I’m not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of Rodier making his book avaialble (which is an entirely separate matter); however, I do feel that you are unduly harsh in your criticism, and are not giving credit to him for the considerable achievement in being able to draw 62 pages of comic art to any
standard; I work part-time as a freelance graphic artist for a national newspaper, and I’d be hard-pressed to draw a page, in any style at any quality, let alone a further 61.
It reminds me of the criticism made to Isaac Asimov that, although he’d written (at that time) over 100 books, they were pretty bad (it was the critic who said this to him - I like Asimov…). His response was that he didn’t actually care, as – good or bad – it would still amount to an achievement: “Just try writing 100 bad
many panels were completely un-professional and lack the style that Hergé always created carefully through clever judgement and caution.
I’m not certain how you think the Rodier version was produced, but it was an “unprofessional” job in the strict sense of the word: I believe that Rodier was a boy of about sixteen, living in Canada, a complete amateur, when he started the work he did on his book.
Working in his spare time, as a hobby, he wrote and drew the entire book himself, with no assistance, a feat which Hergé hadn’t done since the early Forties.
After I saw Ischia on YouTube and in Google pictures, Rodier made very false depiction of that island; he even cannot draw the real taxis use there in the 1980's.
Probably because he didn’t have access to Google, YouTube or any of the modern sources you have available? He was drawing this pre-internet, so wouldn’t have had your luxury of a source of infinite research in your own home. Even if he had a good public library he could access, I’m not sure that a volume on the precise taxi cabs used in Ischia during the Eighties would have come to hand that easily.
He made them up out of his imagination… and why not? He certainly wasn’t in a position to visit…
How come the motorcycle Tintin uses can change length in seconds? The Mercedes interior and the depiction of roads and perspectives are awkward and dull.
How well were you drawing motor-cycles and Mercedes in your teens? How good is your perspective drawing, even now? I know mine isn’t great. What you are looking at is the result of someone working out how to do things, not who knew how to do these things after years of practice; even Hergé took time to work out the technicalities, and then further decades to refine his style.
Also bear in mind that Hergé often farmed out the technical pieces to other assistants on his team, who specialised in mechanical drawing (the drawing of mechanisms, that is, not drawing mechanically). Rodier didn’t have that luxury either.
And even the master wasn’t immune to charges of problem with scale
Look at Tintin and the Picaros… How gorgeous the panels and cars and scenery are
There I’d have to disagree with you: I find the quality of the drawing in Picaros
to be among the weaker, or at least, the less inspired
of the series, reflecting Hergé’s decliing interest as he grew older and less healthy. Again, it is
a major achievement, as it is the work of just Hergé and Bob de Moor, but compared to earlier books, the spark just isn’t there any more to my eyes.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that Bob de Moor did see Rodier’s version of Alph-Art
, and apparently did think of collaborating with Rodier, should he have been granted permission to complete the album as had been considered for a time after Hergé’s death.
I repeat, I think that the art in Rodier’s book isn’t
up to that of Hergé, the story doesn’t really work as he extended it, and I agree it gets very dull on Ischia, and positively plods in the last few pages.
But I’d be very unkind if I didn’t at least acknowledge that I’d not be any better able to think of an ending and also have to draw it myself.
To be truthful, I’m not sure that the story worked when Hergé was writing it either, and thus Rodier wasn’t building from the strongest of foundations.
I wouldn’t go out of my way to read it again, and don’t see it as a candidate for how Hergé might have finished the book (as Rodier had hoped), but I’d never say that it “destroys” anything of Hergé’s; the originals remain completely untouched and available.
I completely agreed with Skater95
But Skater95 thinks it was a generally good attempt, with problems, whereas you seem to think it has no redeeming features…?