SOON TO BE A FEATURE FILM! This Hugo Award-winning graphic novel chronicles the fall from grace of a group of super-heroes plagued by all-too-human failings. Along the way, the concept of the super-hero is dissected as the heroes are stalked by an unknown assassin.
One of the most influential graphic novels of all time and a perennial bestseller, WATCHMEN has been studied on...moreSOON TO BE A FEATURE FILM! This Hugo Award-winning graphic novel chronicles the fall from grace of a group of super-heroes plagued by all-too-human failings. Along the way, the concept of the super-hero is dissected as the heroes are stalked by an unknown assassin.
One of the most influential graphic novels of all time and a perennial bestseller, WATCHMEN has been studied on college campuses across the nation and is considered a gateway title, leading readers to other graphic novels such as V FOR VENDETTA, BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and THE SANDMAN series.(less)
Hardcover, slipcase, 464 pages
Published
December 13th 2011
by DC Comics
(first published 1986)
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Aaron's been telling me for a long time that I should read a select few of his favorite comic books. And I haven't been avoiding them. But when I'm looking around the house for something to read, I forget to wander over to the comics section. So finally he just made a stack of books for me, and I started with Watchmen.
And within the first few pages I was testing his patience with questions/comments including:
"Why is Rorshach the hero when he's clearly insane?"...moreAaron's been telling me for a long time that I should read a select few of his favorite comic books. And I haven't been avoiding them. But when I'm looking around the house for something to read, I forget to wander over to the comics section. So finally he just made a stack of books for me, and I started with Watchmen.
And within the first few pages I was testing his patience with questions/comments including:
"Why is Rorshach the hero when he's clearly insane?"
"None of these people are very pleasant."
"Why doesn't Laurie shut up?"
"Seriously. When does Laurie shut up?"
"Are any of these people not crazy?"
"The Comedian is a stupid super-hero name."
"I'm not good at looking at the pictures for information."
"I like the text parts between the chapters."
He told me that if I wasn't enjoying it I should just stop (and he was probably thinking, "If she doesn't like whining, then why doesn't she shut up?"). But I said it wasn't that I wasn't enjoying it--well, I wasn't enjoying it, but I was appreciating it.
And that's my final verdict, I guess. I didn't enjoy it, exactly, because I don't think you're supposed to *enjoy* a story in which at least three-fifths of the characters are certifiably insane or at least significantly imbalanced and in which New York City becomes a body-choked charnel house.
But I did *appreciate* the signficance of the book, I think. I think I understand, at least academically if not viscerally, the sea change this must have represented in the tone and depth of comic books/graphic novels, and what a huge influence and touchstone this book must be.
But in terms of pure individual reaction? Well, it was kind of like when I finally saw The French Connection. There's all this build up about The French Connection and what a great car chase it has and how influential it was and how it marked the birth of a new type of movie anti-hero who inhabited a realistic moral grey zone, blah, blah, blah. And then when you finally see it, you've seen so many subsequent films that were influenced by it that the original seems old hat. Having seen Ronin, I was not blown away by the car chase in The French Connection. So, my reaction to Watchmen was colored by the fact that I have only been exposed to comic books in a post-Watchmen world. I didn't read comics when I was young. Everything I know about comics I've learned from Aaron Matthew Polk, and he's a huge Watchmen fan, so I had already absorbed the Watchmen worldview without ever having read the book.
Of course, it's good to have read it so I have a better chance of participating in or at least following along with comic geek conversations. Now I, too, can speculate on casting should a Watchmen movie ever get the green light, and I, too, can bemoan the eventual script's lack of fidelity to the source material, and I, too, can complain when they screw up the CGI on Doc Manhattan.
There should be some sort of merit badge that the girlfriends of geeks can earn--just like in the Girl Scouts, when you get a badge for selling a certain number of cookies, or the stickers and certificates earned by people who give a lot of blood, or the chips they give recovering alcoholics for a certain period of sobriety. I have earned my one comic book badge. It's like being a puny-colored belt of some kind in karate.
The point is, I appreciated the book, sort of in the same way that I might appreciate a text I was assigned to read for a class. I mean, I get Great Expectations, but I'm not going to read it again. (Who is crazier: Miss Havisham or Rorshach? Discuss.)(less)
Eric MesaYour review is a great example of the trope "Seinfeld is Unfunny". Because, as you mention, you've only seen the results of this revolution...moreYour review is a great example of the trope "Seinfeld is Unfunny". Because, as you mention, you've only seen the results of this revolution in comics, it's not as amazing. It's kinda how the previous generation sees Catcher in the Rye as groundbreaking. I see it as a whiny kid playing hooky.(less)
Apr 26, 2011 10:51am
I can understand why this is considered a holy tome in the field of graphic novels. The plot is complex, it’s unique, and it’s well drawn. Also, it’s got the Holy Grail of every geeky comic book fan's wetdreams – lots of cool gadgets and stuff.
I ain’t knocking that. Imagination abounds, and I am thoroughly impressed. I love that comic books and graphic novels create their entire world – but – BUT then again every piece of art creates it’s own world. And ALL OF THOSE OTHER ARTS M...moreI can understand why this is considered a holy tome in the field of graphic novels. The plot is complex, it’s unique, and it’s well drawn. Also, it’s got the Holy Grail of every geeky comic book fan's wetdreams – lots of cool gadgets and stuff.
I ain’t knocking that. Imagination abounds, and I am thoroughly impressed. I love that comic books and graphic novels create their entire world – but – BUT then again every piece of art creates it’s own world. And ALL OF THOSE OTHER ARTS MAKE EMOTIONALLY ENGAGING STORIES!
I get frustrated because my graphic-novel friends keep foisting these things on me. They love me, they see me as very imaginative and very supportive of their creativity, but they cannot seem to get why I go cold at graphic novels.
This one was thrust upon me, because I was affected by the movie The Dark Knight. I got emotionally engaged. I felt hopeless with Batman. I got a knot in my stomach when that horrible, unspeakable thing happened two-thirds of the way through the film. I was troubled by Joker’s logic, and I was frustrated with the people in the ferries. In other words, I WAS EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED!
A lot of these graphic novels and stuff seem to think that if they simply tickle your creative brain, they’ve succeeded. I want more – I want to laugh and cry and cheer and feel despair. I want a core of true human story. Gadgets and colors and costumes and superpowers don't make me weep or shout or ponder or giggle or sigh. Well, they make me sigh - with frustrationa nd boredom.
I know I sound angry at these things. I get frustrated, because I don’t think this is so hard to understand that I need emotional stimulation. And yet, my graphic-novel friends still press these books in my hand, hoping to unlock my wonder and amazement.
I was full of wonder and amazement at The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, a novel about a superhero and the super-human who spawned him. I am not above the magical, mystical, and fantastic (I love Harry Potter), but there has to be more than just gadgetry and explosions. There has to be honesty and the courage to plumb the human experience. I felt terribly at Kavalier’s struggles with violence and anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. Sam Clay’s secrets were heart-breaking. Kavalier’s search for revenge and Sam’s search for respect were emotionally engaging. In Harry Potter, I rallied behind Mrs. Weasley's maternal drive. I loved Harry's indignance at cruelty. I thought Hermione's concern for elves was sweet, and complicated (who know they wanted to be slaves). Chabon succeeded at making me feel, and so did Rowling. The Watchmen did not.
The Watchmen is about two generations of heroes. One was human – using costumes, strength, and cunning. The next was led bys a superhuman, Dr. Manhattan – they were both human and somewhat superhuman. Then a law was passed making their work illegal, and they went underground. It’s only when someone starts bumping off the old retired heroes that a mystery starts, a mystery that asks the esoteric and totally intellectual (read: unemotional) question of why humans can be drawn to the edge of doom, and what they need to do to stop just at the edge.
Oh - for the people who know and love The Watchmen - I felt bad for how Dr. Manhattan couldn’t have a human relationship. And I understood why Laurie got infuriated. The thrill of Laurie and Dan becoming superheroes again was honest and wonderful. But that was it – I didn’t feel the panic of the world ending (mostly because if it did happen, there’d be no story). I didn’t care for the casual use of rape as a plot point. None of the long-winded, theoretical discussion about whether humanity was worth saving had any emotional pull to me. I didn’t care. In all 413 pages, I had four honest emotional reactions. One of my reactions was anger at the tangential pirate story (don’t ask – it doesn’t have any emotional or thematic reason for being there – it was just added because someone thought it was cool).
Cool. There’s the problem. Cool things don’t make me feel. People can imagine and draw all the cool things in the world, and it won’t make me emotional engage. Cool things don’t make my heart race or break or pause. They leave me cold. Graphic novels are mostly cool.
(less)
Eric ChangYou keep mentioning gadgets. Watchmen was not about gadgets at all. Watchmen was first and foremost a deconstruction and critique on the superhero con...moreYou keep mentioning gadgets. Watchmen was not about gadgets at all. Watchmen was first and foremost a deconstruction and critique on the superhero concept. I'm not calling you dumb, but I think as a novice to comics, or rather, an outsider to superhero comics, a majority of the book went completely over your head. If you are not familiar with an art form, it's impossible to truly appreciate a seminal postmodern work on any level past superficial.
SchmackoWell, I bet you're right; it is a deconstruction and critique about superheroes, not things that interest me like personalities, plot, and character a...moreWell, I bet you're right; it is a deconstruction and critique about superheroes, not things that interest me like personalities, plot, and character arc. What you're describing, though, sounds more like a thesis or dissertation and not an engaging story. So you're probably right, in that I even found the deconstruction cold and machine-like. Thanks for your note.(less)
Feb 10, 2012 07:08am
Since the movie came out, I've found myself having to explain why Watchmen is important and interesting. Despite being the most revered comic book of all time, it never really entered the mainstream until the film. Now, people are rushing to read it in droves, but approaching Watchmen without an understanding of its history and influences means missing most of what makes it truly special.
The entire work is an exploration of the history and purpose of the superhero genre: how readers ...moreSince the movie came out, I've found myself having to explain why Watchmen is important and interesting. Despite being the most revered comic book of all time, it never really entered the mainstream until the film. Now, people are rushing to read it in droves, but approaching Watchmen without an understanding of its history and influences means missing most of what makes it truly special.
The entire work is an exploration of the history and purpose of the superhero genre: how readers connect to it, and what it means philosophically. Moore stretches from fond satire to outright subversion to minute allusion, encasing the once-simple genre in layers of meaning. Even as he refines and compresses the genre, he also constantly pushes its boundaries. Watchmen is unapologetic, unflinching, and most miraculous of all, freed from the shame which binds so many comics.
Moore never stoops to making an entirely sympathetic character. There is no real hero, and none of the characters represents Moore's own opinions. Superhero comics are almost always built around wholly sympathetic, admirable characters. They represent what people wish they were, and they do the things normal people wish they could do.
It is immediately gratifying escapism, which many people attach themselves to, especially the meek who lead tedious, unfulfilled lives. Many people also do the same thing with celebrities, idolizing them and patterning their own lives on the choices those famous people make. But in this modern age of reality TV and gossip media, we know that celebrities are not ideal people.
Indeed, their wealth and prominence often drives them mad. While everyone else views the world from the bottom up, they view it from the top down, and this skewed perspective wreaks havoc with their morality and sense of self. Moore's superheroes represent something even beyond this celebrity. Not only are they on the top of the heap, but they are physically different from other human beings. Their superiority is not just in their heads and pocketbooks, but in their genetics.
They are not meant to be sympathetic, they are meant to be human. They are as flawed and conflicted as any of us, and while we may sometimes agree with them, as often, we find them distant and unstable.
Many people have fingered Rorschach as the 'hero' of this tale, but that is as flawed as pinning Satan as the hero of 'Paradise Lost'. Following the classic fantasy of power, Rorschach inflicts his morality on the world around him. But, since he is not an ideal, but a flawed human, we recognize that his one-man fascist revolution is unjustified.
We all feel that we see the world clearly, and everyone around us is somehow confused and mistaken. Often, we cannot understand how others can possibly think they way they do. Sometimes, we try to communicate, but there is often an impassable barrier between two minds: no matter how much we talk or how pure our intentions, one will never be able to convince the other.
