I didn't know a lot about Charles Mingus yesterday. Today, after having read the graphic biography Mingus, I still don't know much about the pivotal 20th-century musician.

I have now read several of NBM's illustrated musician biographies, some of which were more successful than others. This is the first one in the series I'd say has utterly failed in its purpose. Granted, the book describes itself on the back cover as a "non-canonical biography," but a biography should still provide some information about the subject's life. Right? Or am I missing something here?

I have no doubt this book would make more sense to me if I knew more about Mingus's life already ... but that seems to defeat the primary purpose of a biography. I suppose I should have read some other, more informative biography first.

Mingus definitely has its fan base. Comics Review, for instance, wrote that the book is a "heartfelt paean of appreciation, channeling and exploring the hard, harsh tone of troubled times where talented, dogged souls fought for recognition and survival in a world determined to exploit and consume them." Library Bookwatch Reviews calls it "fascinating, informative, entertaining," while Library Journal describes it as an "impressionistic, interpretive biography" that is "visually dazzling."

I don't see it. I don't get it. Let's chalk this up to being outside of the target audience.