What do you think?
Rate this book
Watchmen as Literature: A Critical Study of the Graphic Novel
Watchmen has been hailed as the quintessential graphic novel and has spawned a body of literary criticism since its 1986 initial appearance in installments. This work explores the graphic novel's reception in both popular and scholarly arenas and how the conceptual relationship between images and words affects the reading experience. Other topics include heroism as a stereotype, the hero's journey, the role of the narrator, and the way in which the graphic layout manipulates the reader's perception of time and space. Instructors considering this book for use in a course may .
- GenresNonfictionGraphic Novels
219 pages, Paperback
First published January 25, 2010
14 people are currently reading
76 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 13, 2013
I received a copy of this to review for JFA, the Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. Below is an excerpt of my review, which was published in JFA 23.3:
Twenty-five years after its initial twelve-issue run, Watchmen is generally accepted as the magnum opus of the graphic novel genre. It made Alan Moore a legend in the field, and crossed over into popular literature, most notably being the only graphic novel named in Time Magazine’s list of 100 best English-language novels published since 1923.
It is a bit unfortunate, then, that Watchmen as Literature: A Critical Study of the Graphic Novel lacks confidence in its highly acclaimed muse. It spends the opening chapter justifying that Watchmen, as well as contemporary graphic novels Maus and The Dark Knight Returns, are worthy of the accolades they and their fledgling industry have accrued, and then spends further chapters detailing a number of devices Watchmen uses which are unavailable in text-only literature. While there are in-depth analyses of the plot, structure and characters later in the book, a good deal of text is spent differentiating Watchmen from typical literature, instead of showing it as an elevated example of it. This is not necessarily a flaw of the analysis, as it points out many interesting things that could be missed even by the most careful close readers, but it is a shortcoming of the title....
The author, Sara J. Van Ness, clearly has a reverence for the source material, and it shows throughout Watchmen as Literature. While there are some issues with the continuity of the argumentative thread throughout, and it is written through the lens of an unabashed fan, it is, overall, a valuable tool as a comprehensive overview of Watchmen and the graphic novel genre. It could be a benefit to scholars exploring the subject, as well as an enjoyable read in non-scholarly circles, to serious fans of Watchmen, Alan Moore, and the graphic novel medium.
October 24, 2015
I am also using this as a source for my Watchmen paper, and I love the emphasis Van Ness puts on the structure of Watchmen. I began my research being most interested in what I call the "interchapters" of Watchmen (Van Ness calls them "expository documents"), but I found a few other points to focus on while reading Van Ness's critical study. I hadn't fully considered a comparison between Billy Pilgrim in Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, but both are presented as "unstuck in time." Another fascinating study was chapter four, in which Van Ness detailed the many interpretations of narrative voice in Watchmen. She accurately states that it is not something easily caught on a first reading but in subsequent readings, something I am finding out now. All in all, this book is a wonderful study on an amazing graphic novel, and I recommend it to fans of Watchmen and graphic novels in general.
April 30, 2020
Perhaps it's because I grew up reading mysteries and watching B horror movies, but I never had a problem dedicating time and energy to stories residing in the gutter genres. And the whole debate about whether certain books are real literature or not never interested me. On the other hand, I could imagine some of my colleagues even now treating Watchmen with disdain as a mere comic book. So, perhaps, it's necessary that Sarah J. Van Ness begin her work with a look at what comic books are and whether they have genuinely become more sophisticated or whether they have just cranked up the sex and violence.
As it turns out, they've become more sophisticated. The images don't simply do the imaginative legwork for readers who can't imagine things for themselves. They provide more details and add a range of new connotations that words alone fail to suggest. They also create plenty of handy juxtapositions that help tease out connections between various symbols and characters. This along with the rich characterizations and a complex timeline that makes use of diachronic and synchronic time to illustrate the "gigantic hyper moment in which everything is occurring" ensures the sophistication on display far surpasses the story's bits of nastiness and sheer pessimism.
There is plenty to be gleaned here. One of the more interesting bits includes Van Ness' discussions about who the real narrator is. The most convincing argument is for Seymour, the lowly New Frontiersman employee, who has the opportunity to turn Rorschach's journal into the spine of what becomes the Watchmen comic. And while Joseph Campbell's monomyth may be a tired framework at this point, Van Ness does use it to good effect in showing how Moore deconstructs the heroic journeys of his characters by never allowing them to achieve any kind of full hero status.
I know this is an academic work, and so I am not opposed to the inclusion of certain literary terms. In fact, I think Van Ness overall does a good job of summarizing theoretical concepts that she wants to apply to Watchmen, but, occasionally, she strays from what is necessary. Her chapter on the use of images and words in comics lays out some information so basic it could have easily been left out. I also couldn't help but laugh when she gave a detailed description of what an R-rated movie was.
The most frustrating chapter overall, though, was the final one. In it, Van Ness discusses the film adaptation. I don't have strong opinions about the movie (if anything, I probably agree with Moore that it was just unnecessary), but she seems hell bent on criticizing the critics for seeing past the movie itself to whatever they loved or hated about the original comic. Her implicit argument seems to be that any film version was going to get criticized from all angles no matter what. This is not a bad argument; I just wish she had come right out with it instead of dancing around the issue for so long.