We all feel the temptation to act out--if only those disagreeable people were gone, the world would be a better place. While this justification may be enough for most comic writers, Moore realizes that the other guy thinks everything would be better if we were gone. Rorschach lashes out because his ideas are too 'out there' and he is too socially insecure to convince anyone that he is right. He is unwilling to question himself, and so becomes a force of his own violent affirmation.
Most who sympathize with him are like him: short-sighted and desperate, unable to communicate with or understand their fellow man. Many are unwilling even to try. Rorschach becomes a satire of the super hero code, which says that as long as you call someone evil, you are justified in blasting him to oblivion.
The other characters take on other aspects of violent morality, with varying levels of self-righteousness. Like the British government of the 1980's, which inspired Moore, or the American government of today, we can see that equating physical power with moral power is both flawed and dangerous. Subjugating others 'for their own good' is only a justification by leaders who feel entitled to take what they can by force.
The only character with the power to really change the world doesn't do so. His point of view is so drastically different from the common man that he sees that resolving such petty squabbles by force won't actually solve anything. It won't put people on the same page, and will only create more conflict and inequality. Dr. Manhattan sees man only as a tiny, nearly insignificant part of the vast complexity of the cosmos. Though he retains some of his humanity, his perspective is so remote that he sees little reason to interfere, any more than you or I would crush the ants of one colony to promote the other.
The ending presents another example of one man trying to enforce his moral solutions upon the entire world. Not only does this subvert the role of the super hero throughout comic book history, but reflects upon the political themes touched on throughout the book. Man is already under the subjugation of men--they may not be superhuman, but still hold the lives of countless billions in their hands. It is no coincidence that Moore shows us president Nixon, a compulsive liar and paranoid delusional who ran the most powerful country in the world as he saw fit.
Moore's strength as a writer, even more than creating flawed, human characters, is telling many different stories, which are really the same story, over and over. Each story then comments on the others, presenting many views in many ways. His plots are deceptively complex and layered, but flow one into the next with an effortlessness that marks Moore as a truly sophisticated writer.
Many readers probably read right across the top of this story, flowing smoothly from one moment to the next, and never even recognizing the bustling philosophical exploration that moves the whole thing along. The story-within-a-story 'The Black Freighter' winds itself through the whole of Watchmen, and for Moore, serves several purposes. Firstly, it is another subversion of comic book tropes. Moore is tapping into the history of the genre, when books about pirates, cowboys, spacemen, monsters, and teen love filled the racks next to the superhuman heroes.
But in the world of Watchmen, there are real superheroes, and they are difficult, flawed, politically motivated, and petty. So, superhero comics are unpopular in the Watchmen world, because there, superheroes are fraught with political and moral complexity. These are not the requisite parts of an escapist romp. We don't have comic books about our politicians, after all. We may have political satire, but that's hardly escapist fun.
So, instead they read about pirates. Beyond referencing the history of comics, 'The Black Freighter' works intertextually with Watchmen. The themes and events of one follow the other, and the transitions between them create a continuous exploration of ideas. Moore never breaks off his story, because even superficially unrelated scenes flow from one to the other, in a continuous, multilayered, self-referential narrative.
I continually stand in awe of Moore's ability to connect such disparate threads. Many comic authors since have tried to do the same, but from Morrison to Ellis to Ennis, they have shown that striking that right balance is one of the hardest things an author can do. Most of Moore's followers end up with an unpalatable mish-mash instead of a carefully prepared and seasoned dish.
Unlike most comic authors, Moore scripted the entire layout for the artist: every panel, background object, and action. Using this absolute control, Moore stretched the comic book medium for all it was worth, filling every panel with references, allusions, and details which pointed to the fullness and complexity of his world. Moore even creates meaning with structure, so that the size, shape, and configuration of panels tell much of the story for him.
One of the volumes is even mirrored, so that the first page is almost identical to the last, the second page to the second last, and so on. That most readers don't even notice this is even more remarkable. That means that Moore used an extremely stylized technique so well that it didn't interfere with the story at all.
But therein lies the difficulty: if a reader isn't looking for it, they will probably have no idea what makes this books so original and so remarkable. This especially true if they don't know the tropes Moore is subverting, or the allusive history he calls upon to contextualize his ideas.
While many readers enjoy the book purely on its artistic merit, the strength of the writing, and the well-paced plot, others disregard the work when they are unable to recognize what makes it revolutionary. One might as well try to read Paradise lost with no knowledge of the bible, or watching Family Guy without an understanding of 1980's pop culture.
It is not a perfect work, but there is no such thing. Moore's lead heroine is unremarkable, which Moore himself has lamented. He did not feel entirely comfortable writing women at that point in his career, and the character was forced on him by the higher ups. Luckily, she's not bad enough to ruin the work, and only stands out because she lacks the depth of his other characters.
His politics sometimes run to the anarchic, but often this is just a satire of violence and hubris. Moore gives no easy answers in his grand reimagining. His interlocking stories present many thoughts, and many points of view. In the end, it is up to the reader to decide for himself who was right or wrong, as if anyone truly could be.
Moore never insults the intelligence of his readers, and so creates a work with more depth than anyone is likely to plumb even after numerous readings. Likewise, he does not want you to 'hold on for the ride', but expects that you will engage and question and try to come to terms with his work, yourself. No one is necessarily the hero or villain, and many people find themselves cowed and unsure of such an ambiguous world, just as we do with the real world.
Watchmen is not instructional, nor is it simply a romp. This book, like all great books, is a journey that you and the author share. The work is meant to connect us to the real world, and not to let us escape from it. This is Moore's greatest subversion of the superhero genre, and does even more than Milton to "justify the ways of God to man", for many men delude themselves to godhood, yet even these gods cannot escape their fundamental humanity.(less)
Clara M.i completely agree, but i have to say that there are superhero comics in the watchmen universe. they are, however, just a fad and go out of print.
Aug 11, 2011 02:36am
KeelyAh, quite right, thanks for the correction.
Aug 11, 2011 07:38am
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I've been in many discussions over the years -- some in classes I was teaching, some over pints in the bar, and still others late at night with people I love -- about what Alan Moore was trying to say with Watchmen, discussions about the meaning of his graphic novel, and I am convinced that the meaning is not what most people think.
Most people I have talked to look at Veidt's mini-Armageddon to bring peace as inherently evil -- and the most monstrous act in a book of monstrous acts. ...moreI've been in many discussions over the years -- some in classes I was teaching, some over pints in the bar, and still others late at night with people I love -- about what Alan Moore was trying to say with Watchmen, discussions about the meaning of his graphic novel, and I am convinced that the meaning is not what most people think.
Most people I have talked to look at Veidt's mini-Armageddon to bring peace as inherently evil -- and the most monstrous act in a book of monstrous acts. Veidt's act trumps The Comedian's attempted rape of Silk Spectre and the murder of his child in the womb; it trumps Rorschach's punishment of the child killer, his torture of "innocent" informants, and the brutality he delivers unto anyone he happens to see committing a "crime," petty or otherwise; it trumps Dr. Manhattan's personal engagement in the Vietnam War; Veidt's action even seems to trump the not-so-petty criminal activities we see perpetrated by peripheral "criminals" throughout Watchmen.
On the surface, we tend to condemn Veidt's action because of its scale. It's cold and precise and sterile and necessarily takes the lives of "millions of innocent people." We have been indoctrinated from the youngest ages to hate this kind of killing more than any other. Our great monsters are Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, but we somehow find it in our hearts and minds to forgive Truman's nuclear attacks on Japan because they "saved millions of lives," as a young Walter Kovacs (aka Rorschach) writes in an essay about his absent father, defending Nuclear War and the Truman doctrine, albeit at an early age. And if we can forgive Truman's attack (I recognize that some people cannot forgive that attack, but many, many can), why not forgive Veidt? If we can forgive one, we must forgive the other. Sure Veidt killed more people, but he saved more too, and created a utopia out of the chaos.
This discrepancy in our accepted opinions is not lost on Alan Moore; in fact, it is at the core of Watchmen. We see it being played out in dialogue and action by characters from The Comedian to Rorschach, from Ozymandias to Dr. Manhattan, and even in the supporting folk who populate Moore's distopian future.
When faced with this discrepancy and pressed to discover why Veidt's actions continue to rile us, it doesn't take long to uncover a deeper root for our disdain: our need for individuality and Veidt's destruction of the freedom to make our own mistakes.
This realization of our anger at Veidt and why his action is "evil" quickly becomes the accepted meaning of Moore's story: that derailing humanity's ability to choose is the greatest wrong anyone can commit (the secular see this as a fundamental attack on our freedom, while the religious see this as our fundamental gift from God, but they tend to add anger at Veidt for playing God), and that Veidt's utopia will fail because the power of the individual is too great -- it always overcomes.
I disagree.
I don't think Moore considers Veidt's act evil so much as misguided. I am not convinced that Moore believes in good and evil at all. Throughout Watchmen we are led to see one man as the man who "gets it," and that figure is not Rorschach. Rorschach is a guide, nothing more. Rorschach acts as an Horatio figure, guiding us through the narrative, telling us what to pay attention to, whom to believe, what to see: mostly he is trying to get us to see The Comedian. If the story is anyone's it is The Comedian's. The Comedian is the man who gets it, and what the amoral Comedian gets is that morality is a construct designed to help us avoid despairing at what Moore believes is the truth: humanity is violent and base; it is ignoble; it is doomed to repeat and repeat and repeat its violence because that is what humanity does best -- violence -- and everything else is playacting. Thus, Veidt's mini-Armageddon is futile, not because of our noble individuality, not because of the strength of our human spirit, but because of the strength of our animal instincts. All those lives were wasted to create a utopia that simply couldn't be.
And Rorschach's journal, slipped through the door of the paper and ready to be printed, is the detonation cap.
Watchmen may be the most hopeless popular book printed in the last fifty years, and the most truthful. I am continually shocked by its popularity (even if only as a cult phenomenon), but then maybe it is only popular through a quirk of misunderstanding. Then again, it could be popular because people understand it better than they're willing to admit.(less)
JillThis review hits the nail on the head, I think. When you consider just the number of main characters who present a bleak existential outlook on life,...moreThis review hits the nail on the head, I think. When you consider just the number of main characters who present a bleak existential outlook on life, a message of basic human corruption becomes rather apparent.(less)
Jun 25, 2011 11:14pm
Graphic Novel. It's 1985. We won the Vietnam War. Nixon is still president. Someone is killing off costumed superheroes, and the world is on the brink of nuclear war. I wasn't expecting to like this book. What, I wondered, did a comic from the late eighties have to offer me, a hip and happening girl in the oughts? You can practically see the dots in the color! I'd checked it out from the library on the advice of friends, and I'd tried to read it once before, but gave up before I got even five pa...moreGraphic Novel. It's 1985. We won the Vietnam War. Nixon is still president. Someone is killing off costumed superheroes, and the world is on the brink of nuclear war. I wasn't expecting to like this book. What, I wondered, did a comic from the late eighties have to offer me, a hip and happening girl in the oughts? You can practically see the dots in the color! I'd checked it out from the library on the advice of friends, and I'd tried to read it once before, but gave up before I got even five pages in. I still had it, though, so I gave it another chance because it's supposed to have revolutionized the superhero genre and the cover promised me it was both brilliant and peerless. Well, it pretty much is.
The art's not memorable, but it does the job. It caries along a compelling, multi-layered story and never gets in the way. It actually has a lot of information in it, and I loved all the details, the ads for Nostalgia perfume and Meltdown candies, the ever changing face of Rorschach, the Gunga Diner elephant, the spraypainted and sometimes incomplete "Who watches the watchmen?" graffiti, the newspaper headlines, and the intercuts between the pirate comic and the superhero story. Things did get a little preachy while we were on Mars and Antarctica, but I forgive Moore because he delivers such engrossing prose pieces at the end of each chapter. The excerpts from magazines, scholarly journals, Hollis Mason's autobiography, and Veidt's personal papers were actually fun to read. I normally don't like large blocks of unillustrated text in graphic novels, but these complemented the story perfectly, giving us background we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
Five stars. Watchmen is a rich, clever, fully realized universe, and if you haven't read it, you really should. I hear it's peerless.(less)
FredIs this the same one as the movie coming out? Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded two ye...moreIs this the same one as the movie coming out? Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded two years ago by Fred Smilek along with his two best friends Charles and Jonathan. http://www.fredjsmilek.com(less)
Mar 09, 2009 02:58pm
PunkYep, the Watchmen movie is based on this book.
