & white line-drawn comic but it is anything but simple and I just couldn't stop looking at it.

[Derek Royal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got this book back late last year when it first came out, but I'm just now getting around to reading it. These comics were originally published online, albeit in black and white, and now we have the initial Cochlea and Eustachian storyline in book form. I look forward to future installments, and the next book. These two unlikely young (and scantily clad) adventurers populate the kind of world you'd expect from Rickheit, surreal, imaginative, and highly detailed in its rendering. Outstanding art!

Another webcomic of Rickheit's worth checking out is Ectopiary, http://www.ectopiary.com. We will discuss that, in fact, for the June webcomics show.

[Sofia · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is for all the stuff on the website. Wish he'd experiment more with form, worm into the reader's mind therethrough, y'know? I prefer the stuff with the teddy-bear-headed dude, as much as I dig psychosexual grossness. Rather appropriately, Folly, I'd venture, is his best work to date.

[Adan · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a weird-ass book! It takes awhile to get the world's internal logic down, but when you do, the story very nearly makes sense.

[Pavel Pravda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Občas narazím na něco, co prostě musím mít, i když tuším, že to bude naprostá šílenost. Cochlea & Eustachia od Hanse Rickheita je přesně taková kniha. Cochlea a Eustachia jsou dvě zdánlivě obyčejné dívky v krátké noční košilce, dole bez, které se probudily v domě zasypaném mořem ptačích kostí. V domě plném bizarností, více či méně bezúčelných věcí a nebezpečných přístrojů se vydávají na průzkum. Tento komiks je téměř beze slov, dialogy jsou sporadické a krátké. Je naprosto zbytečné hledat v tom jakýkoliv smysl. Pokud něco má nějaký cíl, nebo smysl, tak pouze v rámci několika panelů. Naprostá šílenost, která může připomínat Mrakobití od Jima Woodringa. Ale víte co? Vizuálně je to podmanivé, a i když netušíte, která bije, tak je to zábavné. Tento komiks původně vznikl jako web comics a stále vznikají nové díly. Ona i ta kniha je v podstatě neukončená. Doufám, že i další díly vyjdou knižně. Já bych si je koupil.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

I should probably challenge the use of the young female form as a vehicle for the reader to travel through Rickheit's lusciously surreal world, but I think it still would have worked had he used a young male form. Despite their appearance, the "sisters" are not sexual beings, and are not likely even human. So while we are perhaps compelled to follow them from page to page, their bizarre surroundings end up drawing most of our attention.

[StrictlySequential · Rating 3 out of 5]

First printing = November 2014

It's just too difficult to "understand" anything that's going on. I know that's the point but I demand some sort of direction within what I read and this cloaks it too well- if it even exists.

I've read actual sex stuff posted online with this duo and liked it because at least it made sense in its ridiculousness so I thought this would be better when I finally got my hands on it.

But the art is magnificent and interesting.

[Benny · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nothing in this world breaks my heart more than trying to read a comic for the beautiful background illustrations only to find that the artist is clearly a total perv. WHY DO THESE YOUNG CHARACTERS HAVE BARE CHEEKS OUT IN EVERY SINGLE PANEL. GOD FORBID YOU MAKE AN ABSTRACT STEAMPUNK ART DECO GRAPHIC NOVEL WITHOUT OUTING YOURSELF AS A SEX OFFENDER

[Jen Hires · Rating 2 out of 5]

Strange. Very, very strange.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

I for one enjoyed the buttocks.. it's just not very good surrealism.

[Evie M · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

Any review on the substance of a work this surreal immediately unravels into superfluousness, though unfortunately maybe so does this rather well made work. A gorgeous and strange adventure through a dreamlike reality shackled just out of reach of brilliance by it's strange fascination with the low hanging fruit of fetishistic intrigue.

The scantily clad childlike protagonists and the deep fascination with their flatulence feels more like a grimy look into the author's psyche than an exploration of the surreal. It oddly ties the work to the heart of surrealism through a shared focus on femininity and depravity that the early proponents of the movement held dear, but a focus that decades of progress and the keen lens of hindsight have given a much less whimsical and more exploitative air.

