Do people like the idea of The Watchmen more than the actual book?
Zhurrie
Posts: 617
This is not meant to be inflammatory or even a discussion about the creators/rights/etc. But an honest question. I recently re-read the original Watchmen and even when I read it the first time I never got what the hoopla was all about. It is a competent book and at the time was something new and different but I sometimes think that people like the idea of The Watchmen more than The Watchmen. It is like the comic equivalent of not owning/liking "Pet Sounds" (which I don't like particularly and I am a massive music fan spanning every genre imaginable). People want to fit in and be part of the crowd so they have a copy and praise it when in the right circles but never listen to it.
The characters are all so droll/dull and they don't do a lot to really make them cool, badass, or much of anything. Not that that was the intent or point but there is little to really draw someone in aside from a higher almost academic side. Anytime someone is really gung-ho about The Watchmen I try to get them to tell me why and it rarely ends in much of an explanation or with any depth often boiling down to "it's a classic."
I'm genuinely interested in real insight, positive or negative about your thoughts on it.
The characters are all so droll/dull and they don't do a lot to really make them cool, badass, or much of anything. Not that that was the intent or point but there is little to really draw someone in aside from a higher almost academic side. Anytime someone is really gung-ho about The Watchmen I try to get them to tell me why and it rarely ends in much of an explanation or with any depth often boiling down to "it's a classic."
I'm genuinely interested in real insight, positive or negative about your thoughts on it.
Comments
In the context of its time and experienced in the way it was intended (one issue a month), it was a masterpiece.
There was a an element of discovery and speculation that was designed as part of the Watchmen experience that is missing from the trade paperback.
Figuring out that the covers were the first panels of each issue. Them waiting another month to confirm the theory.
Tracking down the sources of each issue's title/quote (no mean feat pre-internet).
Dissecting each panel and every paragraph of the text pieces to try to discover connections.
Re-reading all the previous issues the day before a new one came out, then re-reading everything again after you read the new one.
Realizing that the issue titled "Fearful Symmetry" was in fact symmetrically illustrated, and then realizing two issues down the road, that the centerspread of that issue was the point at which all the clues were in place and the villain revealed himself right before your eyes without you even knowing it.
Hashing all these elements out with your comics-reading peers. Sharing observations, discoveries and wild-assed theories.
Hell, even the extra month wait for the last issue was an exciting part of the experience.
In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud talks about "the space between the panels." With Watchmen, Moore used "the space between the issues" as well. And masterfully.
Watchmen was not just a comic book, it was a year of my life.
Watchmen: The Trade Paperback is still pretty good, but it's a pale shadow to Watchmen: The Four Dimensional Experience.
Moore likes to break other people's toys.
And draw naughty bits on them.
The reason I wanted to bring this up is that I am always very sure of what I like and don't like and I've even worked as a professional critic but there are the occasional works that make me question if I am just missing something, if other people are just jumping on a bandwagon with no real reasoning, or what. The Watchmen is one of those, along with Pet Sounds, Star Wars, etc. for me. I have listened to Pet Sounds at least 30 times in my life, I have tried to watch Star Wars easily as many times, I have read The Watchmen 2.5 times. I have been rearranging and pruning my trade shelves and my goal was to stick to my personal top 100. I had The Watchmen sitting out the whole time and never slotted it in. I almost felt guilty or wrong about it and even tried to think of where it could go. It didn't make the cut. I still feel mixed about it truthfully.
The thing about Watchmen (and the Dark Knight Returns) is that they are some of the greatest comics ever written but that doesn't necissarily mean they are my personal favorites. I own them both and have read and reread each but that doesn't mean they would be 2 of my desert island choices.
Both are so rooted in that 80s Cold War paranoia that, even as a kid who was growing up then, its sometimes hard (for me) to get into them in the year 2012.
this really reached me beyond what other comics did for me, i nearly became a crime-fighter myself >.<
It blew my young mind, and I think was a part of me continuing to read and seek out comics, and follow particular authors in comics, for the rest of my teenage years and beyond.
I do get the criticisms, and I think Grant Morrison (for all of the attention-seeking ways he attacked Watchmen early in his career) does make some astute criticisms of the work in his recent Supergods book-- in retrospect the story is too tightly wound and perfectly planned of a pocket watch. It may be too clever for its own good. As an adult I prefer other works of Moore's over it, particularly V for Vendetta. But I think at the age I read it, and that age I was aspiring to be a writer when I grew up, the very capital-W Writer-ly-ness of it was something I loved. I loved how meticulous, careful, and balanced it all was. I loved the math of it.
I prefer that approach less as an adult. The adult in me wants more emotional messiness and more of a personal voice to most of what I read. Though I still think Watchmen is a remarkable work on the part of both its authors, and actually an emotional distance and meticulous attention to structure, detail, and plot over anything else is, at the end of the day, what most murder mysteries are. And that is what Watchmen is, structurally, not a drama, or a tragedy, or a romance. Or even alternative historical fiction. At the end of the day it is a science fiction/superhero murder mystery).
But I also think- to get back to Zhurrie's initial question and premise- that there is a lot to like and respond to in the work of Watchmen. While I understand that it has a status and reputation to reckon with, and there are some who would rather be 'well-read' and read what they enjoy... I don't think Watchmen would still be selling in the numbers it does, and inspire the reader loyalty and evangelism (which is to say, that moment of "You've got to read this!") if people were not actually enjoying it and being affected by it. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted. There are sorts of cultural capital reasons to own other hugely influential comics works, but I have to say when the rubber meets the road I see people reading Watchmen on the subway all the time... and I don't think I have ever seen someone sitting with a copy of Contract With God.
And "Wouldn't it be nice" is still on the radio all the time. You know what I mean? And it is not because it is a from an album that you are supposed to own.
I do think it is an interesting question, though.
I think it deserves the praise it gets. It is an intellectual super hero story. It explores its points deftly. It makes a bold statement that remains relative thru today.
The visual storytelling is a landmark in the art form.
Wetrats hits the nail on the head about how it was put together, but I'd like to add that it was the story as well as the storytelling.
This was the first time super-heroes were given an adult treatment. At the time, Peter Parker's most adult story being published was teaching the Beyonder how to use a toilet and romance in comics was treated the same way Stan Lee had done so in bring soap operas into superhero stories. Moore brought in adult issues (and yes, a lot of people mock it now as being "rapey") and used them to build conflict, character and something more than the two dimensional moping which was standard characterization at the time.
The story was shocking in how complex it was as well. Pick up a standard Marvel or DC book from 1986 and EVERY conflict was resolved by punching someone in the face. Character spoke in exposition, text blocks filled art when it as clear the artist hadn't drawn what the plot called for to explain what was going on and many of the more adult writers (Steve Gerber, Don McGregor, etc...) had been driven off to other fields.
As a story, Watchmen is a solid murder mystery that uses many of that genre's tropes. As a comic, Watchmen was a leap forward where a writer and artist pushed the boundaries of what could be done in the medium in terms of story complexity. And I STRONGLY disagree that it's wound too tight when you think of it as Alan Moore telling a story ABOUT comics in a comic book story. It's the Ulysses of super-hero comics.
When the impressionists started up, it was so different that galleries (salons, back then) wouldn't display it.
When Picasso and Braques started experimenting with cubism, it was radical and new, and ground breaking. Now, it looks like cool old art.
When Malevich painted a white square, it was unheard of that it could be art. Now it is considered a modern masterpiece, and people look at it perplexed of its significance.
People rioted when Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was first performed. Now it's in Disney cartoons.
A lot of ground breaking and influential work doesn't seem very significant after the influence has worked its way into the popular creative lexicon.
Remember when Authority started coming out? It seemed like the most exciting thing in comics. In retrospect, it seems like just another comic series.
I imagine that Watchmen suffers a bit from retrospective perspective.
And to reiterate, none of this is saying that I don't think Alan Moore is a good writer. Just that I don't think he's AS good a writer as other people (himself included) do.
**I made sure to include the word "mainstream" so you can't point to something like Cerebus which was in the middle of "Church and State" when Watchmen started. And for the record, I haven't read the latter volumes of Cerebus, but the earlier volumes, I would personally put ahead of Watchmen. The characters in those stories have gripped me more than any character in Watchmen did. And it could flip between humor and drama so well and do both on a level higher than many other people can do one or the other. And I know some of the stuff in the later volumes is controversial, but the art is still gorgeous.
Other comics that were released in October 1986, the same month as Watchmen #1:
American Flagg #33
Cerebus #90 (NINETY!)
Elektra: Assassin #2
ESPers #2
Grimjack #26
Jon Sable, Freelance #40
Maus #7
Mr. Monster's Super Duper Special #3
Ms. Tree #32
Nexus #24
The Puma Blues #2
RAW #8
Scout #11
Son of Ambush Bug #3
The Dark Knight was already completed. (the first trade edition came out the same month as Watchmen #2)
Miller's legendary Daredevil run was already ancient history.
Moore's own Miracleman #9 (the infamous birth issue) came out three months earlier.
The Direct Market had transformed the industry and made the publication of more "adult" titles possible.
Watchmen was perhaps the culmination or the ultimate expression of a movement, but it wasn't groundbreaking. That ground had already been cleared, plowed, fertilized and yielded several years of healthy crops by then. Hell, it had even had a chance to lay fallow a couple times.
The above was typed at two in the morning when I should have been getting a good night's sleep before driving to HeroesCon. Stupid insomnia.
Also, I won't jump on the popular Moore hating bandwagon. The guy is an amazing talent. Is. Not was.
Sure he writes a stinker here and there. Who doesn't? He is flat out one of the grand masters of comic book writing.
It was The Next Big thing, after The Dark Knight made such a huge splash and got attention from "serious" readers as opposed to "comic" readers.
And it was a perfect follow-up for those "serious" readers. Very serious. Very intellectual. A traditional mystery disguised as a superhero book. With a very impressive scary hairy arrogant British eccentric intellectual author as its face.
And it was the first time those outsiders were seeing this kind of story complexity (and violence and sex) in comics, since they hadn't read comics since they were kids.
And where The Dark Knight was big and loud and splashy and messy and passionate, Watchmen was precise, controlled, sedate, dignified, and remote.
Of course they ate it up.
At the time, to the world at large, Batman was still a post-Adam West joke.
Biff! Pow! Kablooie!
Superman was Mainstream.
Mainstream to comic book fans and mainstream to the world at large rarely intersect. Bendis had a great rant about that in Fortune and Glory.
Especially Watchmen.
And the Sandman, of course, which was the perfect long-form series to capture those outsiders who read Watchmen and wanted more.
Although with that said, I've still hardly met anyone who wasn't a comic book fan who had heard of the Watchmen before the movie came out. And when the Tim Burton Batman movie came out, the general public was shocked to see a Batman without "Pow" "Biff" on the screen. I know as comic book fans we love to look at the media attention those books get and squeal in fanboy delight, but that doesn't always translate into real world people actually reading the books.
Even before the film.
Hardly anyone you've met has heard of, say Robert B. Parker, but he sold millions of books.
There's a point in there somewhere, but it's 3:30 am, and I have no idea where I was going with this...
I've said before, there is a reason that I only own one Absolute Edition, and that it is Watchmen: Watchmen, as a story, is not necessarily the greatest story, but Watchmen, as a whole, is the best use of the comics medium I've ever seen.
Moore managed to use this particular medium to level not seen before. Layout, pacing, page turns... he used what some would call "weaknesses" of comics as their strengths.
A lot of creators latched onto the "adult" aspect of superheroes from the book and ran with it, missing, in my opinion, the real greatness of the book - exploiting those aspects of comics that are unique to them.
Every once in a while, I'll see an example of this, and it really stands out. Usually, though, it is one or two pages. Once in a great, great while, an issue. Moore did an entire 12 issue contained series highlighting what comics *could* be.