So, that blew my freaking mind. I actually feel sick to my stomach, and unable to come up with an intelligent review. I'm not sure I even want to bother.
Alan Moore hates people, but the alternatives are so much worse.
It's late, and I should be asleep, and Jack and Rexella Van Impe are muted on the tv quoting from the book of Daniel. Which is perfect. Moore owes something to Scorsese in this book, with all the endless intertwining of one event with another. So I type, an...moreSo, that blew my freaking mind. I actually feel sick to my stomach, and unable to come up with an intelligent review. I'm not sure I even want to bother.
Alan Moore hates people, but the alternatives are so much worse.
It's late, and I should be asleep, and Jack and Rexella Van Impe are muted on the tv quoting from the book of Daniel. Which is perfect. Moore owes something to Scorsese in this book, with all the endless intertwining of one event with another. So I type, and these late night tv maniacs go one about the end of the world (also, send them money) and I type, and maybe I should go put on a suit and kick someones ass?
A friend's ditsy sister once went to see a production of Hamlet, and complained afterward, "It was good an all, but so much of it was cliche" There's a little of that here. Watchman came first, and covered a lot of ground in things I'd read before, but of course it came first. Watchmen hits on a lot of the themes that I've seen in other musings about superheroes (such as Chabon's excellent novel): sex, Nietzsche, death, Antisemitism, nationalism, humanity, blah blah blah.
Moore lines up the human and the inhuman, the superhero with the antihero, and they annihilate each other in a sort of nuclear fusion. Boom. And you, dear reader, get to be totally complicit. There's something deliberately off-putting about his style, like gothic or horror. One conversation, one timeline is always overlapping another, and it's hard to keep them straight. But boy, when he lets you feel something for our characters, when you're clearly supposed to identify with someone, that's when you should look the hell out.
Dan and Laurie are our emotional entrance points into the plot, and I really feel the rush of them reclaiming their alter egos, acting out their nostalgia for a fading youth and a more Manichean time. Their ultimate "well, whatever" (I'm trying not to get into spoilers too much) is the "well, whatever" of growing up and putting away childish things, and it's the fucking worst. They visit Laurie's mom, with new yuppie haircuts, and show off how they got theirs and what's done is done, and never has childhood's end seemed so final and unredeemed.
Rorschach is the perpetual child in this reading: traumatized by adult sexuality, completely dualistic and with poor violence control. (Hey man, I love my kids, but they're total savages in their sticky little hearts.) I'm certainly not saying that Rorschach is somehow the hero or something, with his "never compromise" deal. No way. Faulknerian idiot man-child with enormous sexual issues? Not model behavior.
He's ultimately what Dan and Laurie annihilate when they make their choice and put on this disguise of suburban normalcy, and it makes a kind of sense. Rorschach's finger breaking and flattened affect are no way to go about a life. Dan and Laurie choose membership in society over solitary righteousness, and it's an icky, horrible, unflattering compromise. They walk off in the sunset, like the surviving couple at the end of a horror film, and symbolize the middle-class dream of domesticity and heterosexual ideal. God help us all. (less)
Curtis HemplerAs far as the ending of the movie goes, I thought it was okay, but it would have taken serious guts to leave the ending as it was written - it would h...moreAs far as the ending of the movie goes, I thought it was okay, but it would have taken serious guts to leave the ending as it was written - it would have been interesting to see!(less)
updated
Oct 18, 2010 05:10pm
I wanted to see a giant chthulu in the middle of NYC too. That would...moreHa! No, there was no thread hijack.
*ahem, spoilers*
I wanted to see a giant chthulu in the middle of NYC too. That would have been boss. Post-9/11 though, tricky, maybe impossible.(less)
Oct 19, 2010 08:05am
I realize that what I'm about to say is as close as you can get to comic book blasphemy, but I think that 1) Alan Moore is the most overrated comic book writer ever and 2) this graphic novel is overblown, pretentious and most unforgivable of all, boring.
To be fair, I'm somewhat of a snob when it comes to my reading habits. First and foremost, I want to be entertained. If the story happens to be deep, thought provoking or groundbreaking as well, that's icing on the cake. And the bo...moreI realize that what I'm about to say is as close as you can get to comic book blasphemy, but I think that 1) Alan Moore is the most overrated comic book writer ever and 2) this graphic novel is overblown, pretentious and most unforgivable of all, boring.
To be fair, I'm somewhat of a snob when it comes to my reading habits. First and foremost, I want to be entertained. If the story happens to be deep, thought provoking or groundbreaking as well, that's icing on the cake. And the bottom line is that this book simply did not entertain me. It was too busy trying to be Deep and Meaningful and Teach Us A Lesson to actually do anything as lowbrow as make compelling characters the reader can identify with and have them do interesting and entertaining things.
While I love characters who are sucky human beings in small doses, stories where damn near everyone sucks like this one get on my nerves. I don't like reading stories filled with a bunch of irredeemable emo asshats who do shitty things to each other (and to humanity in general), and where the the themes of the story are pounded into your face with the delicacy of a sledgehammer.
So clearly not my cup of tea, but I'm obviously in the minority on this one.(less)
LeahI think it's pretty amusing, and telling, that everyone disagreeing with and/or attacking Nicole is male.
Jan 18, 2012 08:35am
D.M.Well, Leah, realistically the superhero obsession is a primarily male one, so they're naturally the first to be defensive about it. But I guess that's...moreWell, Leah, realistically the superhero obsession is a primarily male one, so they're naturally the first to be defensive about it. But I guess that's what you mean by saying it's telling.(less)
Jan 18, 2012 08:58am
Who’s watching Watchmen? Everybody apparently. This book—or comic book, or graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it—has been picked apart endlessly in the 20 years since it was first published, every frame microscopically studied, its plot, characters, and symbols charted out no less elaborately than Ulysses’. Its fans, like fans of everything else, are intensely protective and argumentative. Reading a book like this now, for the first time, is likely to result less in actual criticism tha...moreWho’s watching Watchmen? Everybody apparently. This book—or comic book, or graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it—has been picked apart endlessly in the 20 years since it was first published, every frame microscopically studied, its plot, characters, and symbols charted out no less elaborately than Ulysses’. Its fans, like fans of everything else, are intensely protective and argumentative. Reading a book like this now, for the first time, is likely to result less in actual criticism than in intellectual alignment. What can be said has likely been said; the issue now is with whom do you agree.
So on the occasion of DC Comics’ Absolute Watchmen, a beautifully re-mastered anniversary edition with hard-to-find scripts from writer Alan Moore and sketches from artist Dave Gibbons, I’ll agree with everybody and nobody, the geeks and the eye-rollers both. You say I contradict myself? Very well then, but Watchmen contains multitudes: It’s big and important and brilliant and insufferable. It’s mythic; it’s gritty. It’s awesome and it’s dumb. In its pages are heroes, anti-heroes, and giant, blue-peckered superheroes. There are aliens, street-fighting lesbians, and pirates. There are ambiguously evil geniuses and average New Yorkers. When its violence isn’t intimate, it’s global. When the sex isn’t tender, it’s dirty. Watchmen’s story is part whodunit, part philosophical tract, its writing fierce and groundbreaking, pinched and pedantic. The art is always stiff and always utterly appropriate.
Watchmen is everything. At times it’s even boring.
(less)
Hmm, what to say. I read this AFTER I saw the movie, which was sacrilege according to some fellow geeks on Twitter, but my definition of "Geek" is someone who doesn't do what people PRESSURE them to do :P They love what they love. So anyhoo I read this and I can summarize this way:
The Movie did a great summary of the plot while formulating a story that missed the subtext of the graphic novel entirely.
I enjoyed both, but after reading the graphic novel, it's...moreHmm, what to say. I read this AFTER I saw the movie, which was sacrilege according to some fellow geeks on Twitter, but my definition of "Geek" is someone who doesn't do what people PRESSURE them to do :P They love what they love. So anyhoo I read this and I can summarize this way:
The Movie did a great summary of the plot while formulating a story that missed the subtext of the graphic novel entirely.
I enjoyed both, but after reading the graphic novel, it's almost sad how the impression you take away from the movie is nothing of what Alan Moore was trying to say about the world, society or these characters. So interesting. (less)
DerekTotally agree. I feel bad, really, for Alan. Every single movie based on his books has bastardized what he wrote. Sad really, since he's such a grea...moreTotally agree. I feel bad, really, for Alan. Every single movie based on his books has bastardized what he wrote. Sad really, since he's such a great author.(less)
Apr 17, 2009 02:24pm
Seth T Well I have to agree with you on two levels. Alan Moore said so much of import(Yet he is as dour,as genius and as totally insane as he's always been...more Well I have to agree with you on two levels. Alan Moore said so much of import(Yet he is as dour,as genius and as totally insane as he's always been-but I love him-and he writes like a champ!), they seemed to have a hard time relaying that into the film, "It's been called the one comic novel that could never be made."-as one person told me . However, I read the novel three times and saw the dl version, a live stream version and the movie release-finally, and I have to say, every version I watched or read had elements missing from on or the other. The movie was brilliant in the sense that they did bring to life an amazing cast of literally unplayable characters(Rorschach's Mask!)-I mean, the Comedian was much more of a bastard in the novel-yet, you got the exact same feel from the film. I must honestly, truly say, I liked all of it-and the movies and novel are both brilliant. Dr.M was the most amazing cgi I have seen in film. I truly felt for him. Thanx Felicia!(less)
Apr 18, 2009 10:36am
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Overall, these 2 quotes are the book in a nutshell:
Rorshack says in chapter 2, "Nothing is hopeless. Not while there's life." Extremely interesting considering the source.
Hollis Mason in his autobiography: "Real life is messy, inconsistent, and it's seldom when anything ever really gets resolved." So is this book!
One of the major themes is whether to act or be disengaged. A small subplot that demonstrates this is the story of Ma...moreOverall, these 2 quotes are the book in a nutshell:
Rorshack says in chapter 2, "Nothing is hopeless. Not while there's life." Extremely interesting considering the source.
Hollis Mason in his autobiography: "Real life is messy, inconsistent, and it's seldom when anything ever really gets resolved." So is this book!
One of the major themes is whether to act or be disengaged. A small subplot that demonstrates this is the story of Malcolm, Rorschach's prison psychiatrist, and his wife, Gloria. He gets so involved with his patients that he ruins his marriage and ends up in a deep despair (prompted by Rorschach's poisonous mentality). Yet at the end, in Chapter 11, when he sees a woman being assaulted in the street he cannot walk away, even though Gloria demands it on pain of losing her forever. She tells him on page 20, "Don't you dare get involved..." and he replies, "...I have to. In a world like this... I mean, it's all we can do, try to help each other. It's all that means anything..."
This reflects back to Rorschach's remembrance of Kitty Genovese's story and it's impact on his becoming a masked vigilante. I identified with this because it's a story I never forgot. We learned about it in school as kids, the story of the woman brutally raped and murdered while more than 30 of her neighbors watched or listened from the safety of their homes and did nothing, not even calling the police. I think of it every time I hear a disturbance outside of my house, wondering if this is the time I need to get involved, if it's just kids horsing around or a serious problem and what I should do.
The other major theme I identified is whether it is ever possible to do good by doing evil. Hiroshima (questionable), the final reveal in this book (clear-cut to me). And Guantanamo (also clear-cut to me). I have to reject the idea that anything good can ever come from acts of torture or devastation. I think what's happened in this country with the election of President Obama shows that there is hope for a positive path forward, that the use of fear and hatred as a motivation isn't the only option. Despair can be contagious, but so can hope.
But what about the basic concept of vigilante justice? Is it ever ok to break the law? Doesn't that encourage the dissolution of the basic compact of law that holds society together? Yet is it right to sit back and not act if you see something that needs to be done? Are there ways to work within the system to improve things? What happens when the system fails?
A picky detail that bothered me throughout the book was the weird bolding of words. It often didn't seem to be for emphasis or make sense.
