Reading something like this collection of Emily Carroll's eerie original fairy-/ghost-stories, all strikingly designed and laid-out, I have to reflect a bit on how we categorize things. At least how larger publishers do. The DIY comics world that Carroll hails from (she's in an issue of Kus!, for instance) lacks obvious target audience identifiers, besides maybe "people who like new, inventive art and storytelling", whereas Simon and Schuster, in publishing comics without anything overtly adult about them, direct them through their teen sub-department. Or, I'd never considered Emily Carroll to be writing for teens (or specifically for adults), but now I think I can see it in, perhaps the kind of storybook or fable-like aspect of these. Am I just noticing this because of the publisher, or did Carroll adapt her voice to the designation? Or was this always a tangent of her work that she's intentionally sub-dividing this way? It makes me wonder, but regardless of how I arrived at the perception, I can't help but think that this is good, often great (that last longer story is especially unsettling, with art to effectively match), but it leaves me hoping for something with a little more development and depth, possibly even grit (not that depth needs grit -- I just want to see something that pushes further...) I'll probably find it in some future Dimensions or Happiness issue or off-shoot, who knows.