I am not attempting to start a pissing contest or a flame war by saying the following. I sincerely want to know what everyone finds so appealing about Garth Ennis and his comic Preacher in particular. There is such a legion of fans and the series has garnered such accolades that there must be something that the legions find laudable, but damned if I know what it is. I've given it a fair shot. I invested in all nine of the graphic novels and have plowed my way to the eighth one. I did like some parts of the Angelville arch and the War In The Sun, but overall, I have to force myself to read it like a high school student that is made to read Shakespeare. There is an underlying disdain for the audience in Ennis' work. It shows up in the cruel way he deals with his characters. I do enjoy a cynical, dark humor, but Ennis is just plain caustic. Must every character have a sexual perversion and be a hideous, over-exaggerated caricature? If Herr Star where the only example, that might be entertaining, but he is the rule not the exception. Every single character is a disgusting neo-Nazi, homicidal, sadomasochistic, mentally-deficient ingrate. Is this to make Jessie and Tulip's lesser sadism more palpable? This is obviously how the British Ennis sees Americans. And by taking the insults that Ennis is hurling at us, we become the Mexican that is sitting at the bar with is "friends" who torment him with bigoted jokes. Ennis feels sorry for us every once in a while and gives us a pity screw. Then after he's done he gives us a filthy schanchez and laughs at us again. For example, when he finally gives us a back story on Tulip, he creates a likeable, devoted father, and in a sophomoric writing cliché, he telegraphs his fate. We know that he is going to die, and in the first word balloon the character tells us how. His goal in life is to take his son to the top of some mountain on a hunting trek. Oohhh, how ironic it would be if he dies on that trek. That piece of hack writing I can forgive. It's really Tulip's story, and Ennis crafts an earnest, amiable father for our heroine. In Ennis fashion, he inexplicably gets his hand bit off by a shark. Is it necessary for every character to loose a limb, eye or face? The dismemberment joke was tired and unfunny by the time Herr Star had his leg eaten. What is completely unforgivable is that Ennis has a compulsion not to torture his characters, but to humiliate them. When he kills off the dad, he cannot just die, he has to die with his arse in the air while taking a dump. And of course the last time Tulip sees her father she is looking at his sphincter. The only reason I can see that he was given a prosthetic hook hand was for this visual "payoff". It is "funnier" to have a roll of toilet paper impaled on a hook rather than clutched in a hand. Is he trying to be funny? Shocking? Well he is neither. How poignant would the death of Bruce Wayne's parents have been if they had died with their bare asses in the air and turds hanging from their buttocks while Bruce knelt beside them? It'd not only be disrespectful to the characters, it'd show a wanton disrespect for the audience. It's juvenile and unnecessary. It'd be one thing if this example was the exception, but it is the rule. Every bad guy is a crude, overblown cartoon who delights in either golden showers, sodomizing livestock and fish, building and raping effigies made of raw meat, or a vulgar and gluttonous. Well I could pontificate on and on. I've been both succinct and verbose about why I don't like Preacher, and I would appreciate if you can return the favor with more than a one liner that amounts to "PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE PREACHER ARE TEH SUCK!!!" I could be missing something entirely.