The discussion of costume issues by Nite Owl was interesting - armor safety vs. flexibility, how to use a mask without getting caught, capes can be dangerous, too. I've always wondered how each superhero makes their costume, how many they have, how they get the blood out, etc. Not everyone has a mom back in Iowa who can sew! I liked that Nite Owl doesn't take it too seriously, understood that guys in costumes look silly.
Overall, a very complex, fascinating and enjoyable book that I would wholeheartedly recommend.
(less)
JillI read the bolding of words not so much as emphasis but for inflection. They were just the words that received more stress in a sentence.
Jun 25, 2011 11:41pm
Cathy I just don't remember it making much sense which were bold or not. Maybe I should have tried reading it out loud? I've decided that in general I'm not...moreI just don't remember it making much sense which were bold or not. Maybe I should have tried reading it out loud? I've decided that in general I'm not a graphic novel person, my mind just doesn't grasp the flow of it very well, both the text and images. I'm sure it's partly an acquired skill though. I still read one here and there when books I like get adapted, so I'm learning slowly. I like a lot of the darker stories that just can't be found in regular print, so I want to learn.(less)
Jun 25, 2011 11:57pm
Once upon a time I lent my first-edition of the Watchmen graphic novel to some friend of mine. I don't remember who. They still have it, I'm pretty sure. If you are that friend, please return my book because I've just seen the movie and now I'm ready to read the book again.
My friends and I were so damn obsessed when this series was first coming out. It was a monthly serial, of course, but the issues kept coming later and later. Fortunately there was so very much detail to obsess...moreOnce upon a time I lent my first-edition of the Watchmen graphic novel to some friend of mine. I don't remember who. They still have it, I'm pretty sure. If you are that friend, please return my book because I've just seen the movie and now I'm ready to read the book again.
My friends and I were so damn obsessed when this series was first coming out. It was a monthly serial, of course, but the issues kept coming later and later. Fortunately there was so very much detail to obsess over in every single issue. The symbols, the allusions, the fearful symmetry, the backstory, the subplots, etc, etc.
That experience -- having to wait a month for the next chapter of the book you're utterly consumed by -- is something I miss today. Certainly Dickens wrote that way, serialized as he was in the London newspapers. And I see attempts at serialization from time to time, in weekly entertainment magazines or online. But there's something juicier about a comic book, something easier to pick up in the middle and get excited about. Maybe it's the built-in expectation that there's been 300 past issues already, and 300 more to come, so you don't expect to understand everything right away. But also, each issue of Watchmen was a dense, beautiful read. Alan Moore is just brilliant.
It was interesting to see, in the film, just how much of Moore's dialogue works and doesn't work when actors have to say it. For the most part, it's genius. The whole section with Rorshach and the Big Figure in prison is filmed almost precisely word-for-word from what Moore wrote, and it absolutely kills. So hard-boiled!
I still suspect that there's a kind of person -- women, maybe? -- who just won't ever enjoy any superhero story, no matter how meta or decon or deep it may be. Yes, it's silly and juvenile and ultraviolent, even when it's self-conscious and critical of itself. But for graphic novel fans, Watchmen is the shit.
The only negative thing I could say about Watchmen is that it ruined comics for me. Or else I grew up. Probably both happened at the same time. Once something this interesting and deep entered my mental bookrack, Todd McFarlane started looking reeeeeeely stupid. I hoovered up all the Alan Moore I could find, as well as Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis and Frank Miller, and I did find some great stuff, yes, but in shorter and shorter supply. In comic shops I'd rifle through reams of guns, tits, explosions, talking animals and speed lines, looking for some really good writing. It's damn hard to find in comics. I eventually switched to 'zines.(less)
Jeffoh, and have you read any Morrison? If not, I have a small library of his work and you'll have to borrow some.
Mar 17, 2009 01:26pm
KristinLoved Watchmen (and I'm a 25 year old girl, married, teacher, not the target audience lol). I did, however, feel that in many ways the movie missed th...moreLoved Watchmen (and I'm a 25 year old girl, married, teacher, not the target audience lol). I did, however, feel that in many ways the movie missed the mark. The violence and gore in the book did not bother me and I am a big fan of other equally bloody movies (Sin City, 300, Kill Bill) but I just felt there was a message in the reading that was not conveyed in the movie. Maybe it is because I never read Sin City or 300 I was not bias, but even though I felt there were parts of the movie that were superbly done, the over all effect did not capture what I read and loved in the book.
Love your review by the way.(less)
Mar 10, 2010 07:18pm
The Watchmen is considered one of the most important comic books in history. The costumes are less spectacular, the origins more bleak, the heroes more despicable and/or self-loathing, the villains almost non-existent, the relationships more strained and the political overtones more blatant than were almost ever seen in mainstream comics before. Its effects were massive: it ushered in a new wave of "cool," where Superman and Spider-Man were lame, and everyone wanted murderous and self-...moreThe Watchmen is considered one of the most important comic books in history. The costumes are less spectacular, the origins more bleak, the heroes more despicable and/or self-loathing, the villains almost non-existent, the relationships more strained and the political overtones more blatant than were almost ever seen in mainstream comics before. Its effects were massive: it ushered in a new wave of "cool," where Superman and Spider-Man were lame, and everyone wanted murderous and self-destructive anti-heroes. This movement spawned approximately ten good characters and hundreds of thousands of pages of worthless crap, so I'm still not sure why it's considered a good thing, but it's certainly a landmark in the history of comic book writers who were so self-loathing they had to call their work "graphic novels." I found it simply painful to read back then and not worth owning today. Behind what has fast become the cliché of comics (and popular film in general) are some slivers of real humanity and possible redemption or at least love, which are vital. Yet new readers who pick this up today are going to wonder what was so important about a slow, long, drawn-out murder mystery surrounding sociopaths, rapists and killers who call themselves superheroes, yet who only care about each other when they die, in a dated dystopia that isn't even half as self-aware, cynical or meaningful as what's being pumped out today.(less)
DannyHey, that is what makes the book good and oringinal! The costumes and all that stuff. I have to disagree, but i know what you mean.
Jan 28, 2009 05:44pm
KaraI just saw the movie and it was completely awful, so if the graphic novel is anything like the movie I think I''ll pass. Thanks for your insightful re...moreI just saw the movie and it was completely awful, so if the graphic novel is anything like the movie I think I''ll pass. Thanks for your insightful review, it really made me question whether ir not I want to invest time into reading the book. Personally I thought all the characters were despicable and almost none of them had any redemptive qualities concerning why I should care. (At least from the movie version)(less)
Mar 09, 2009 10:48am
I just finished reading Watchmen by the very intense Alan Moore of V for Vendetta fame. I've been on a bit of a comic book/graphic novel kick recently after completing a whole host of non-fiction work for use in my Master's thesis. The Watchmen is one of those books that anyone who cares, or cared, about comic books and superheroes should read. Set in an alternate American time line, skewed by the existence of masked vigilantes (read: superheroes), Watchmen explores an America that wins the Viet...moreI just finished reading Watchmen by the very intense Alan Moore of V for Vendetta fame. I've been on a bit of a comic book/graphic novel kick recently after completing a whole host of non-fiction work for use in my Master's thesis. The Watchmen is one of those books that anyone who cares, or cared, about comic books and superheroes should read. Set in an alternate American time line, skewed by the existence of masked vigilantes (read: superheroes), Watchmen explores an America that wins the Vietnam War, never catches Nixon as a crook (in fact electing him to a third term), and then makes it illegal to be a superhero without doing so in service of the government.
Like Moore's other work, there are some very thinly veiled critics of the Reagan/Thatcher era. Moore visions a cowboy Americana were everyone is in it for themselves, notions of morality are arbitrary and strictly enforced, and the only officially recognized victims are those already in power. Moore exaggerates phenomenon to make a point about them the same way a satirist might. However, Moore seems instead is reading from the Orwell literary playbook here, warning of how this course of society could devolve. Like Orwell saw an inherent danger in Stalinism, Moore is warning of the dangers of the emerging framework of the Neo-Conservatives. Tough-love for the poor, welfare for the rich, jingoism, and fundamentalism are all part of Moore's world, then called Reaganism. Although Moore personally saw this through Thatcher, the basic reactionary quality was the same on both sides of the Atlantic.
This book touched my personally because it hit upon a discomfort, stemming from an initial fascination, with heroes. I spent many hours of my childhood loving Superman. Lex Luthor, by then a crooked businessman and not the crazed scientist of earlier years, was always the easy personification of evil. His occupation always reflected an area of society that created fear (mad scientists in the 60s, corporate vultures in the 80s, and now I hear politician). With Lex Luthor as the the ultimate evil, Superman by contrast became the ultimate good. The Christ metaphors were never lost on my as a child. The most recent movie did everything but use the phrase "my only begotten son" when describing Superman. And for a time the notion that all we needed was a hero was very comforting to me. However, as Moore would be quick to point out, that desire for a hero is easily exploited.
There are many people much more schooled in comics and superheroes than I that can tell you how much Watchmen changed the genre. I simply know that it did. Characters became more sophisticated and moral choices became less clear. But it is clear to me why this is such a landmark piece. Moore has that ability of all great writers to chastise and console in the same breath, on the same thought. He tells his readers that superheroes are pathetic refuge from reality, but then invites you to share in that fantasy. And for a time you are taken with this world, think maybe there could be a place for superheroes in our world. Then the end comes and you realize what kind of world our supposed heroes really want to bring us. (less)
I've heard nothing but unflinching hyperbolic praise for this book. I wonder if it's even possible for anything to live up to the kind of hype this has suffered. It's the only graphic novel/comic book to be included on Time Magazine's list of 100 greatest novels since the beginning of Time's publication. That's a lot of pressure - to be the sole symbol and representation and of an entire art form for a popular and wide audience. I mean, this thing needs to be devastatingly good.
F...moreI've heard nothing but unflinching hyperbolic praise for this book. I wonder if it's even possible for anything to live up to the kind of hype this has suffered. It's the only graphic novel/comic book to be included on Time Magazine's list of 100 greatest novels since the beginning of Time's publication. That's a lot of pressure - to be the sole symbol and representation and of an entire art form for a popular and wide audience. I mean, this thing needs to be devastatingly good.
Forget all that noise, and this is just a great book. "Best ever" - I'm not sure, but it definitely stands out as a milestone, and a sort of mile marker in superhero comics, along with Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns. 1985-86 is when comics got really dark, and really sinister and scary in a real life way that had never really been approached before. Sure Galactus had come around to eat the Earth and Doctor Doom, I'm sure had hatched some Armageddon schemes, and Darkseid had set out to control everybody's thoughts, but all of those doomsday scenarios were set at a safe distance from reality, all based on ridiculous, albeit compelling, contingencies. Furthermore, those stories always provided superheros you could rely on to save the day. The great myth-makers could never get away with letting the Silver Surfer or the Fantastic Four or Superman fail at their missions to save the world.
Moore's world of Watchmen is quite different. Superheros have seen their heyday decades ago, and the American public and government now sees these masked vigilantes as nothing more than criminals, head-cases not to be trusted. What's really grim, is the evils mankind faces in reality - corrupt governments, greedy corporations - are far more sinister than anything cooked up in a comic book. Moore deals brilliantly with these issues. Why do we trust those in charge? Why do we rely on other to protect us? Should we not protect ourselves instead?
Gibbons's art is wonderful. His use of very subdued, standard layout styles lets the story speaks for itself. There's no fancy splash pages to be found here, no overwrought action sequences, no onomatopoetic sounds, no motion lines. Gibbons uses symbolism and realistic rendering to create an atmosphere of grit and foreboding terror. I'm sure there's been papers written on his use of the smiley face throughout the book. I don't want to touch on any of the specific symbols here, but they're used in such a way that they never overshadow the plot, but are not so buried to become obscure.
I definitely wasn't let down by this book, but can't give it 5 stars. First of all, about half of the chapters in the book are diversions from the main thread of the story, giving insight and history to each of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't get rid of any of them, and honestly they are some of the best reading in the book - especially Rorschach's episodes - but therein may lie the problem. We are left with about 5 chapters that deal with the crisis at hand - the very fate of life on Earth. Most comic book stories can be dealt with in such a span, but Moore's story is too grand, too great to stop here. Or maybe that's a statement in itself. When it's too late, it's just too late. (Maybe Carole King should sing our Armageddon songs.) Any ending will come all too quickly.
