I own the Watchmen trade but I don't really consider it that great of a story. It just doesn't do anything for me.
I have no connection to the paranoia that some people had towards America's foreign policy during the 80's. When I read this I just see Moore's political views(at that time) thinly veiled in a superhero story. This book is to Moore's politics as Promethea is to his spirituality. Quite frankly I don't care for either.
I've tried to look past those things but still find the story weak with a lame ending.
On the other hand I really enjoy the art and reading this made me a fan of Dave Gibbons.
EDIT: One dislike already? What do you have against Gibbons' art?!?! ;)
Perhaps the proprietor of your newsstand had access to a direct market distributor as well, but I can find no evidence for the existence of a returnable version of The Dark Knight Returns.
Perhaps the proprietor of your newsstand had access to a direct market distributor as well, but I can find no evidence for the existence of a returnable version of The Dark Knight Returns.
Yeah I have never heard of a newsstand version of DKR.
I agree and probably should have said that it was the first time a MAINSTREAM publisher with access to the press created a super hero story for adults.
Panther's Rage from Jungle Action predates Watchmen. Marvel didn't hype it, so your "access to press" comment may apply. But what Don MacGregor did was every bit as mature as Moore. :)
I agree with Stewart. I read Watchmen as it was coming out, and the space between issues really created a great sense of anticipation. It was a wonderful read.
It's an excellent comic. At the time, I didn't believe, as some did, that it was on par with Shakespeare and the pinnacle of Western literature. I still don't.
It's an excellent comic. At the time, I didn't believe, as some did, that it was on par with the Shakespeare and the pinnacle of Western literature. I still don't.
But it's an excellent comic.
Yep.
It's a nearly-flawlessly-crafted comic.
As a story, it's pretty darned-good, but had the story been told as a prose novel, I doubt it would be on anyone's top 100 list.
This one may have been available on the news-stand
Wrong universe!
(as a completely unrelated tangent, I'm assuming you're aware that cover came from the alternate universe in Fringe. One of the other books on that wall was "The Death of Batman" yet in a later episode, Olivia and Lincoln from the other universe made a comment about not knowing who Batman was, that he didn't exist over there. Now away from the nitpicking and back to your regularly scheduled topic.)
Like Chris, I did not read Watchmen as it was coming out, but read it in single issues a couple of years after the fact. I was in college at the time and just getting back into comics, and I was immersing myself in all the great material that was coming out at that time: Cerebus, The Tick, The Cowboy Wally Show, Dr. Fate, etc. After reading Watchmen, I immediately read it again, but slower, looking more closely at the structure and design of the story. I thought it was amazing.
And it is. But I haven’t read it again since. I view it in much the same way I do Asterios Polyp. They are both brilliant pieces of storytelling. More importantly, they are both, in essence, commentaries on the craft of telling a story in the comic format. They both shout from the rooftops exactly what can be achieved in this medium and what makes the comic format so effective as a form of communication. That is the true greatness of Watchmen to me anyway. The characters and the actual stories are secondary as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the story just fine, but in general I’d much rather read From Hell. My attachment to Watchmen is almost entirely on a technical/process level. That’s probably part of the reason I don’t have a real problem with Before Watchmen.
Perhaps the proprietor of your newsstand had access to a direct market distributor as well, but I can find no evidence for the existence of a returnable version of The Dark Knight Returns.
It must have been that. I got mine at a newsstand in my town, but it is a newsstand that (thankfully for me as a fan) also did direct market distribution (which, years later when they stopped doing that, and I was working at one of their newsstands and volunteered to catalog all their un-returnable comics back stock they no longer wanted to shelve led to them selling me four Graphitti hardcover slipcase editions of Watchmen for $5 each!)
But the original DKR was not distributed through the regular newsstand distribution, which was actually pointed out by DC in the house ad that tried to get readers to pre-order it via subscription. So if anyone found one at a newsstand, it is because, at that time, there were newsstands also involved in the direct market, like the one I was lucky enough to have in my town. (That is how I found Dark Horse Presents, and Aliens and Concrete from Dark Horse, as well as TMNT, at a tender young age.)
To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. It certainly wasn't the first book to take an adult stance on the medium, but it certainly helped bring that stance to a more general audience. If you're glossing over those text pieces at the end of each issue...if you're glossing over the Black Freighter story within a story...if you're focused too much on Moore and not paying attention to what Gibbons was doing...you're missing this evolution. Given that so much time has passed, it's hardly revolutionary anymore, but go back to 1986 and you'll see what these two people were trying to accomplish.
To talk about Zhurrie's question about characterization and how we can identify with any of them - there are bits and pieces of people I know, and bits of myself, to see in these characters. The Comedian is this one kid's dad I knew growing up. No he wasn't a rapist, but he was former military and by God he knew the situation and you didn't so just sit down shut up and thank him for protecting you (Yes, he was a jackass. :) So was the Comedian. ). Anyone who's every been the shy nerd can identify with the Dan-Laurie situation. Lord knows I've been there! :) I've also known a few black and white idealists out there like Rorschach. Because these are archetypes that tie into basic things most of us have experienced at some point in our lives, there's a strong chance we'll connect with them. Some characters more than others - I never knew anyone like Veidt or Dr. Manhattan, for example, so their stories don't resonate as strongly with me, if that makes sense.
To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. It certainly wasn't the first book to take an adult stance on the medium, but it certainly helped bring that stance to a more general audience. If you're glossing over those text pieces at the end of each issue...if you're glossing over the Black Freighter story within a story...if you're focused too much on Moore and not paying attention to what Gibbons was doing...you're missing this evolution. Given that so much time has passed, it's hardly revolutionary anymore, but go back to 1986 and you'll see what these two people were trying to accomplish.
To talk about Zhurrie's question about characterization and how we can identify with any of them - there are bits and pieces of people I know, and bits of myself, to see in these characters. The Comedian is this one kid's dad I knew growing up. No he wasn't a rapist, but he was former military and by God he knew the situation and you didn't so just sit down shut up and thank him for protecting you (Yes, he was a jackass. :) So was the Comedian. ). Anyone who's every been the shy nerd can identify with the Dan-Laurie situation. Lord knows I've been there! :) I've also known a few black and white idealists out there like Rorschach. Because these are archetypes that tie into basic things most of us have experienced at some point in our lives, there's a strong chance we'll connect with them. Some characters more than others - I never knew anyone like Veidt or Dr. Manhattan, for example, so their stories don't resonate as strongly with me, if that makes sense.
Excellent post! I also mentioned the Black Freighter story as my far and away standout of the entire book, not so much the story itself but the seriously epic and tight integration with the story at hand which was so finely crafted and handled.
You made me really think when you brought up your view of the Comedian, I hadn't thought of him in that sense (the military dad) but that is quite fitting and a little different spin from what the character was in my mind. I also think you touched on something I know to be true for myself when it comes to movies and relatability, I have a hard time relating to films/stories of idyllic childhoods and early/teen lives and I have a harder time relating to people that most likely had idyllic childhoods and early/teen lives trying to write about darker ones. It never works for me. Not that I had some tortured existence but I didn't have the easiest or most traditional one. I watch films by say Larry Clark and relate 100%, but then I'd sit with critics and they'd slag the same film as being gratuitous or over-the-top... when if anything it was quite tame and weak compared to my reality. I was always a bit of a loner and self-contained but I also could be the life of a party and laughs and even outgoing. I played sports and hung with all types yet could have been seen as a nerd. I never stuck to any labels or trappings. I was pretty OK with the ladies so I didn't have that experience either. I had family in the military but none were the gung-ho kill 'em all types and instead had very real and poignant experiences that were humbling if anything. Rorschach had the only appeal to me because he was closer to my own self and I think that is why I object so majorly to his limp-wristed attempts to "fight" Veidt which just didn't fit anything IMO or other parts that just don't ring true to me for that type of person or character. I can see how the characterization can be pulled in that direction though without it being a stretch it is just different than my own read and thoughts.
We all come to comics with our own baggage and we find our own characters to latch onto. It's funny - a character I most related to when reading her was Francine from Strangers in Paradise. In many ways she was a distaff counterpart to me - had a decent, nuturing family, lived a quiet suburban life, never got to play parental squares like all the other kids did, etc. In other words, she had none of the craziness that most characters...in fact most PEOPLE...do. I think it's one reason I stuck with that series through the end. I was never crazy about Katchoo, but in Francine I found a sort of kindred spirit.
We would drive out to the mall, to b Dalton's, to snag comics that the lcs near the college sold out of. We snagged all 4 first prints of dkr at b Dalton's. They didn't carry any other companies than dc and marvel so I thought it was newsstand.
To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be.
Sorry, Al...But Will Eisner was doing this decades before Moore and Gibbons.
So one and only one artist can evolve a medium? I don't agree. What Eisner did and what Moore and Gibbons did both contributed to the growth of comics as a medium, but in different ways.
Eisner took the idea of sequential art and turned it on its head and basically showed the world that there was more to it than just panel-by-panel narrative, and in the process forced his colleagues to up their game. He wrote the handbook on how to do it right, and for many it's still the be-all-end-all of how to make good comics.
Moore and Gibbons (and Miller, and Sienkewicz, and Sim-Gerhard, McCloud, etc.) while following Eisner's roadmap, challenged the idea of what a comic book could be, and forced it to move beyond just a monthly ongoing serialization of a story. Particularly with Moore and McCloud, they've worked to move comics out of the 22-page fold-and-staple model that 99% of the books out there are trapped in.
To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be.
Sorry, Al...But Will Eisner was doing this decades before Moore and Gibbons.
So one and only one artist can evolve a medium? I don't agree.
That's not what I said.
I said that Eisner had been 'evolving' the medium using different techniques...some that Moore used (Moore is a huge Eisner fan) waaay before Moore/Gibbons did. Eisner showed what a comic 'should and ought to be' waay before 'Watchmen'
To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be.
Sorry, Al...But Will Eisner was doing this decades before Moore and Gibbons.
So one and only one artist can evolve a medium? I don't agree.
That's not what I said.
I said that Eisner had been 'evolving' the medium using different techniques...some that Moore used (Moore is a huge Eisner fan) waaay before Moore/Gibbons did. Eisner showed what a comic 'should and ought to be' waay before 'Watchmen'
I don't doubt that Moore is a fan of Eisner, or that Gibbons uses techniques he laid out 30-40 years prior, but the implication of your statement is that because Eisner "was doing this decades before Moore and Gibbons" then there's no value to what Moore and Gibbons accomplished with Watchmen, even if that was building on the house that Eisner built.
And if that was the case, why was Watchman as "revolutionary" as it was, so status-quo breaking, given Eisner's influence on the state of comics for so long?
Eisner wasn't mainstream. The marketplace was completely different in Eisners day. Eisner didn't have a DC or Marvel behind him. And the audience was different. Comics are for kids etc. Eisner was ahead of his time. Eisner's 'Contract With God' is probably the first attempt at a mature graphic novel employing some really damn good storytelling techniques.
The techniques that Moore/Gibbons used in Watchmen weren't revolutionary but were probably approached better than anything else seen prior (Just like Citizen Kane. Welles had used some German filmaking techniques for kane). I would say that Eisner has been more influential on the comic book medium as a whole than 'Watchmen'.
'Watchmen' is the 'Citizen Kane' of comic books...it used techniques in storytelling (like 'Kane') that have become quiet common in storytelling. And it loses part of it's appeal because of that. Watchmen was status quo breaking because nobody saw 'super'heroes act in those ways before. It turned US audience perceptions of what a 'super' hero should be on it's face. Probably not so much for me...Marvelman did that for me years prior to Watchmen. I could never look at another superhero book the same after Marvelman.
Your statement was that 'To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. ' which implies that comics weren't what they could and ought to be before 'Watchmen'. Which wasn't the case. There were comics that showed what a comic should be an ought to be before 'Watchmen'...like 'The Spirit'. ;-)
I think both show the 'potential' of the medium rather than what it should/ought be.
'Watchmen' is definitely in my top ten. But I do think that it has become hugely over-rated. Not at the time it wasn't...but it has now.
Your statement was that 'To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. ' which implies that comics weren't what they could and ought to be before 'Watchmen'. Which wasn't the case. There were comics that showed what a comic should be an ought to be before 'Watchmen'...like 'The Spirit'. ;-)
Your statement was that 'To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. ' which implies that comics weren't what they could and ought to be before 'Watchmen'. Which wasn't the case. There were comics that showed what a comic should be an ought to be before 'Watchmen'...like 'The Spirit'. ;-)
And Captain Carrot and his Amazing Zoo Crew! :)
Totally agree. A slong as comics are fun and entertaining...then they are perfect no matter what techniques the writer/artist use.
Which leads me to 'Thugs!'. Issue 5 out soon it contains none of the writing/art techniues of 'Watchmen' but it's a darn fine read...and fun too!!!!
Eisner wasn't mainstream. The marketplace was completely different in Eisners day. Eisner didn't have a DC or Marvel behind him. And the audience was different. Comics are for kids etc. Eisner was ahead of his time. Eisner's 'Contract With God' is probably the first attempt at a mature graphic novel employing some really damn good storytelling techniques.
Whoa, Eisner wasn't mainstream?
Eisner's "Spirit" was in hundreds of Sunday papers through the 40's and 50's, reaching an audience that comics couldn't dream of, even then. He then went to work for PS Magazine which was given to every serviceman for his entire run on the magazine. You can't GET more mainstream than that. In the 70's, Warren reprinted The Spirit in magazines that reached the same mainstream audience as Creepy, Eerie and Famous Monsters Of Filmland and ran for much longer than a reprint from the 40's should have.
He was often pointed to in the same way as Walt Kelly or Crockett Johnson was, and his work was just as well known as L'il Abner and other big name comic strips of the time.
Maybe his graphic novels didn't get the same pull in the late 70's, but to say his groundbreaking work wasn't mainstream is just a mistake.
Comments
I have no connection to the paranoia that some people had towards America's foreign policy during the 80's. When I read this I just see Moore's political views(at that time) thinly veiled in a superhero story. This book is to Moore's politics as Promethea is to his spirituality. Quite frankly I don't care for either.
I've tried to look past those things but still find the story weak with a lame ending.
On the other hand I really enjoy the art and reading this made me a fan of Dave Gibbons.
EDIT: One dislike already? What do you have against Gibbons' art?!?! ;)
Are you sure about that? I never saw a copy of Dark Knight on the newsstand ever.
With barcodes?
Perhaps the proprietor of your newsstand had access to a direct market distributor as well, but I can find no evidence for the existence of a returnable version of The Dark Knight Returns.
I agree with Stewart. I read Watchmen as it was coming out, and the space between issues really created a great sense of anticipation. It was a wonderful read.
It's an excellent comic. At the time, I didn't believe, as some did, that it was on par with Shakespeare and the pinnacle of Western literature. I still don't.
But it's an excellent comic.
It's a nearly-flawlessly-crafted comic.
As a story, it's pretty darned-good, but had the story been told as a prose novel, I doubt it would be on anyone's top 100 list.
(as a completely unrelated tangent, I'm assuming you're aware that cover came from the alternate universe in Fringe. One of the other books on that wall was "The Death of Batman" yet in a later episode, Olivia and Lincoln from the other universe made a comment about not knowing who Batman was, that he didn't exist over there. Now away from the nitpicking and back to your regularly scheduled topic.)
And those other covers
bottom of his article
And it is. But I haven’t read it again since. I view it in much the same way I do Asterios Polyp. They are both brilliant pieces of storytelling. More importantly, they are both, in essence, commentaries on the craft of telling a story in the comic format. They both shout from the rooftops exactly what can be achieved in this medium and what makes the comic format so effective as a form of communication. That is the true greatness of Watchmen to me anyway. The characters and the actual stories are secondary as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the story just fine, but in general I’d much rather read From Hell. My attachment to Watchmen is almost entirely on a technical/process level. That’s probably part of the reason I don’t have a real problem with Before Watchmen.
But the original DKR was not distributed through the regular newsstand distribution, which was actually pointed out by DC in the house ad that tried to get readers to pre-order it via subscription. So if anyone found one at a newsstand, it is because, at that time, there were newsstands also involved in the direct market, like the one I was lucky enough to have in my town. (That is how I found Dark Horse Presents, and Aliens and Concrete from Dark Horse, as well as TMNT, at a tender young age.)
To talk about Zhurrie's question about characterization and how we can identify with any of them - there are bits and pieces of people I know, and bits of myself, to see in these characters. The Comedian is this one kid's dad I knew growing up. No he wasn't a rapist, but he was former military and by God he knew the situation and you didn't so just sit down shut up and thank him for protecting you (Yes, he was a jackass. :) So was the Comedian. ). Anyone who's every been the shy nerd can identify with the Dan-Laurie situation. Lord knows I've been there! :) I've also known a few black and white idealists out there like Rorschach. Because these are archetypes that tie into basic things most of us have experienced at some point in our lives, there's a strong chance we'll connect with them. Some characters more than others - I never knew anyone like Veidt or Dr. Manhattan, for example, so their stories don't resonate as strongly with me, if that makes sense.
You made me really think when you brought up your view of the Comedian, I hadn't thought of him in that sense (the military dad) but that is quite fitting and a little different spin from what the character was in my mind. I also think you touched on something I know to be true for myself when it comes to movies and relatability, I have a hard time relating to films/stories of idyllic childhoods and early/teen lives and I have a harder time relating to people that most likely had idyllic childhoods and early/teen lives trying to write about darker ones. It never works for me. Not that I had some tortured existence but I didn't have the easiest or most traditional one. I watch films by say Larry Clark and relate 100%, but then I'd sit with critics and they'd slag the same film as being gratuitous or over-the-top... when if anything it was quite tame and weak compared to my reality. I was always a bit of a loner and self-contained but I also could be the life of a party and laughs and even outgoing. I played sports and hung with all types yet could have been seen as a nerd. I never stuck to any labels or trappings. I was pretty OK with the ladies so I didn't have that experience either. I had family in the military but none were the gung-ho kill 'em all types and instead had very real and poignant experiences that were humbling if anything. Rorschach had the only appeal to me because he was closer to my own self and I think that is why I object so majorly to his limp-wristed attempts to "fight" Veidt which just didn't fit anything IMO or other parts that just don't ring true to me for that type of person or character. I can see how the characterization can be pulled in that direction though without it being a stretch it is just different than my own read and thoughts.
Eisner took the idea of sequential art and turned it on its head and basically showed the world that there was more to it than just panel-by-panel narrative, and in the process forced his colleagues to up their game. He wrote the handbook on how to do it right, and for many it's still the be-all-end-all of how to make good comics.
Moore and Gibbons (and Miller, and Sienkewicz, and Sim-Gerhard, McCloud, etc.) while following Eisner's roadmap, challenged the idea of what a comic book could be, and forced it to move beyond just a monthly ongoing serialization of a story. Particularly with Moore and McCloud, they've worked to move comics out of the 22-page fold-and-staple model that 99% of the books out there are trapped in.
I said that Eisner had been 'evolving' the medium using different techniques...some that Moore used (Moore is a huge Eisner fan) waaay before Moore/Gibbons did. Eisner showed what a comic 'should and ought to be' waay before 'Watchmen'
And if that was the case, why was Watchman as "revolutionary" as it was, so status-quo breaking, given Eisner's influence on the state of comics for so long?
The techniques that Moore/Gibbons used in Watchmen weren't revolutionary but were probably approached better than anything else seen prior (Just like Citizen Kane. Welles had used some German filmaking techniques for kane). I would say that Eisner has been more influential on the comic book medium as a whole than 'Watchmen'.
'Watchmen' is the 'Citizen Kane' of comic books...it used techniques in storytelling (like 'Kane') that have become quiet common in storytelling. And it loses part of it's appeal because of that.
Watchmen was status quo breaking because nobody saw 'super'heroes act in those ways before. It turned US audience perceptions of what a 'super' hero should be on it's face. Probably not so much for me...Marvelman did that for me years prior to Watchmen. I could never look at another superhero book the same after Marvelman.
Your statement was that 'To me the significance of Watchmen is that Moore and Gibbons evolved what a comic could and ought to be. ' which implies that comics weren't what they could and ought to be before 'Watchmen'. Which wasn't the case. There were comics that showed what a comic should be an ought to be before 'Watchmen'...like 'The Spirit'. ;-)
I think both show the 'potential' of the medium rather than what it should/ought be.
'Watchmen' is definitely in my top ten. But I do think that it has become hugely over-rated. Not at the time it wasn't...but it has now.
Which leads me to 'Thugs!'. Issue 5 out soon it contains none of the writing/art techniues of 'Watchmen' but it's a darn fine read...and fun too!!!!
(shameless plug)
what the f**k have I been thinking about?
And I am still pissed that DC never came through on the Captain Carrot Showcase they were going to do...
Eisner's "Spirit" was in hundreds of Sunday papers through the 40's and 50's, reaching an audience that comics couldn't dream of, even then. He then went to work for PS Magazine which was given to every serviceman for his entire run on the magazine. You can't GET more mainstream than that. In the 70's, Warren reprinted The Spirit in magazines that reached the same mainstream audience as Creepy, Eerie and Famous Monsters Of Filmland and ran for much longer than a reprint from the 40's should have.
He was often pointed to in the same way as Walt Kelly or Crockett Johnson was, and his work was just as well known as L'il Abner and other big name comic strips of the time.
Maybe his graphic novels didn't get the same pull in the late 70's, but to say his groundbreaking work wasn't mainstream is just a mistake.