As it turns out, they've become more sophisticated. The images don't simply do the imaginative legwork for readers who can't imagine things for themselves. They provide more details and add a range of new connotations that words alone fail to suggest. They also create plenty of handy juxtapositions that help tease out connections between various symbols and characters. This along with the rich characterizations and a complex timeline that makes use of diachronic and synchronic time to illustrate the "gigantic hyper moment in which everything is occurring" ensures the sophistication on display far surpasses the story's bits of nastiness and sheer pessimism.
There is plenty to be gleaned here. One of the more interesting bits includes Van Ness' discussions about who the real narrator is. The most convincing argument is for Seymour, the lowly New Frontiersman employee, who has the opportunity to turn Rorschach's journal into the spine of what becomes the Watchmen comic. And while Joseph Campbell's monomyth may be a tired framework at this point, Van Ness does use it to good effect in showing how Moore deconstructs the heroic journeys of his characters by never allowing them to achieve any kind of full hero status.
I know this is an academic work, and so I am not opposed to the inclusion of certain literary terms. In fact, I think Van Ness overall does a good job of summarizing theoretical concepts that she wants to apply to Watchmen, but, occasionally, she strays from what is necessary. Her chapter on the use of images and words in comics lays out some information so basic it could have easily been left out. I also couldn't help but laugh when she gave a detailed description of what an R-rated movie was.
The most frustrating chapter overall, though, was the final one. In it, Van Ness discusses the film adaptation. I don't have strong opinions about the movie (if anything, I probably agree with Moore that it was just unnecessary), but she seems hell bent on criticizing the critics for seeing past the movie itself to whatever they loved or hated about the original comic. Her implicit argument seems to be that any film version was going to get criticized from all angles no matter what. This is not a bad argument; I just wish she had come right out with it instead of dancing around the issue for so long.
December 20, 2013
As with any anthology that "studies" another work, there are essays that run the gamut: the good, bad, and ugly (though the latter two are combined in this instance).
The bad & ugly: some are filled with excessive jargon that did not seem to further one's understanding of the text or their point. Perhaps it's because I haven't taken enough classes in lit crit, but it seems to me that if you can't make your point without resorting to obscure language, perhaps your point isn't all that illuminating in the first place.
The good: I really liked 2 of the essays. The first dealt in-depth with some of the actual graphics of Watchmen, and showed how one can scrutinize the minutiae of the panels--something I tend to gloss over on a first reading to "get through" the main story. Keeping this in mind, a re-reading of Watchmen is sure to reveal more depth and provoke interesting thoughts about the art and how it related to the story overall (I hope!).
The other one I enjoyed was "Not so Black & White," a study in the apparent dichotomy of Rorschach and Ozmandias, and how they play off each other. Several aspects of their characters are examined, and the essay provides an interesting analysis of everything from their outlook about life to how their paper documents reveal something about themselves as well.
A good read overall, especially since you can skip through essays to find the ones of interest to you.
The bad & ugly: some are filled with excessive jargon that did not seem to further one's understanding of the text or their point. Perhaps it's because I haven't taken enough classes in lit crit, but it seems to me that if you can't make your point without resorting to obscure language, perhaps your point isn't all that illuminating in the first place.
The good: I really liked 2 of the essays. The first dealt in-depth with some of the actual graphics of Watchmen, and showed how one can scrutinize the minutiae of the panels--something I tend to gloss over on a first reading to "get through" the main story. Keeping this in mind, a re-reading of Watchmen is sure to reveal more depth and provoke interesting thoughts about the art and how it related to the story overall (I hope!).
The other one I enjoyed was "Not so Black & White," a study in the apparent dichotomy of Rorschach and Ozmandias, and how they play off each other. Several aspects of their characters are examined, and the essay provides an interesting analysis of everything from their outlook about life to how their paper documents reveal something about themselves as well.
A good read overall, especially since you can skip through essays to find the ones of interest to you.
April 1, 2017
This was an ambitious book which aimed high and hit the target but not the bullseye. This was clearly a grad/doc thesis and in true thesis methodology we were given a decently comprehensive "historiography" of the approach and almost an insecure justification of even approaching the topic of The Watchmen as Literature. It was frequently dry and "technical" often when I felt it did not need to be. I think the over - seriousness of this project reflects the insecurity of the topic. All in all this was an interesting approach to Watchmen that I am glad I read, but I would recommend reading the second half which was more fully realized and relevant and didn't seem to try as hard for self justification.
June 17, 2013
Excellent choice to have as a "partner" in your collection if you already have the graphic novel of "Watchmen" by Alan Moore. This book is a work where they analyze the graphic novel in diferent fields and points of view. When you are done with the graphic novel, this is a great choice to read to get a bigger scope of the impact of Watchmen.
November 25, 2011
Excellent academic study of the classic graphic novel, Watchmen. Longer review here: http://eyesandearsblog.blogspot.com/2...
December 16, 2021
Watchmen was written to be reread; indeed, it can only be read by being reread. That may sound paradoxical, but upon rereading Watchmen it becomes painfully obvious that the meanings of almost every word, image, panel, and page are multiple—obviously multiple.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews