Just finished a re-read (first time in 14 years, yike!) and while so much has been said its unlikely I'll add anything, that's never stopped me before.
Its kinda hard to review Watchmen objectively these days, after the movie and the non storm in our comics microcosm teacup that is 'Before Watchmen', trying to read the comic as just that, a comic, is very hard. To be fair it doesn't help itself and sometimes it reads as a textbook in how to do comics well, how to place nice, neat little narrative tricks in your 4 colour wonders (which at times become a bit repetitive to be honest and lost their impact). Its so multi-layer but ultimately that's often so self-referential that that too became almost cliche...
... and there you have another problem, that assessment is probably unfair. I make it as the story has become so embedded in the fabric of the mainstream comics we read today, that its hard to remember quite what it was like to read it when it came out, or as I did in about 88, when the trade was released (was it? That's when I think it was?). Like The Beatles in pop music its been so ingrained in the consciousness as the best example of the form, and therefore the biggest influence on the form, its becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, in a positive feedback cycle. It'll be awhile yet, I suspect, until a more balanced reassessment of the book can take place. I think that's starting to been seen with The Beatles, though that might be more to do with Macca getting on more people's tits these days??? Arh parallels, hey, parallels. Anyway I digress, its good, its very bloody good, but its far from perfect and far from the best example of comics out there.
Was it the best example of comics out there when it was released. The answer is still no. Was it the best example of mainstream comics out there when it was released, well maybe. I'd disagree with that, but then I can see an argument for it being so. Technically and as a piece of craft work maybe. The books I feel are better are all to do with the subjective desires I bring to what I'm reading, so that's a harder one to untangle.
Its does some things very successfully. I love its use of time, not just in its beginning and end, but the way we are unable to see the world as Jon does, with every event happening at the same time. That's a bit of genius right there. Its central plot however is very simple and issue 10, for example is pretty poor, as Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons realised that they'd better get on with sorting out the story that is meant to be driving things forward. The plot isn't the most important thing, the wonderful work on the characters is, but still it needed to be handled better than that I'd dare to suggest. Reading it today I was amazed how apparent it seemed that Adrian Veidt was the big bad. He's really underdeveloped prior the the 'big reveal' and so there was little impact when its made. Though fair to say that might be a victim of having read the thing 4 or 5 times already!
The character work is fantastic, just the characters aren't that engaging, on one level at least. Yes they are fantastically realised, yes they are real and rounded, but they are in so many ways completely unsympathetic. We're talking about a book here were for many the stand out character is Rorschach, that defines a great deal about the mood of the piece.
Failings aren't usually a word associated with the comic, but that fact (Rorschach being it most celebrated character) is an example of its biggest failing. In the beautiful text piece 'Blood from the shoulder of Pallas' Moore discusses the fact that the more you examine something of beauty with a clinical eye, the more you lose sight of that beauty that first drew you to the thing you are studying. I always read that as Moore's ode to the books objectives, he's warning us to be careful about how we look at the superheroes he (we - in my case) love. The Watchmen has been said, by both Moore and Gibbons to be a work of affection, just with a clinical eye, a real evaluation. On this level its an utter failure. In no way does Watchmen show any love for the genre and the consequences that it reaped are to be utterly expected, even if they weren't the aims the creators set out with.
As for clinical and realistic, well in some ways it is, but in other ways its not. Well its certainly clinical, but realistic? On one level yes, on another level in its attempts to seek realism it only proves that trying to do so is ridiculous. Serious, yes superhero comics (or films, whatever) can be serious and mature, but realistic, not in the way that term is normally used, in the Grant Morrison way of viewing realism, well yes, but in the way I believe this comic was attempting, no. The minute you bend reality to accommodate the archetypes the creators were looking to use, you have failed in a realistic evaluation. Its a none starter.
That said 'Blood from the shoulder of Pallas' shows one of the comics great strengths. Its so deep and rich that each reading gives you more and more, something many modern comics (often imitators of this work) could really learn from. On this reading I got an additional insight from the text piece I'd missed before, that of the relationship between Rorschach and Niteowl from Dan's perspective. Oh and from a purely practical point of view it was great to read a 32 page comic that takes 30 minutes plus to read, rather 10 minutes!