Anyway, I'm willing to concede that this is probably one of the best superhero stories I've ever read - if it's actually a superhero story. It kind of destroys the whole notion of superheros, makes them irrelevant. I don't even want to get into the politics of this story. Too much, too much. (less)
I'm rereading Watchmen for the first time in about five years and have thus decided to start a petition to officially change its name to creamy goodness.
Seriously its one of those blessed rereadings where every twenty pages or so I come across a sequence and go "Yeah I remember this this part kicks ass this is my favorite part of the book." and then twenty pages later I repeat the phrase.
People always remember how important the book is. But I think we forget ju...moreI'm rereading Watchmen for the first time in about five years and have thus decided to start a petition to officially change its name to creamy goodness.
Seriously its one of those blessed rereadings where every twenty pages or so I come across a sequence and go "Yeah I remember this this part kicks ass this is my favorite part of the book." and then twenty pages later I repeat the phrase.
People always remember how important the book is. But I think we forget just how goddamned good it is.(less)
yes, my mother made that name up for me from my two grandmothers--i was unplanned, so she wished to make the old bats happy--no ser...moreN-O-R-A-N
yes, my mother made that name up for me from my two grandmothers--i was unplanned, so she wished to make the old bats happy--no seriously she wated to make them happy and i have adored my unique name my whole life! My daughter is named for my mother--virginia--I call her Vir. Nora and Annoinette a broad that drank and knitted and dear sweet polish grandmother from the old country--i loved them both greatly. I think Nora and your grandfather would had a nice chat over a few drinks. Colburn did on a train once with her once in the 70's! I heard they went toe to toe on the drinks and enjoyed themselves greatly. (less)
Jul 18, 2008 12:56pm
Noran Miss PumkinMr. Evil--i miss the comic reference of your video--so i was wondering if you explain it to me--I do not stay up-to-date as i would like to. Thank yo...moreMr. Evil--i miss the comic reference of your video--so i was wondering if you explain it to me--I do not stay up-to-date as i would like to. Thank you kindly!(less)
Jul 18, 2008 03:24pm
Watchmen is an overrated book, no question. I'm not exactly knowledgeable on the subject of comics and graphic novels, but as a work of fiction constantly hailed as one of the 'best books of the twentieth century', I'm pretty prepared to call bullshit. A lot of the nihilistic sections are cringe inducing, the plot is pretty messy, and, perhaps most gratingly, Rorshach's excessively bleak 'journal entries' are pretty derivative of Travis Bickle's narration in Taxi Driver. But I didn't read Watchm...moreWatchmen is an overrated book, no question. I'm not exactly knowledgeable on the subject of comics and graphic novels, but as a work of fiction constantly hailed as one of the 'best books of the twentieth century', I'm pretty prepared to call bullshit. A lot of the nihilistic sections are cringe inducing, the plot is pretty messy, and, perhaps most gratingly, Rorshach's excessively bleak 'journal entries' are pretty derivative of Travis Bickle's narration in Taxi Driver. But I didn't read Watchmen because it was going to cause a radical shift in the way I viewed the world, I read it because it looked like a badass comic book with a bit more depth than your run of the mill penny dreadful, and because it looked like a lot of fun. I wasn't disappointed. Everything about the book just radiates cool, from the big naked blue guy who can control matter with his mind and teleport to Mars to the shoddy artwork that just sorta gives it that little extra charm. And yeah, I'm sure there's better graphic novels out there, and that Watchmen's hype has been blown way the fuck out of proportion. But when a book is this entertaining, even on re-reading, I just can't bring myself to care. (less)
I was told and told and told again that I must read this as my introduction to the graphic novel genre. There were a few dissident voices for Sandman, but they were largely drowned out by the chorus for this piece. (Piece? Book doesn't feel right.)
It did take me a little bit to adjust myself to the storytelling method, but once I got into it, I was absolutely enthralled with it. I really loved about the first 3/4 of the plot- I loved the psychology of it all, and the nuanced, beautif...moreI was told and told and told again that I must read this as my introduction to the graphic novel genre. There were a few dissident voices for Sandman, but they were largely drowned out by the chorus for this piece. (Piece? Book doesn't feel right.)
It did take me a little bit to adjust myself to the storytelling method, but once I got into it, I was absolutely enthralled with it. I really loved about the first 3/4 of the plot- I loved the psychology of it all, and the nuanced, beautiful presentation of such, and just how visceral it was at times. It was everything it should have been and more. I think I would have been even more blown away by its ideas had I read this many years ago before I knew anything about the fantasy genre. But I know that this came first, and for that reason, I bow before its innovations. I still bow before its insightful method of presentation of the minds of these non-hero heroes and why they do the things that they do.
The only part I didn't like? Oddly, the part where the real action actually happens, the actual traditional comic book plot, the last 1/4. Maybe it was because I was much more fascinated by the character studies and the weaving of history into the stories of the characters. By the time I got to the last part, it felt like a let down for it to just fall back into genre. I also wrestled a bunch with at least part of the ending, but I'm sure that's what Alan Moore intended me to do.
I just feel like everything about this book has been said before, long before, and by people better qualified to talk about it than me, so really all I've got left to say is:
Everybody, you were right, and thank you. I'm very glad I read this.(less)
KellyBecause I have a paranoid belief that every single bookstore employee judges me based on the books I buy.
They do. Several of my friends wo...moreBecause I have a paranoid belief that every single bookstore employee judges me based on the books I buy.
They do. Several of my friends worked in bookstores, and have unequivocally informed me that this is the case. It's all they have to do during the day. (Well, that, and put absurdedly bad books in the "employee recommended" section.) Plus, I've had some bookstore employees be very upfront about the fact that they were judging me- like when they outright laughed at me for trying to hide my silly fantasy novels and/or trashy romance novels in between Important Literature in the pile of books I brought to the counter. I totally sympathize with your feelings, Madeline, in other words. The only reason I read it so close to the movie coming out is that a friend of mine owns it and so I was able to bypass the bookstore.
I will say that I think this book is worth a little embarrassment to read, though!
I mean you can't beat the sheriff of fabletown being the big bad wolf, who is doing everything he can to make up for eating the three litle pigs.
Reimagined and reappropriated fairy tales are always fun, of course! Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. :)
(less)
updated
Mar 04, 2009 08:07am
MadelineOnce I went to Borders and bought a dvd of Marie Antoinette (the Kirsten Dunst version), the sixteenth volume of a manga series, a bright blue python-...moreOnce I went to Borders and bought a dvd of Marie Antoinette (the Kirsten Dunst version), the sixteenth volume of a manga series, a bright blue python-skin journal, and a copy of Catch-22. The guy at the counter scans each of these items, picks up the book, and says to me, "Even money says this one's for school."
Set in 1985 in New York, the Cold War is still very much alive, Nixon is settling in for yet another term as President, and masked vigilantes are considerably passé. Since the costumed adventurers of the 30s and 40s called The Minutemen disbanded in the 50s, masked vigilantes became increasingly unpopular right up to the Keene Act of '77 which made it illegal. The only one who persists is Rorschach, and everyone knows he's not exactly mentally stable.
This second generation of retire...moreSet in 1985 in New York, the Cold War is still very much alive, Nixon is settling in for yet another term as President, and masked vigilantes are considerably passé. Since the costumed adventurers of the 30s and 40s called The Minutemen disbanded in the 50s, masked vigilantes became increasingly unpopular right up to the Keene Act of '77 which made it illegal. The only one who persists is Rorschach, and everyone knows he's not exactly mentally stable.
This second generation of retired crime fighters consists of Nite Owl (Daniel); the Silk Spectre (Laurie); who's boyfriend is Dr Manhattan (Jon), the only "real" Super-hero since a science lab accident turned him into a big, muscular blue genius who likes to stay naked and isn't at all ashamed of his unimpressive genitalia (yes, there is full-frontal male nudity of the blue variety); Rorschach, of course; Ozymandias (Adrian Veidt, the "smartest man in the world" who, since retirement, has turned himself into a marketable commodity); Captain Metropolis; and the Comedian, one of the original Minutemen who took a government job and is far from a barrel of laughs.
Now the Comedian is dead, and Rorschach thinks someone's out killing masked heroes. His warnings to his fellow, now ex, vigilantes falls on deaf ears: they all have their own problems to contend with. Laurie is fed up with being Jon's plaything - he lacks a "human" perspective now that he's a super-being - and hooks up with Daniel, who essentially needs to be in costume to get his rocks off.
Then someone tries to shoot Adrian, Rorschach is caught by the police, and Jon has teleported himself to Mars where he builds a crystal palace and contemplates the meaning of life and time. With Jon, America's not-so-secret weapon, out of the picture, the Soviets' attack on the U.S. becomes imminent and World War III is widely predicted. Frankly, it's a bit of a complicated mess - and no one notices the artist and writer and others missing, no one comes close to predicting the awful, gory destruction headed their way. Tick-tock, Time's. Running. Out.
Originally published in twelve individual comics, each ends with about four or more pages of "primary documents" in non-comic form: a section from Hollis' book; an interview with Adrian Veidt; psychiatrist reports on Rorschach; and so on. Some are interesting and fun to read, while others are incredibly dull and easily skipped. Those would be mostly for the die-hard fans to enjoy, as they do divulge - or support - even more about the characters than the story itself.
The cover doesn't make sense until you start reading it, and then you get one of those "Aaahhhh" moments, so I'll just tell you: it's a drop of blood on a smiley-face badge that one of the characters always wore. It pops up again at the very end, as a spot of tomato sauce (ketchup) on a guy's smiley-face t-shirt. There are quite a few parallels and neat little visuals like that throughout the novel.
It's not an easy book to read, despite being a graphic novel (less text to read). It jumps back and forth in time, even panel-to-panel, and you need to try to keep track of all the conversations and all the small details in the illustrations because everything's important! It made me quite dizzy at times. It's quite ingenious really, but that doesn't necessarily make it amazing. Clever, but not likeable. As is often the way.
My favourite character was Rorschach - complicated, twisted, scarred, violent, screwed-up, strangely honourable and determined. Chapter 6, "The Abyss Gazes Also", is his story, and as with all the chapters, the graphics and text interweave brilliantly to reveal more than is directly told. It's also the chapter where you get to see what he really looks like, what his real name is, his history, his motivations. Later, a minor character - a newspaper vendor - mentions that Rorschach was one of his customers, and I have to admit I'd lost that thread entirely and had to flip back. I'm like that with real people too though: change your clothes, your hairstyle, and I have trouble recognising you. I also had too many long gaps between readings of this book, which made it hard to remember all the details.
The graphics are very clever, full of symbolism and little revealing clues. There's an ongoing parallel story of a kid reading an old comic book about a pirate who's stranded on an island, makes a raft of all the dead bodies around him, is attacked by a shark and kills it, makes it back to his home and - well, I'll let you read it to see. The captions of this overlay the "real" story going on around the kid, who's sitting next to the newspaper vendor's stall, and when it shows the panels they're in that old pixelated style, with the washed-out colours made of tiny little dots.
There is a mystery here, one that you have to wade through all the background stories, side-plots, musings and messy violence to get to. The last two chapters are probably the most coherent and lineal. "Who Watches the Watchmen?" is the unofficial sub-title, and it's very fitting. There is a lot of gore, violence, an attempted rape (on Laurie's mother when she was the original Silk Spectre in The Minutemen), Jon's less-than-modest willy popping up here and there, murder and mayhem in the book. And some very daggy costumed vigilantes. They are a bit of a sad bunch, full of aspirations or dreams of glory but who look so ridiculous it's amazing they were ever taken seriously by the criminal underworld.
In a way, Watchmen is a tribute, a homage, to the old Superman et. al. comics of the early 20th century, but I can't be sure it isn't mocking them too. Or perhaps mocking us, for our superhero dreams and aspirations and wish-fulfilment fantasies.(less)
Maybe this is worth four stars. Or maybe even five stars, but only if I had read Watchmen when I was twelve years old. That doesn't mean that I had to be twelve to like it, but that would have been how old I would have been when these first came out. Instead of reading them then I was a pretty loyal Marvel fan at the time, and the little bit of money I had, which all went to buying comic books, was spent on the Marvel universe, with my forays into DC land coming a few years later when I reali...moreMaybe this is worth four stars. Or maybe even five stars, but only if I had read Watchmen when I was twelve years old. That doesn't mean that I had to be twelve to like it, but that would have been how old I would have been when these first came out. Instead of reading them then I was a pretty loyal Marvel fan at the time, and the little bit of money I had, which all went to buying comic books, was spent on the Marvel universe, with my forays into DC land coming a few years later when I realized that Batman was just as much fun to read as Daredevil. My main comic book obsession at the time when Watchmen would have come out was the already mentioned Daredevil, and more specifically the Frank Miller issues, which at the time I didn't realize were the work of one writer, but that's because I never bothered to care about who was writing it, I just knew that the comics from the early 80's were the best ones.
