Watchmen

mind_philip

saw the light
I bought this while on a recent uneventful trip to California when I wanted something to read in my hotel. I don't have any great knowledge of the graphic novel genre, and the only comic I read as a child was 'Transformers', but at least this prevents me having any snobby pretentions about the medium...

I'm perplexed as to what the fuss is about. I struggled to find the supposed psychological realism in the work, all the characters seemed to be painted in the broadest strokes, expressed in painfully banal dialogue. The art was ok, but very few panels demanded a second look. In fact the part I enjoyed most was the ludicrous ending, primarily because it was the only element of the story that seemed unashamed of being fantastical.

Futhermore, after reading some of the subsequent criticism and praise that was lavished on the book, I was surprised at the rhetoric used - 'cinematic', 'novelistic', 'epic' - all of which pay obvious homage to other literary and artistic forms. Is Watchmen mainly revered because it allows people reading comic books to feel worthy somehow? Why do comics need to be cinematic or have pretentions to unrelated art forms?

I'm pretty sure I've read anti-Alan Moore comments from K-Punk in the past, but this is my first exposure to his work. I'm assuming lots of other people have read this and loved it, so, what am I missing...
 

zhao

there are no accidents
well I read it and loved it when I was 16 or so. I thought the labrynthine puzzle pieces fit together in a mad, intricate design of a parrallel universe which revealed truths about this one.

if you know about the comic genre you would realize that this level of "psychological realism" was unprecedented - and given the limitations of the medium, to compare it to the depth of characterization possible in a novel would be unfair.
 

mind_philip

saw the light
if you know about the comic genre you would realize that this level of "psychological realism" was unprecedented - and given the limitations of the medium, to compare it to the depth of characterization possible in a novel would be unfair.

Hmm my point, which might not have been clear, wasn't to berate it for not having the psychological realism of a novel, but rather to question why it would need it in the first place?

As for the plot being labyrinthine, it didn't strike me as being particularly more devious or delicate than the average episode of Scooby Doo...
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Hmm my point, which might not have been clear, wasn't to berate it for not having the psychological realism of a novel, but rather to question why it would need it in the first place?

well the genre hadn't really been, and to some extent still is not, taken seriously in the west (unlike places like Japan), and so in this sense it "needed" to prove itself of having the depth and weight of other genres, such as literature or cinema.

the same question can be asked of many other artists: why did the Who, a simple rock band, "need" to mimick classical music and do a grandiose rock "Opera"?

why did Von Trier, asimple film maker, "need" to mimick theater in creating Dogville, a movie with no backdrop except a stage?

As for the plot being labyrinthine, it didn't strike me as being particularly more devious or delicate than the average episode of Scooby Doo...

oh come on. now you're just being pissy. the complex system of symbols? their recurrence and layered interaction amidst the lives of a dozen or so main characters? the brilliant visual puns? the way the events unfold in such a way that it feels pre-ordained, unstoppable, each interlocking piece coming together to form a horrible tableau of doom?

it's a LITTLE more sophisticated than Scooby Doo...
 

mind_philip

saw the light
well the genre hadn't really been, and to some extent still is not, taken seriously in the west (unlike places like Japan), and so in this sense it "needed" to prove itself of having the depth and weight of other genres, such as literature or cinema.

the same question can be asked of many other artists: why did the Who, a simple rock band, "need" to mimick classical music and do a grandiose rock "Opera"?

why did Von Trier, asimple film maker, "need" to mimick theater in creating Dogville, a movie with no backdrop except a stage?

Because none of them had confidence in the integrity of the art forms they inhabited and sought to inherit significance by aping the conventions of other mediums?


oh come on. now you're just being pissy. the complex system of symbols? their recurrence and layered interaction amidst the lives of a dozen or so main characters? the brilliant visual puns? the way the events unfold in such a way that it feels pre-ordained, unstoppable, each interlocking piece coming together to form a horrible tableau of doom?

it's a LITTLE more sophisticated than Scooby Doo...

I didn't mean to come across as pissy, it's just that a conspiracy that takes out 3 people and leads to a laughably grand guignol 'doom' (which I already stated was my favorite part of the book) doesn't seem especially complex a tableau? But lets not make this the point; if all that was important for a work of this kind was a labyrinthine plot, then the Da Vinci Code would be a masterwork rather than a steaming turd. I was merely saying that as convoluted (contrived?) plots go, I saw nothing revelatory about this one.

Feel free to enlighten me about the complex system of symbols though, as I must've missed them...
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Because none of them had confidence in the integrity of the art forms they inhabited and sought to inherit significance by aping the conventions of other mediums?

this is interesting. I do in a sense agree, as I've always felt that the integrity of the medium is important, and that it's particular strengths should be played to the maximum, rather than attempt at doing something another medium does better. honesty is good, pretense and hiding is not.

but Tommy, Dogville, and Watchmen do not compromise their integrity by aspiration to elevate and become more than what is usually done with their medium. they made their own rules and stuck with them. it does not feel like mimickry (my use of that word was ironic - should have used quotation marks), but rather like innovation. there IS a place for sculptural paintings, funk-punk, and the Cremaster cycle.


it's just that a conspiracy that takes out 3 people and leads to a laughably grand guignol 'doom' (which I already stated was my favorite part of the book) doesn't seem especially complex a tableau? But lets not make this the point; if all that was important for a work of this kind was a labyrinthine plot, then the Da Vinci Code would be a masterwork rather than a steaming turd. I was merely saying that as convoluted (contrived?) plots go, I saw nothing revelatory about this one.

wait... is there a cliff notes version of the Watchmen that I'm not aware of?
 

zhao

there are no accidents
no seriously, it sounds like we are not talking about the same 12 volume series.

and sorry I said "now you're just being pissy". I should have said "now you are exaggerating". which is what I meant anyway.
 

mms

sometimes
I'm not a big watchmen fan and i'm a comics fan, (ish) more of a graphic novel fan now.
it's not one of moore's best and he's often bloody good.

comics aren't like other literary forms , watchman isn't either, i think i prefer comics to stand on their own, not sure if watchmen has any real pretensions to literature or anything, although one of moore's key penchants is to have a little narrative bubble stretching over a number of boards where not alot really seems to be happening but then the image draws the narrative to a close.
 
Top