I made a comparison between Watchmen and The Beatles before, ultimately, since I'm doing the silly comparison thing, I think in reality its more like a post Syd Barrett Pink Floyd. Technically astonishingly accomplished, just sometimes rather letting that overshadow what rock and rock should be about, even, dare I say it, lacking soul.
So there we have it Watchmen is great, but presents a great danger of being placed on a pedestal (well it did that 35 minutes ago). Its far from perfect, though I'm not sure anyone has seriously gone as far as to say it is? It certainly didn't single handedly start a revolution in the ways comics can be used, ever mainstream ones. It was part of a movement towards the maturing of comics that was already underway, but became the poster boy for that movement. I truly believe therefore it has had it significance raised over and above what it is. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't read that as meaning I don't think its is significant, it is, it clearly is, I just believe that significance has been overestimated and comics, including the mainstream, would be pretty much where they are now with or without the Watchmen. Some specifics might have been different (as I said its massively influential), but the mediums progression in America would have carried on unabated. It draws on so many things that were already happening, so many comics that had already been created, and just happened to be one of the first two that really pulled it all together.
Its good, even great, but its not divine.
(I've started a new thread for this rather than put it in either the 'Before Watchmen' thread, or the 'What's everyone reading thread' to avoid either of those being derailed... though there is of course ever chance that my random wittering the most discussed comics ever will, would quietly slip into ignored oblivion wherever I put them!)
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 31 July, 2012, 09:58:02 AM
I made a comparison between Watchmen and The Beatles before, ultimately, since I'm doing the silly comparison thing, I think in reality its more like a post Syd Barrett Pink Floyd. Technically astonishingly accomplished, just sometimes rather letting that overshadow what rock and rock should be about, even, dare I say it, lacking soul.
In one respect, you're right: Watchmen is cold. Always was. But the beauty and joy of Watchmen is in the
structure and you don't get to be the arbiter of what this (or any other comic) "should be about".
You can not like it because it doesn't intersect with
your idea of what fiction should be about, and that's entirely proper, but it's not like Watchmen hides its intent: from Dave Gibbons' architectural eye and meticulous draughtsman's approach to the art, to the repeated watch/clock motif, to the number of times Moore has spoken of the book in those sort of terms.
I asked Moore about the symmetrical layout of 'Fearful Symmetry' at a signing not long after that issue came out, and he said something like: "We don't expect people to see everything we've put in there. In the Middle Ages, the people building cathedrals put carvings in places that would never be illuminated by any light source they could conceive of; they put them there for the glory of God. We're doing this for the glory of comics."
What Watchmen tried to do
was something that no one had tried before (certainly in a mainstream comic); to bring the narrative and thematic complexity of a literary novel to a work of comic book fiction. That this is at the expense of the characters and, as you note, to a certain extent the plot, too, is a valid criticism but I would argue that these things are largely subsidiary to the intent of the work. All of which are excellent arguments in favour of Watchmen being a singular, experimental work rather than the template for the whole frigging industry that it's become for that last twenty-four years. The collective, industry-wide failure of editorial imagination over that period, however, cannot be a criticism of the book.
And, yes, in some respects it's impossible to re-read it with fresh eyes. Even if you read it for the first time now, you can only do so against the background Watchmen-ness of all the comics that have come since and can never appreciate the sheer weight with which the final pages of #11 fall, from the words:
"Do it? Dan, I'm not a Republic Serial villain..."Good, thoughtful review, Colin. I may have to read it again myself, now.
Cheers!
Jim
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 31 July, 2012, 10:56:36 AM
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 31 July, 2012, 09:58:02 AM
I made a comparison between Watchmen and The Beatles before, ultimately, since I'm doing the silly comparison thing, I think in reality its more like a post Syd Barrett Pink Floyd. Technically astonishingly accomplished, just sometimes rather letting that overshadow what rock and rock should be about, even, dare I say it, lacking soul.