Moving to the present day I finally decided to read this because I was going to see the movie. I had never wanted to read Watchmen. I didn't care for the artwork too much, and frankly anything with the blurbs that came on the front and back covers that this has I know would have my critical sensors on full blast, and most likely I would be looking to not like it. On the plus side there is a lot in this graphic novel, it's really a quite intricate story with subplots and allusions and all kinds of ducking and weaving going on that make it dare I say a piece of literature. On the negative side all of the stuff about in depth psychology that is touted isn't really all that groundbreaking here, for proof I point to the Frank Miller run of Daredevil, especially the Elektra story arc, and to the sort of coming out concurrently with Watchmen Born Again story arc. I'll admit though that there is an intricacy missing to the Miller stories that are here in Moore's.
Should I even mention the movie? I have to say that I liked the movie just about as much as I liked the book. I thought there were failings, but I thought there were failings in the book. Most of what was silly in the movie came right out of the book, having finished the book the morning I saw the movie much of the dialog from the book was still fresh in my mind, and the for the most part the cringe worthy lines in the movie came right from the text. Was the movie kind of dull at times? Sure, but so is the book. Both are super hero stories devoid of much action. I thought it was faithful to the book, and I think that many people who disagree are probably long time fans of Moore, and have idolized the graphic novel into something more than it really is. I have a theory of Moore's fans that they love what he did at one point so much that they are now extremely negative towards any and all adaptations just because they don't want to realize the shortcomings in the original works. I personally don't really have much of an opinion on the man, I think that he's not a genius, and that there is something really flawed in a man who spends twenty years working on a project where famous little girl literary characters get fucked a lot. That to me seems like a worse artistic decision than anything the director did to Watchmen.
I'm still tempted to come up with a list of a hundred books written in English since 1923 that are better than Watchmen, but I really have some other things I should be doing so that will have to be put off indefinitely. (less)
karenno i liked (most of) the movie too. i dont get all the griping - the first half of the movie is very faithful to the book; the things that are silly i...moreno i liked (most of) the movie too. i dont get all the griping - the first half of the movie is very faithful to the book; the things that are silly in the movie are also silly in the book, and the ending, while different than the book, is better than a goddamned giant squid. its better than almost every other superhero/comic book movie except for recent vintage batmans. plus i have a rorschach-crush. i mean, there were flaws in the movie, but the book is flawed too. (less)
Mar 15, 2009 07:24am
AlfonsoJasmine wrote: "read the comic it's great. "
Yay, you was right that comic is great!!! And I didn’t have any dictionary crisis wh...moreJasmine wrote: "read the comic it's great. "
Yay, you was right that comic is great!!! And I didn’t have any dictionary crisis while reading it!! only one minor freak out =P but besides that I freaking love it!(less)
Mar 21, 2009 06:55am
I haven't read too many comic books (or graphic novels or whatever), and most of the ones I have read I haven't really enjoyed. I think it's because I lack a very basic skill, and I suspect that many literary types who disdain comics have the same problem - I suck at looking at pictures. My eye is drawn to the words and I completely ignore everything else. Well, any six-year-old will tell you that only a total moron would read a comic that way.
Anyway, repeated aggressive encourageme...moreI haven't read too many comic books (or graphic novels or whatever), and most of the ones I have read I haven't really enjoyed. I think it's because I lack a very basic skill, and I suspect that many literary types who disdain comics have the same problem - I suck at looking at pictures. My eye is drawn to the words and I completely ignore everything else. Well, any six-year-old will tell you that only a total moron would read a comic that way.
Anyway, repeated aggressive encouragement from a certain someone convinced me that despite my handicap, I should give this book a shot. And though there were a bunch of things I totally missed (as Anthony later helpfully pointed out), I really did make an effort to read the book the way you're supposed to. And it's so good! Dark, and smart, and suspenseful (some might say TOO mysterious...) and I fuckin loved the pirate thing. The plotting at the end was a little wacky, but at least you can't accuse Alan Moore of not going all the way. And the writing's good too, so even the graphically challenged can enjoy it (maybe that's why this book has received more recognition than others in literary circles). I'll probably always be a little slow with images (ffs, the cat puked on the floor this morning and it took me a full minute to comprehend that that's what I was looking at), but for books like "Watchmen" it's worthwhile to keep trying. (less)
I'm seriously tempted to give spoilers here, as the book was utterly mind-blowing (GAH! Rorschach! GAH!), and there were some serious twists in the book that, while I can't say I didn't see them coming, still really affected me strongly.
This is not a comic book for those who want their superheroes infallible icons of Americana. This is a graphic novel in every sense of the phrase. The violence is graphic, but not gratuitously so. It is there for impact upon the reader, and it wo...moreI'm seriously tempted to give spoilers here, as the book was utterly mind-blowing (GAH! Rorschach! GAH!), and there were some serious twists in the book that, while I can't say I didn't see them coming, still really affected me strongly.
This is not a comic book for those who want their superheroes infallible icons of Americana. This is a graphic novel in every sense of the phrase. The violence is graphic, but not gratuitously so. It is there for impact upon the reader, and it works. There is nudity and sex, but again, never gratuitous. This novel showcases the sort of "behind the scenes" stuff that was never really shown in all the golden and silver age comic books. You almost know reading those old books that there's a seedier underside to the comic world that's only ever hinted at in most older books. Watchmen lifts up the sewer lid and shoves you down the hole to see just how deep the crap can pile up down there.
If I have one complaint about this book it's that I figured out all the twists and turns way too early. But I am an English teacher, after all, and I'm sort of trained to note foreshadowing and whatnot.
Fantastic writing. Art is kind of old school, but still good. The only thing there that consistently bugged me was the original Silk Spectre's hairdo. *shudder*(less)
I'm prepared to get pelted with rotten vegetables and bricks and all manner of nasty things, but....Watchmen didn't really do anything for me. In fact, I was so "meh" about it that I had to go do some research in order to see if I could figure out just why, exactly, it's so acclaimed.
I found a very interesting thesis someone had written (if anyone would like to read it, comment and I'll try to find it again), which gave me some nice historical background on the history of ...moreI'm prepared to get pelted with rotten vegetables and bricks and all manner of nasty things, but....Watchmen didn't really do anything for me. In fact, I was so "meh" about it that I had to go do some research in order to see if I could figure out just why, exactly, it's so acclaimed.
I found a very interesting thesis someone had written (if anyone would like to read it, comment and I'll try to find it again), which gave me some nice historical background on the history of comics in general and the evolution of superhero comics, and it did indeed explain to me why Watchmen would have rocked the comics industry's boat when it was first published, why people would have been in awe over the idea that superheroes aren't necessarily upstanding and perfect and admirable, and that comics could be a medium to tell a complex story.
However - I've never really been a superhero girl. Christopher Reeves Superman and Adam West Batman was about as into it as I got until the recent trend of superhero movies. 60s Batman was just for the camp, even as a kid, and Superman has always been far too Big Blue Boy Scout to really be interesting to me. The only comics I've ever read with any regularity until recently are Elfquest, Sandman, and Preacher.
What this means in relation to my reaction is that I've never had a preconcieved idea of what superheroes or comics are "supposed" to be. Watchmen didn't fly in the face of my dearly-held beliefs that superheroes are "supposed" to be better than "normal" people, more moral and capable and, well, heroic, because I didn't have those beliefs to be challenged. It didn't change my idea of what comics are "supposed" to be, because I've never considered comics incapable of complexity or moral ambiguity or sophistication. I've never thought comics are "just for kids".
I do understand, intellectually, that Sandman and Preacher quite possibly would not exist except for the success of Watchmen. However, since my experience was formed by reading comics that came afterWatchmen, and I sought out the not-exactly-mainstream variety of comics, Watchmen was pretty much what I expect from comics, and in no way unusual.
Like I said, I can appreciate, historically, why it was unusual at the time. It's just not unusual in my experience, and therefore, I found it more or less average.
Also, sorry, I find the art dreadful and the resolution far, far too manufactured, and an unwieldly info-dump besides.
(less)
“Who watches the Watchmen?” is the question from the Roman poet, Juvenal, about who has authority over those in authority. Now, who reads the graphic novel Watchmen by writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons and colorist John Higgins is an entirely different and far simpler question. The answer: Comic book nerds.
A graphic novel is a comic, although it has differences in length and complexity of storyline (akin more to a literary novel than an episodic piece) and is often aimed at mat...more“Who watches the Watchmen?” is the question from the Roman poet, Juvenal, about who has authority over those in authority. Now, who reads the graphic novel Watchmen by writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons and colorist John Higgins is an entirely different and far simpler question. The answer: Comic book nerds.
A graphic novel is a comic, although it has differences in length and complexity of storyline (akin more to a literary novel than an episodic piece) and is often aimed at mature audiences. Watchmen came out in twelve issues, starting in 1986. Self-contained, the characters don’t appear anywhere else, so it’s an origin story and a concluding piece all in one. Set in an alternate history where the Nixon is still President (now in his fourth term) and the U.S. is close to nuclear war with the Soviet Union, it is clear that Watchmen has a political bend. This works well, however, as it’s more about the abuse of power than the any political viewpoint. There are no real superheroes—save one, Doctor Manhattan, a man who was caught in a nuclear explosion and is now a blue being existing outside of time and human confines—but the graphic novel does a good job of probing into the psyche of what makes someone want to go out and fight crime. Some are mentally imbalanced, others feel forced into the work by a hero parent, but all the characters have issues to one degree or another. In the initial pages, the heroes are dealing with the murder of one of their own. The crazed vigilante Rorschach—my favorite next to the Comedian, a nihilistic cynic whose very presence mocks the notion of a hero—becomes convinced there is a greater plot to eliminate masked heroes.
One of the fascinating things about Watchmen is that it dissects the necessary parts of a superhero into differing characters. Generally speaking, in the old comic book days, superheroes were powerful, moral and pristine in temperament. They were all of the above. In Watchmen, the characters who are powerful aren’t necessarily moral (and vice versa), so even if someone can save the world, doesn’t mean they care to. Some have radical political views (bordering on Nazism); others are contracted to work by the government. Alan Moore’s writing does a great job of analyzing the impact of having a group of masked heroes in society, how the average person would respond. Also, since this is a review of a comic, I must comment on the art style. Dave Gibbons style is simple, but effective. Usually, the story is told in a nine panel format (three by three per page), but when Gibbons deviates, it’s well done. The full page panels of issue twelve hit with great impact. Additionally, the colorist, John Higgins, does a good job of echoing the darkening tone of the piece as the colors literally fade down as the graphic novel draws on.
Unfortunately, Watchmen makes the bold assumption that you know comic books and have bought into all its tenets. No wonder comic book nerds were blown away by how Watchmen twisted the genre (as is evidenced by its rippling influence and the fact that its sales allowed the publisher DC to overtake rival Marvel for a brief period of time). If you’re not a comic book nerd though, you didn’t buy in anyway, so many of the deviations just seem to make sense. Of course people are flawed… even heroes. Despite all the bad conventions Watchmen deviates away from, it still gets snared by dreadful monologues. It becomes clear they didn’t have enough material for twelve issues. As a result, much supplemental material is thrown in. Sometimes this works well, as is the case with minor character storylines (the doctor who changes his life after interviewing one of the heroes is my favorite) and fictional written works at the back of each issue add to the series’ backstory. Then there’s the comic within the comic—the commentary within the commentary—that one of the minor characters is reading. It only works about 15% of the time, and the rest of the time, well, the eye starts skipping. Despite the flaws, the three artists created a seminal piece for the comic book medium that is still a fairly good read today. Three stars.
Colin MillerSo, who reviews the reviewers? Just kidding.
