I don't like Watchmen.

[DavidXBrunt]

There.

I've said it.

I know it's a great piece of writing. I know it's wonderfully drawn. I appreciate it's structure, it's characters, it's focus.

But I don't like it.

It's churlish, mean-spirited, and just not my cup of tea.

Is there anyone who does like it? And I don't mean like as in 'think it's brilliant' I mean actually enjoy the narrative on it's own terms? For me I'd rather read any random sixties comic. Less well written, less well drawn? More than likely? But more fun? You bet.

Just because I agree with John Byrne doesn't make me a bad person.

[SamuelAWilkinson]

Get out, you're barred!

[DavidXBrunt]

Come back and say that when you've got 5 stars under your name and been called an cunt by Benjamin Button.

[Eric Plumrose]

Just because I agree with John Byrne doesn't make me a bad person.

That coming from the person who compared him to a certain Scandanavian monarch and was banned because of it . . .

[DavidXBrunt]

Byrne is right about Watchmen though. I guess if you spout as many opinions as he does you're bound to be occasionally right. Law of averages really.

I was reminded of the afterword for the collected DC New Frontier when I re-read Watchmen recently. Just because you're old enough to see the flaws in something you don't have to go around teling people.

I guess I think Superheroes are a fundamentally silly concept that obviously couldn't transpose to a real world scenario. I don't need 200 plus pages to drive that thought home.

[Roger Godpleton]

So long as you don't like Frank Miller comics as well it's fine by me.

[DavidXBrunt]

Fuck Frank Miller comics up the arse. Over rated, over stylised, mysogenistic, repetitive and dull.

[Eric Plumrose]

I love WATCHMEN but I think any attempt at trying to depict superheroes in the so-called real world is inherently flawed. The costumes are such a fundamental part of the genre that, even when Moore tries explaining them away as a sexual thing inspired by kids' comics (okay, it's a generalization but the raiment reality is only properly addressed in the last few pages), it never really convinces.

I think in showing the ramifications of the existence of superheroes, THE AUTHORITY and MIRACLEMAN before it are probably better; perhaps because they're depicting them in a world slyly analagous to ours, rather than what the world might have been in, ahem, reality. The difference is, those two titles depict the effect of superhumans in the 'real' world, whereas WATCHMEN focuses on the futile vigilante antics of a select few costumed crimefighters.

Unlike Byrne, I don't hold the Bearded One responsible for all the dreariness that followed WATCHMEN. It's Moore's Moggie, maybe. The act of depicting superheroes realistically stops being realistic the moment it's depicted realistically.

Ah bollocks, I'm drunk.

[Emperor]

Is there anyone who does like it? And I don't mean like as in 'think it's brilliant' I mean actually enjoy the narrative on it's own terms? For me I'd rather read any random sixties comic. Less well written, less well drawn? More than likely? But more fun? You bet.

It depends on what you are after.

It is a dense deconstruction of the superhero and isn't exactly "fun" but I can enjoy things that aren't fun.

What concerns me is that it might be attracting some critical plaudits because it isn't fun, and it is possible to do this kind of story in a more action-packed way (his earlier takes on this, Captain Britain and Marvelman, are more "fun" - I possibly enjoy them more, although, like children perhaps I love them equally in different ways ). The big problem is that it (and the Dark Knight Returns) sparked the Modern Age of Comics and it ain't called the Dark Age for nothing. Where it all went wrong was through a very shallow reading of Watchmen and people seemed to have got awfully hung up over the grim/dark aspects, that somehow you have to ditch the fun.

It annoys Moore to this day and has led to a backlash with a partial return to the Silver Age.

[Colin YNWA]

Fuck Frank Miller comics up the arse. Over rated, over stylised, mysogenistic, repetitive and dull.

Have to say post Dark Knight, Year One and Born Again (not sure what order they came in facts I really should know!) I pretty much agree with this all the way.

[Jim_Campbell]

Byrne is right about Watchmen though.

No, he's not, because every objection I've read from him to Watchmen is ill-thought and relies on a reading of the text that is clearly coloured by his fundamental dislike of everything Moore has ever written.

On the other hand, I do understand entirely why you -- and anyone else for that matter -- might not like Watchmen. It is cold. It feels very much like an intellectual exercise and does lack warmth, compounded by Gibbons' approaching the artwork with that draughtsman's eye of his.

Of Moore's DC period, I much prefer the passion of the completed V for Vendetta, or the affection for his supporting cast that shines through Swamp Thing. There is much to admire in Watchmen, but you can admire something without either liking it, or enjoying it.

I have to ask:

Come back and say that when you've got 5 stars under your name and been called an cunt by Benjamin Button.

Is that a pop at me, David? I don't get the reference, but if it is, it's fair enough -- I was out of order. However, I wanted to check that you did see the apology I posted ...

Cheers

Jim

[DavidXBrunt]

Ir wasn't a pop, but it was a reference to the incident, yeah. If you apologised well that's something but I walked away from the thread before that.

[uncle fester]

I had to read Watchmen twice before a) I understood what the fuck was going on, and b) I developed any kind of sympathy for any of the characters, so I can see the whole point of it leaving the reader feeling cold. But as others have pointed out, you don't have to like something to appreciate it. Just wondering how Alan Moore actually sat down and planned the whole tale out leaves me befuzzled.

However I will fly the (probably lonely) flag for The Dark Knight Returns. I think perhaps you're judging it in light of what followed. At the time it blew everything else out of the water. Characters questioning their own morals / judgement? Impending old age and death? Arch enemies actually snuffing it? Maybe I'm not as widely read as some but as far as I know it had never been done.

To blame it for the rivers of cheap imitations that followed (and admittedly including Miller's literary ascent up his own arse) is like blaming Led Zeppelin for heavy metal. They may have invented it, but they weren't responsible for it.

[DavidXBrunt]

In fairness to Dark Night it's more specifically the post Sin City Miller comics that I don't like. I mean, who wouldn't like Year One? An idiot, that's who. But A.S.B.&.R.? I'd rather nail a starving ferret to my winky and then walk around Watership Down.

[locustsofdeath!]

Out of personal preference, I tend to dislike Watchmen. I haven't read the entire series, but at a friend's nudging, I started to read it - and though it is darker and the superheroes a bit more "edgy" - the they are still superheroes, and that's what turns me off. There is silly spandex to be found here, just not as bright as that of past superheroes. There is the same old crisis, simply painted a different way. But again, this is just my taste. I think I was a rare breed of child that didn't gravitate to flying men in tight pants, preferring, instead, Barbarians, warriors, magic and elves (which may be horrible to some of course), spaceships and aliens, ect.

As for Frank Miller, he's up and down for me, but I don't really mind him nor do I go out of my way to read anything he scribbles.