In one respect, you're right: Watchmen is cold. Always was. But the beauty and joy of Watchmen is in the structure and you don't get to be the arbiter of what this (or any other comic) "should be about".
That's a very good point. "should be about" is an utterly subjective statement and while I try to avoid saying things like "I think" or in "my opinion" as, as Keith Giffen I believe pointed out, its redundant, I've written it so that's all it could be. In an all encompassing statement like that however some qualification is required... but I'd dare to broadened it beyond myself, though of course not to all people.
The terrible thing about reading Watchmen now, for me (see you got me started now!), was that it was such a process, I was constantly thinking about what the book meant and what it meant in the context of the comics industry it sits in. Now a comic making you think is no bad thing, and all too rare in the mainstream, but so much surrounds Watchmen that writing this felt almost a necessary part to complete the reading process! It helped organise my thoughts about it.
Christ just be grateful I abandoned the first draft of my 'review', now that was meandering and long winded...
I'm a big fan of Watchmen but I think the influence it's had on comics since its release is a double edged sword.
On one hand it's nice to have lots of collected editions on sale in bookshops - comics like Watchmen and DKR are directly linked to the rise of the 'Graphic Novel'.
On the other hand their approach to storytelling has had (it could be argued) a detrimental effect on traditional super-heroics. Watchmen is all about the 'journey' as opposed to the 'destination'. Moore wants to know what makes these characters dress up in funny costumes and fight crime - he also wants to know what godlike power does to a personality (in many ways John dies in the Intrinsic Field Removal Chamber - Dr Manhatten never regains his humanity).
Traditional super hero comics are all about the 'destination'. Who cares how Spidey got his powers? We just want to see a guy fighting colourful villains and making quips. It doesn't matter that Galactus has a big 'G' on his front even though he's an alien. These stories are pure fantasy and need no explanation in order to make them fit in a believable world - people just accepted them. This doesn't happen anymore - and that's a shame (now spidey has to have been bitten by a genetically altered spider that reacted to a serum that Peter Parker's dad was working on before he went missing - which, frankly, is just as much bollocks as the radioactive explanation we started with 50 years ago).
The same thing has happened in other media, not just comics. You'd find it pretty odd in Grand Theft Auto if you punched a dustbin and found a steaming hot chicken dinner inside. Or if you played HALO and found yourself pursued by rampant toilet seats or luminous green giant scissors.
I think that pretty much the only place that these absurd leaps in logic can be allowed to happen these days is in cartoons.
I'm not sure I've made my point very well - and I'm not sure if Watchmen is a symptom or a cause but hopefully you'll get my drift.
I like the way Moore openly flaunts the source of his ideas and inspirations because they're so unimportant in the context of the larger work (idea and story being different things), which despite Watchmen being strip-mined to this very day is still something that the vast majority of contemporary writers shy away from doing*, like there's something shameful in being inspired by the things you love rather than magically conjuring ideas from a vacuum.
I honestly still see "LOL mebbe hell rip off anoter LOL Twilite Zun ep LOL" as if it were damnation of Moore's entire career and everything he ever says, and it still entertains me when I do.
* Although they're not afraid of the lampshade-hanging Moore practices in chapter 12 when he directly names the episode of Outer Limits that inspired him.
Interesting piece Colin, some well thought out comparisions too ( this from a man who loves Really Free and ONLY likes the first two Beatles albums :D)
It would be impossible to recapture the whole thing of WM as it came out in its first comic form, with no interwebby to point out certain things they came out of the blue on a second/third read or even only when the GN came out or the comic press highlighted it.
I've re-read a few times now and I do get something different each time or see something I'd forgot, so I recommend a re-read to anyone who hasn't read it in the past five years.
As I've pointed out elsewhere here, it does seem to be the only GN that appears on everygeeks shelves( see Where the Dust goes to settle thread)
oh and my reading copy is signed by all three creators...nice!