There's actually a lot to comment on with Watchmen; I think that's why it's so loved--because ...moreSo, who reviews the reviewers? Just kidding.
There's actually a lot to comment on with Watchmen; I think that's why it's so loved--because it sparks many debates. And no, I don't think they'll be able to pull off the movie. Writer Alan Moore doesn't think so either, but I'm convinced that he turns on everyone on a long enough timeline.
The ending (still spoiler free, people) raises many questions since our reality has made a different statement, but it's still a well-written ending.
One of things that does bug me though, is that there's actually nothing wrong with the superhero. There are people in our society who are good looking, smart, successful, seemingly all of the above when it comes to good aspects. Why dump on that? Jealousy, I imagine. So why dump on superheroes, tearing them all the way down so that they can't be all of the above? I'd ask Alan Moore, but like I said, on a long enough timeline, he'll turn on everyone.
I still like Doctor Manhattan's storyline though, even if the origin issue was far too long. I like that he's so knowledgeable that that it made him emotionally impotent.
As for all the awards Watchmen has received... meh, OK. (less)
updated
Feb 25, 2009 03:35am
Nicholas KarpukI think what always annoyed me about "The Watchmen", even though it's a good book, is the presumptions you mention about how the reader is a...moreI think what always annoyed me about "The Watchmen", even though it's a good book, is the presumptions you mention about how the reader is already on board with super heroics and shouldn't bat an eye at the fact that these people put on costumes and commit daring acts.
Some of the super heroes in The Watchmen are kind of ludicrous, and Moore acts like that's just how things are.
I've been reading super hero stories since I was a little kid, and I still like it when the author gives a good explanation for why this person would do something as deviant as become a costumed vigilante. I still need to be sold on the idea after all these years.
The trouble with superhero deconstruction is that it took a lot of the wonder out of the archetype. Frank Miller himself pointed out that it should be amazing that people can fly, but it's treated as such an ordinary activity in most superhero stories.
At this point it's actually more refreshing to see stories like Jeff Smith's "Shazam", or Robert Kirkman's "Invincible", stories that actually seem interested in the child-like wonder these stories can invoke.(less)
updated
Feb 25, 2009 03:35am
MandapantsI appreciate that "The Watchmen" raised questions regarding the genre- you almost can't go back to a place of innocence regarding super hero...moreI appreciate that "The Watchmen" raised questions regarding the genre- you almost can't go back to a place of innocence regarding super heroes without acknowledging the vast adult issues the genre raises first. You've got to hang the blank canvas on the wall and call it a painting first before critics can say, "is it really, or are you just a dipstick?" It's almost like Moore gave the industry a license to say, "phew, now that THAT'S out of the way..." Of course, the phrase after the ellipses in nerddom is more often than not "I will attempt to copy it in all that I do so as to make lots and lots of money!"
I could get past the Moorishly dense text in the Watchmen story itself, but the pirate side story made me want to set his beard on fire. It was like an melodramaticized page out of an ethics text book, and no amount of assuring Moore that I did indeed GET IT made the dang thing go away.
I think "The Watchmen" is "great" for its place in history, and I think for the story too- especially the ending. But I don't know that it'd be on my reread list. If you want a Watchy Watchmen story, I recommend Terry Pratchet's "Thud". More fun, fewer pirates. (less)
updated
Feb 25, 2009 03:35am
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.I'd been meaning to get around to reading this for at least 15 years. And it wasn't bad at all.
I'm not too deeply steeped in super-hero lore, so maybe I'm missing some of the deep meaning.
I find it more of an interesting take on what the world was like and expected back in the mid-eighties. It's amazing how quickly I had taken that "we're all gonna die in a nuclear holocaust" fear and shoved in a box in a back closet of my mind -- not forgotten, just not per...moreI'd been meaning to get around to reading this for at least 15 years. And it wasn't bad at all.
I'm not too deeply steeped in super-hero lore, so maybe I'm missing some of the deep meaning.
I find it more of an interesting take on what the world was like and expected back in the mid-eighties. It's amazing how quickly I had taken that "we're all gonna die in a nuclear holocaust" fear and shoved in a box in a back closet of my mind -- not forgotten, just not perticularly useful right now and not likely to be used again any time soon. The fears of the early 21st century are different - both more personal and immediate (geez this packed train platform would make a great bomb target -- what did that guy just drop in the garbage can there?) and more heart-freezingly long-term (Will my daughter be able to live a life as affluent as mine - or will energy be too expensive, food too expensive, chunks of New York underwater, and the US handing off world leadership to China by then).
Anyway, the spoiler-rific part that stuck with me revolves around the final moral question of the book. Is killing 3 million New Yorkers worth it if it prevent an inevitable nuclear war?
The answer, of course, is mu (you question is based on false assumptions). From 1985, I can see how Moore thought nuclear war was just a matter of time. Even through the duck-blind of his character Ozymandias and a modified world history, I really do think that the author thought we were all doomed.
He was wrong. Ozymandias was the smartest man in the world and he was wrong. We made it past the end of the Cold War, we made it through the 1990s (when Viedt predicted the world economy and environment would collapse without war). Things aren't all rose-colored, but Moore never said they would be.
The ends rarely justify the means because you can never truly know what the ends will be.
TerranI sort-of agree. One can take three tacks: Ozymandius was wrong, that in Moore's alternate universe Ozymandius was right, or that Ozymandius was ulti...moreI sort-of agree. One can take three tacks: Ozymandius was wrong, that in Moore's alternate universe Ozymandius was right, or that Ozymandius was ultimately wrong, but could not possibly have known that given all available information at the time.
In the first case, I basically agree with you. If there existed a path out of the fiery end that did not involve killing millions of people and could have been found by mortals (as we did in our timeline, without even the benefit of the smartest man in the world), then Ozymandius's actions cannot be condoned.
The second case is, I think, where Moore was coming from. Moore might or might not have been personally convinced that we were all gonna die here, but regardless he constructed his universe in such a way that it was inevitable there. In that circumstance, it's hard not to (grudgingly) accept Ozymandius's solution. He was the "bad guy", but he was the guy who actually solved the problem and kept us all alive. In that case, the ends do justify the means, because the only other ending was so much worse. When it's a black/white choice like that, it does actually come down to a simple arithmetic of souls.
But such scenarios, with such certainty, only ever occur in fiction.
The third case is the most real and the hardest. To be wrong, but to act with the best knowledge available, making the best decision you can, and not know that you're wrong. And perhaps never to be able to tell if you were wrong. Were all of the questionable things that the US did during the Cold War really justified? Would we all have died the fiery death if we hadn't, say, assassinated world leaders or propped up brutal dictatorships? And even having survived the nuclear threat (for the moment), all of those decisions are now coming home to roost as psychos that we backed are now out for our blood. Are such actions justified in light of those downstream consequences?
Or, a more mundane but no less real case: the surgeon who has one donor liver and three people who will die without it. She has to give it to someone, so she picks one. That person then dies anyway. Regret? Should she have given it to someone else? Would that person have died in turn? Or maybe gone on to do great work or touch a life? Impossible to know.
So in a world of uncertainties, how then are we to judge? How can we judge Ozymandius? His actions are nauseously ruthless, but maybe he's right. Or maybe not. Can we condemn him as a mass murderer of historic proportions if he's right? Can we afford not to condemn him if he's wrong? Even if he's right, can we allow him to set such an example?
In Moore's dark universe, we have to accept Ozymandius, because he's right, or at least Moore wants us to believe we have to accept him. Personally, even if he is right, I think he's too dangerous to be allowed to continue and nobody should be allowed to set precedent like that and get away with it. What about the next psycho who claims that "it's all for your own good"? Regardless of the ethical judgment of whether he was justified, I think he needs to be stopped.
Not that any of this is a new ethical conundrum. But it's fun to set Socratic ethics into gaudy superhero costumes. ;-)
Or maybe it's just too late for me to be commenting on other people's reviews on goodreads. Always get overly verbose when tired... :-)(less)
Nov 26, 2008 02:42pm
You actually caught one thought I had that didn't make it into my review. Right or wrong, Ozymandias needs to pay for the decision h...moreTerran,
You actually caught one thought I had that didn't make it into my review. Right or wrong, Ozymandias needs to pay for the decision he made. I truly believe that it was wrong for Nite Owl to walk away and it was right for Roschach to continue to pursue Ozymandias (even though I find very little else about Roschach appealing).
To be fair, Ozymandias should be subject to a trial -- that is the bargain of the social contract. Moore's extra dilemma is that such a trial would destroy whatever good had come from Ozymandias's actions, thus providing something of a Phyrric victory for society. So we left with a vigilante action, which is what Ozymandias was doing on a grand scale in the first place.
I guess I just come down to a line from the bad triller movie "Body Heat" - "There are are thousand things that could go wrong with that plan. If you can think of fifty of them, you're a genius...and you ain't no fucking genius."(less)
Nov 26, 2008 05:18pm
Addendum, 21Aug2008: Against my better judgment, I changed my mind and decided to read it to the end. And what a silly, stupid ending!! If I could give this a 0, I would. It's entirely possible that I missed the point. Maybe on some level, it is brilliant and it is seminal. But I, for one, did not like it; I did not appreciate it. This is time I will never get back.
------
Because the movie is coming out next year, Jim said I had to read this. It was the best graphic...moreAddendum, 21Aug2008: Against my better judgment, I changed my mind and decided to read it to the end. And what a silly, stupid ending!! If I could give this a 0, I would. It's entirely possible that I missed the point. Maybe on some level, it is brilliant and it is seminal. But I, for one, did not like it; I did not appreciate it. This is time I will never get back.
------
Because the movie is coming out next year, Jim said I had to read this. It was the best graphic novel ever written.
I couldn't get through it. I kind of gave up about halfway through. As bad as I thought Pillars of the Earth was, that was still more bearable to me than Watchmen. Sorry (don't even know who I'm apologizing to - maybe the world at large, since so many people did like Watchmen). Just couldn't get into it.
It wasn't that it was dated (that wasn't my issue with it; I'm a firm believer in always learning something from history). It wasn't that the story wasn't compelling (it could've been - what happens to superheroes after they "retire" or are no longer needed/wanted). It was just that I couldn't connect with any of the characters; I found they all left me cold, and maybe that was the point. I like superheroes. I really do. Just not these. To me, a superhero stands for something - they can be dark and vengeful and brooding, they may circumvent the law and turn to vigilantism, they can be arrogant and have character flaws, vices and weaknesses (and these days, they are almost expected to - after all, not everyone can be Superman). But at the end of the day, superheroes stand for something and that something is generally related to the greater good. I may be missing the point of Watchmen; I may not have given it a fair shot; I may even have been predisposed to not liking it (for whatever reason), but regardless, I just didn't get it. I just didn't like it.
This is one of those books that I often picked up and looked at, but never read. I'm shallow enough to admit I was turned off by the artwork and lack of recognizable characters. I must say, I am so glad that Watchmen was chosen by one of my book groups, forcing me to get past my first impressions.
Watchmen takes place in alternative universe, where the emergence of costumed adventurers has altered the course of modern history. The superheroes, the majority which are neither super nor ...moreThis is one of those books that I often picked up and looked at, but never read. I'm shallow enough to admit I was turned off by the artwork and lack of recognizable characters. I must say, I am so glad that Watchmen was chosen by one of my book groups, forcing me to get past my first impressions.
Watchmen takes place in alternative universe, where the emergence of costumed adventurers has altered the course of modern history. The superheroes, the majority which are neither super nor all that heroic (with one notable exception), are in forced retirement, until the murder of one of their own compels them to action once more. The plot twists and turns in unexpected ways, all the while introducing us to these masked men and women, their histories, and their motivations, and draws to a riveting and ambiguous conclusion that leaves the reader pondering what heroism really means.