Or, to put it less wanky:

It's a bloody good artsy surreal comic, but the constant near-sexualisation and objectification and scatalogical focus really drags the reader out of the whimsy of the world and often just makes you feel gross. Not in a fun artistic moment of boundary pushing that evokes self reflection and introspection, more like every second page you think "Is this this dude's fetish or is he trying to say something beyond that?".

The art is fantastic, the world is brilliant. But had our main characters not looked like semi-naked children masturbating, farting, and shitting a bunch, it'd be a 5. It doesn't feel pornographic, it just feels like a cheap way to say nothing.

[Володимир Кузнєцов · Rating 4 out of 5]

Цей мальопис - це водночас сюрералістичний тріп і доволі зв'язна та логічна історія, яка, утім, розвивається стрімко і непередбачувано. Дві дівчини близнючки (насправді не близнючки, не люди і навряд навіть живі істоти, і це ніц не спойлер) блука величезним будинком сповненим витворів настільки ж складних, наскільки й безумних. Хазяїном дому вочевидь є людина-землерійка, що пересувається у інвалідному візочку, "дівчата" ж пробралися в дім без його дозволу, від чого той ставить до них ворожо, їх же штовхає вперед цікавість. Одна гротескна та сюрна сцена змінює іншу, поки врешті героїні не тікають з садиби, що й стає завершенням історії.
Мальопис не стільки про сюєжет, скільки про фантасмагорію, гротеск та символізм. малюнок простуватий, але набір незвичайних та непередбачуваних деталей змушую ставитися до нього з увагою. Вочевидь, це не стане вашим коміксом місяця, але як несподіваний та сильний досвід він точно спрацює)

[Rick Ray · Rating 2 out of 5]

A surreal trip of a comic where two identical twins, Cochlea and Eustachia, scurry about in dream-like journeys while avoiding a wheelchair bound entity who toils about a shabby mansion. The girls move around in various degrees of undress, serving both to be titillating and perplexing. The narrative is pretty obscured around Rickheit's own interpretation of dream logic, which depending on the reader's ability to comprehend it, may determine how much they really enjoyed it. There is something reminiscent of Woodring's own Frank stories here, though obviously by my lower rating I'm indicating this to feel more like a pale shadow of that work. Rickheit's cartooning prowess is never in doubt though, with his sharp linework being seductive, quirky and funny all at once. But the lack of compelling narrative and rather unimaginative sequences made this a rather unfulfilling experience for me, and I'm someone who generally loves these kinds of surreal ventures.

[Sem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the strange and gross use of half-naked girls as protagonists (it really serves no point here), this story is hard to resist thanks to absolutely insane off-the-wall surrealism and a crisp art style. It wouldn't hurt to have the world make just a tad more sense but perhaps the magic of the book lies in how unexplained and joyfully offputting it is. Plus, a second volume seems to be coming out, which will hopefully expand the world a bit. (and tone down on the whole unnecessary nudity thing?)

[Sarah Wall · Rating 5 out of 5]

You know how when you have a crazy nightmare, and then when you wake up and start telling someone about it, you’re kind of disoriented still and your description comes out all weird to them as you kind of only remember parts of how the dream fit together within itself? This book is as if the author took that post nightmare fog feeling and made it into a book, so you can experience it whenever you want. I love it.

[LordSlaw · Rating 4 out of 5]

The artwork is gorgeous, the story is strange (in a very good way). Grotesque, surreal, eerie, sexy, funny, disturbing. Cochlea and Eustachia are fascinating characters. The panels are filled with confounding machines, mechanical, biological, and a mix of the two; intricate passageways; strange monsters and creatures; all sorts of oddities. It's a quick read, but I went back and pored over the panels a second and a third time. Cochlea & Eustachia is weirdness done right.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's just this kinda weird...kinda funny...kinda confusing...not sure what's really happening undertone running throughout the book.

Not sure what to make of it. But it was amusing nonetheless.

[Rick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

The weirdness of the world, and the beauty of the artwork are like a long stroll through a Heironymous Bosch painting, a kind of tumble through the Abandoned House of The Forgotten.