The thing which still strikes me about Watchmen is how many genres it covers in the same book, being equal parts superhero adventure, film noir, murder mystery, conspiracy thriller, soap, sci-fi, psychological horror, romance and black comedy - it's amazing it holds together - I guess that's something about the comic strip medium is it gives it all a consistent style by virtue of being drawn, while film directors generally have to find a style and stick to it. No wonder it confused audiences.
I personally think its clever structural idea possible mask how much soul there is in the book; Dan and Laurie's story is the beating human heart of the book, while the internal battle between Rorchach and Walter is just incredible right up to the end. It sounds disturbing, but I see parts of him in people all the time as multiple personalities battle for supremecy. The part which really struck me on re-reading some time ago was the way he lodges with a prostitute much like his own mother, despite his 'disgust'... as if trying to gain some kind of mock closeness to a maternal figure. To me one of the most stunning parts of the book is the frame when Rorchach see himself in the child's eyes and stops himself exposing her as a prostiture - the compromise which would lead up to his final compromise later. Walter's fightback. Perhaps despite everything, the therapy worked.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 31 July, 2012, 09:58:02 AM
Its does some things very successfully. I love its use of time, not just in its beginning and end, but the way we are unable to see the world as Jon does, with every event happening at the same time. That's a bit of genius right there.
Speaking of self referential... I'd like make this point clear as I express it about as well as Osborne expressing compassion.
What I meant is time moves freely in the straight reading of the story, back and forth, though never getting beyond the 'barrier' in Jon's vision. As its a comic book we can jump around too, going to any point in time in the narrative to check back, relive, re-interpret events, find new meaning. Its a comic so time is also frozen, as Jon we can look at the shortest moment in time (a single panel frozen in time) and examine it in complete detail. So in many ways we're capable of seeing time exactly as Jon did. And yet we don't, we get a glimpse into how Jon sees things, but that glimpse only makes it clear how far removed from us he is. We can't hold it all in, we can't comprehend every moment in the same instant. So my seeing things like Jon we realise quite how unable are to grasp what he does.
There see, much clearer now... so glad I did that...
On another note thanks for all the insightful input to this (some of which sent me back to the comic yesterday to re-look at things!). When I wrote this I was half expecting, if anybody made a comment it'd be to pull things I'd said down (which is entirely fine of course) 'cos Watchmen is held in such high regard and people can get quite evangelical about it.
So once again we see that a 2000ad crowd is a more intelligent and open crowd than the rest.
For me, the criticism of 'soullessness' misses the point- in the end, they are the 'watch' men, just cogs in the clockwork of Alan's plot and Dave's design. Before Watchmen' is irrelevant, as who really cares what the cogs and springs did before the watchmaker constructed the design?
Alan's mechanistic design is evident throughout, with Dave echoing it in repeated graphic elements, explicit in the circular nature of the plot.
It's only that Alan can't help but humanize these archetypes (he's an old softy really) that their characters shine through.
Mike
Last time I read it, I'd recently watched the film (on a repeat viewing -- I actually like that film, even if it is an unpopular opinion). So I spent the whole read comparing the book to the film and then allowed myself one self-indulgent drunken rant at a friend about where the film was better and worse than the book, then promptly forgot all of my opinions on the subject.
The other thing that happened while I read Watchmen was I was constantly noticing the reasons why it was so good -- picking out the rhythms, the characterisation, all of the stuff that you've all already mentioned and described better than I'm currently capable of (long day at work). But that kind of threw me out of the experience -- it became an academic experience rather than an emotional one. So I can recognise it as a perfect/near-perfect comic, but it does prevent me from loving it, in the same way that I love other comics and works of art.
I loved Ozymandias in the movie- in early 80s he should look like Bowie, not Robert Redford; the credits timeline was brilliant; every scene with the Comedian is note perfect.
However...my real problem with the movie:
By removing the creation of the Space Squid they effectively destroy the central cog around which the whole plot rotates. The Comedian discovers what Ozy is up to, through piecing together what the various missing people are involved with. A paper trail, however tenuous, exists.
In the movie, there are no agents no writers, no scientists, it's all in Ozy's head. No paper trail, nothing for the Comedian to discover. Remove a cog, and the mechanism ceases to work.