This graphic novel, published originally in 1986, ushered in a new era for comic fans; comic books became literature, and superheroes became people with flaws and angst of their own. Alan Moore truly takes the genre to the level of literature, pulling out all those post modern favorite techniques like meta-fiction, intertextuality, and symbolism, while still retaining the classic elements of comic books; while there are no whizz-bang sound effects or thought bubbles, he stays true to the format and elevates it to a new level. Likewise, David Gibbons, the artist, uses the art in a deeper way; each panel is filled with meaning and symbolism, from the repeated use of the Comedian's smiley face, to the repeated graffiti asking, "Who watches the watchmen?" The art creates a cinematic feel and also evokes the "golden age" style of comics, and in the end I was appreciative of it. Both writer and artist have put a lot of thought into this work; for example, the chapter "Fearful Symmetry" is based on the William Blake poem, The Tyger, and not only are there numerous places where both plot and image symmetry are used, but the panels are symmetrical goign from first page to last page, second page to second-to-last page, and so on. The chapter also refers to the character, Rorschach, who wears a mask with a shifting, symmetrical inkblot, who tends to think in black and white, and is a character that others should be fearful of.
One negative issue did get brought up in my book group meeting, and that was the treatment of the women in the book. Try as we might, we couldn't find many positive portrayals of female characters. We found the rape storyline distasteful, if only because all the characters but two, including the character who was the victim, are pretty dismissive of the serious nature of that act, and pretty forgiving of the rapist. I don't like seeing rape used as the start of a consensual, romantic relationship, and I don't like seeing a woman put her rapist up on a pedastal.
I still give the book five stars, however, because overall I loved the story and the characters, and found the writing stunning and moving. This is a landmark, watershed book, but it is also just a fine, enjoyable read. I'd recommend it to folks giving the genre a try for the first time, as well as graphic novel readers looking to branch out from Batman, Supes, and Spidey. (less)
As the movie is coming up (much of the casting has been completed), I figured that I was ripe for a reread. In past readings, I have been less than astonished by the work that made TIME Magazine's 100 Best Novels (1923 to the Present). When I first approached Alan Moore's lauded work, I had just come off an extended (or perhaps overextended) run of immersion in film noir and the books and stories that inspired them, so Moore's existentialist take on heroism didn't strike me as all that fresh. Wa...moreAs the movie is coming up (much of the casting has been completed), I figured that I was ripe for a reread. In past readings, I have been less than astonished by the work that made TIME Magazine's 100 Best Novels (1923 to the Present). When I first approached Alan Moore's lauded work, I had just come off an extended (or perhaps overextended) run of immersion in film noir and the books and stories that inspired them, so Moore's existentialist take on heroism didn't strike me as all that fresh. Watchmen was simply just more of the same. Well-crafted, sure. But nothing particularly mind-blowing.
This was my third read and probably the first time I was ever able to approach the book without expectations. And this time? I enjoyed the book much more.
Moore really is smart about the way he lays things out and despite his occasionally stilted story and dialogue (by design I presume), he really does present a twisting and mysterious story speculating how a more realistic world might react to superheroes and masked adventurers. Some caveats: the books colouring job is pretty awful (I hear the Absolute Edition resolves this issue) and despite the fact that the Tales of the Black Freighter is engaging if one can pay attention to it, I still find its use as a metaphor a bit heavy-handed.
Anyway, I'd say Watchmen is worth a read, both for its historical context and for its visual/textual intricacies.(less)
You can call it a graphic novel, but it's really a comic book about superheroes. And that's good, because that's the only way this story could be told! If you're creating a twisted ironic story about comic-book superheroes dealing with the real world, then you also need to be able to mess around with the conventions of the medium where your subjects arose. A novel or play or whatever just wouldn't work as well.
There are some really powerful sections (especially Rorschach's story and ...moreYou can call it a graphic novel, but it's really a comic book about superheroes. And that's good, because that's the only way this story could be told! If you're creating a twisted ironic story about comic-book superheroes dealing with the real world, then you also need to be able to mess around with the conventions of the medium where your subjects arose. A novel or play or whatever just wouldn't work as well.
There are some really powerful sections (especially Rorschach's story and its effect on the psychiatrist and his wife). There are lots of great metaphorical parallel stories, illustrating one conversation with imagery of another event.
But my favorite part was how each character takes a different idea of justice to extremes:
- we have a duty to do good to one another, using only good means, whenever possible
- we should do good, but the ends justify the means
- forget the idea of "doing good"; evil must simply be punished by any means necessary
- the whole distinction between good and evil is all one big joke
- good and evil, and for that matter all of humanity, are irrelevant in the big scheme of things
In my view, the first philosophy is best since it's the only one that never treats human beings as mere things, abstractions, obstacles or toys. (Terry Pratchett's Discworld books have a surprising amount to say on this topic.)
(view spoiler)[
But in this book, the Machiavellian character proves most effective, though it feels extremely immoral. Hence I feel a little gratified (yet also largely saddened) that, in the wake of September 11th, it's clear that the these heroes' way of saving the world wouldn't really be effective at all. Terrorism should be a perfect foe to unite against; but instead, we managed to screw it up to the point where the world's nations are freaking out and becoming either more aggressive or more isolationist.
(hide spoiler)]
I can't say it's an "enjoyable" read - quite depressing and creepy with too much blood and gore for my taste. But it's DEEP, and I definitely feel it'd be worthwhile to read it again.(less)
Gilbert I do like your review because it's in-depth, but why do you persist to call it a comic book about superheroes when it's a graphic novel about the suff...moreI do like your review because it's in-depth, but why do you persist to call it a comic book about superheroes when it's a graphic novel about the suffering and moral dilemma of our time?
It's done as a novel with pictures, thus "graphic novel." And obviously it's not about superheroes since in your review you point out some larger themes that deal with moral dilemmas that anyone faces. Of course, the characters facing these issues were the "superheroes" but I think that term could mislead any potential reader....
This is definitely a different way of storytelling and I think you agree.(less)
Aug 28, 2007 11:23am
JerzySure, of course Watchmen fits the definition of a graphic novel. But here's my point, which I guess I didn't make very clearly beforehand: I think the...moreSure, of course Watchmen fits the definition of a graphic novel. But here's my point, which I guess I didn't make very clearly beforehand: I think the term "graphic novel" is often used as a way to deflect negative expectations, as a mental shortcut for saying "I admit the story is told in panels of pictures with speech bubbles, but don't worry - it's not a superhero comic book."
And I don't think that's the right way to talk about Watchmen. It's more like a comic book squared. It's a comic book, and damn proud of it; so proud that it's not going to ignore the difficult consequences of its identity (the way that many of its siblings do). I enjoyed this not *despite* my dislike of normal comic books, but *because* of it. Moore takes the superhero comic genre and just rips it to shreds; and he does it well, respectfully, not through silly parody.
Moore takes the conventions of superhero comics and plays around with them very skillfully, so that it becomes an intensely deep take on superheroes. It's what comic books *should* be, what they would be if their authors were trying to tell a real gritty story with integrity and responsibility instead of just pumping out bland thoughtless entertainment for the mass market. Most comics ask you to suspend disbelief not just (1) about laws of physics but also (2) about human nature and the consequences of our actions. It feels like Moore wrote this because he wanted to see what superhero stories would be like if he didn't simplify (2).
So you can say the larger themes of the story are universal and have nothing to do with superheroes directly, and thus it's not "about" superheroes. And that's fine, but in a way it's the least interesting bit - *any* good literature addresses deep universal themes. So why would you want to read this particular work? What I'd rather say is: Holy crap, here's this concept of superheroes that comic books have been using way too lightly, almost thoughtlessly, with all these inherent unspoken assumptions, and Alan Moore came in and really dug deep into it and took it to its logical conclusions and found the inconsistencies and created a whole new way to look at this imaginary world. And he did it within the traditional medium for superhero tales, so he just got to mess around with the conventions of the "superhero comic books" genre at every possible level... and it comes off insanely well.
So it is a story about deep themes, but it's also a critique of a particular genre that's simultaneously a brilliant example of the peak of that genre. And I think that calling it "a graphic novel" underestimates the importance and utter coolness of the latter.
Sorry to ramble so long... Thanks so much for the comment and for making me think about this again!(less)
updated
Feb 25, 2009 03:34am
For Christ's sake. Rorschach on a LUNCHBOX?! I saw a Rorschach lunchbox. That is just surreal.
***
Movie Spoiler: Here is 2:34 of exclusive footage from the upcoming Watchmen movie...instead of the Sold Out Nov. 2 Pale Horse concert, Zach Snyder enlisted a Big Name Talent to usher in, serenade the apocalypse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrwO8b9iq...
I wanna die.... Indeed. Kind of heavyhanded with the symbolism, but I'm sure it's all cinematic foreshadowi...moreFor Christ's sake. Rorschach on a LUNCHBOX?! I saw a Rorschach lunchbox. That is just surreal.
***
Movie Spoiler: Here is 2:34 of exclusive footage from the upcoming Watchmen movie...instead of the Sold Out Nov. 2 Pale Horse concert, Zach Snyder enlisted a Big Name Talent to usher in, serenade the apocalypse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrwO8b9iq...
I wanna die.... Indeed. Kind of heavyhanded with the symbolism, but I'm sure it's all cinematic foreshadowing in strict reference to page one of "A Stronger Loving World".
...and sensitives worldwide will have bad dreams for years to come.
***
Made a gift of this along with High Fidelity and Fight Club to my friend Pat, making the ULTIMATE literary geekboy gift set. (less)
I heard of it when it came out of course. And a copy was loaned to the household a few years ago. My roommates throughly enjoyed it (I think at least one had read it before, it had just been years).
I puttered around with it in spurts and eventually got about halfway through before putting it down due to ennui.
The story doesn't really grab me, and there wasn't a single character I cared about. Right now, I can barely remember anything about it at all. I can't even remember...moreI heard of it when it came out of course. And a copy was loaned to the household a few years ago. My roommates throughly enjoyed it (I think at least one had read it before, it had just been years).
I puttered around with it in spurts and eventually got about halfway through before putting it down due to ennui.
The story doesn't really grab me, and there wasn't a single character I cared about. Right now, I can barely remember anything about it at all. I can't even remember what I thought of the art.
I know this is considered one of the most important graphic novels of all time. I know it's probably the most important one of the 80s. But I don't know why.(less)
MichaelI consider Watchmen significant for the level of detail and the number of layers to the story (and, consequently, the artwork). I picked the series up...moreI consider Watchmen significant for the level of detail and the number of layers to the story (and, consequently, the artwork). I picked the series up as single issues starting when I was 11. Comic Book Guy made me buy it. The rest is history.
Rindis, I'm glad that you disagree! I have a bookshelf here of works upon which I disagree with nearly everyone. Some things just don't speak to me, including books, music, art, and so forth. Think nothing of it.(less)
updated
Feb 25, 2009 03:34am
RindisLike I said back in #3, the disagreeing wasn't the problem, it was the lack of understanding where the disagreement came from. I think one of the grea...moreLike I said back in #3, the disagreeing wasn't the problem, it was the lack of understanding where the disagreement came from. I think one of the greatest things on this site is the 'Books I Loathed' group and the discussions back and forth it can engender.
I know I've heard the name Squadron Supreme, but can't say I know a thing about it. But then again, even while reading Marvel, my tastes were still largely with the indy stuff, and I never got much past most of the flagship titles.(less)
Sep 28, 2007 02:14pm
Alan Moore is an English writer most famous for his influential work in comics, including the acclaimed graphic novels Watchmen, V for Vendetta and From Hell. He has also written a novel, Voice of the Fire, and performs "workings" (one-off performance ...moreLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Alan Moore is an English writer most famous for his influential work in comics, including the acclaimed graphic novels Watchmen, V for Vendetta and From Hell. He has also written a novel, Voice of the Fire, and performs "workings" (one-off performance art/spoken word pieces) with The Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels, some of which have been released on CD.
As a comics writer, Moore is notable for being one of the first writers to apply literary and formalist sensibilities to the mainstream of the medium. As well as including challenging subject matter and adult themes, he brings a wide range of influences to his work, from the literary–authors such as William S. Burroughs, Thomas Pynchon, Robert Anton Wilson and Iain Sinclair, New Wave science fiction writers like Michael Moorcock and horror writers like Clive Barker–to the cinematic–filmmakers like Nicolas Roeg. Influences within comics include Will Eisner, Harvey Kurtzman, Jack Kirby and Bryan Talbot.
(less)
“Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.
Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else.
Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.
“Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says, "But doctor...I am Pagliacci.”
—
161 people liked it
Loading...
·
review of another edition
·
review of another edition
Sep 30, 2010 06:20pm
Apr 26, 2011 10:51am