I've never seen the movie. Given what I most appreciate about the original work, that which cannot translate to another media, I know I would only see it as a lesser project. I try to avoid that which I know will disappoint me.
I've read it numerous times, and I still find myself pouring over each page. It still amazes me.
The mathematical/craft of it... I agree fully there. It is very meticulous and tightly crafted (I might not say tightly wound but I could see that too). Sometimes this level of crafted story can seem contrived and a few times for me The Watchmen does feel like a puzzle piece *has* to be jammed into place as a result but for the most part it is insanely successful in doing it smoothly.
Sales/Popularity... This is part of what I was asking initially. It is listed in Times top 100 list so it has been sold to a much wider audience. I am a book collector outside of comics and I often find collectors with little to no graphic works having a copy of The Watchmen, I have only ever found one person like this that actually loves the book. Most book readers/collectors are warm to cold on it. When I have been in my LCSs the past two weeks there has been some buzz/discussion about Before Watchmen and listening in or joining in has really not answered anything because the younger group into it seem to want to be part of it because it is "cool" and a classic but I never get a feel like there is some great passion or love behind it from them. The crowd that is my age or about 10 years older that did know the era and climate and original works seem to have a soft spot for it but again I still haven't heard someone truly dig into any meat of it past some of the basic easy pickings in describing what it is they love.
Characters... I'd love to know what a character like The Comedian means and does for people. I get him in the context of the story but I don't find him interesting or engaging and then when Before Watchmen hit people were excited for the Comedian book, but then mostly let down by it. I didn't understand the draw or excitement to begin with. Night Owl I can see you have some gadgets, intelligence, passion, etc. and a good story can be done with him. Rorschach ha so many avenues one could pursue from his psychology/backstory to a more crime-fighter/action side. Dr. Manhattan is a great playground entirely. Silk Spectre II, Ozymandias, and some others don't do much or hold much appeal for me personally and I always like to know what people think of them.
I loved Watchmen before I knew what the populace thought about it.
I liked Alan Moore's writing even before I knew he has a beard.
I tend to like what I like. Never needed anybody telling me what to like.
Yes - I'm that awesome 3:-O
;)
....man I suffer from the mother of hangovers....
For more Watchmen discussion check out this forum's very own Chris Beckett on his page a day run through.
http://www.readingwatchmen.com/
As the years go on, I don't devalue what Miller did, but really, in a lot of ways, he just brought crime fiction back to comics. Dark Knight was a 50's crime novel with SF overtones. Daredevil was a homage to The Spirit with ninjas. Elektra: Assassin was a standard espionage plot made brilliant by Bill Sienkiewicz's art. Watchmen was a whodunnit that was meticulously crafted.
Yes, you could argue that there were other adult comics beforehand such as the Eisner graphic novels; Jaxson's historical works; the autobiographical works of Pekar, Justin Green and Crumb; as well as many others, but none of them got the mainstream attention Watchmen did. It won a Hugo, was the subject of a Rolling Stone article and (along with Dark Knight) made trade paperback a viable medium for comics.
Honestly, I don't think Watchmen is a good introduction to comics as you need to know a lot about the form and storytelling tropes in order to understand the complexity and the subversion of the story, but it was NEEDED to bring the more complex style of storytelling into the mainstream.
As for the other books you mentioned, ONLY Maus has stayed in print continuously. I love each of the comics you listed, but Watchmen, Dark Knight and Maus were the book that brought comics mainstream and finally got them recognized as literature instead of throwaway crap. So, back to the original question: If Watchmen wasn't a good story on top of all the other things it did, I would say the IDEA is more popular. However, with DC publishing a bunch of fanfic about it, I'd say people love the story.
Watchmen hit a chord that had non comic book readers reading it. It was strong enough to make it into literary circles, fiction awards, be taught in colleges.
It 'made it'.
Others followed after. Even dark knight. But watchmen set a precident.
I feel that many younger readers now are blind or jaded to the impact the watchmen has given how many times they have read something similar before reading watchmen.
I agree with all that's been said in favor of Watchmen. I read it in single issues (though I didn't get them as they were coming out, as I wasn't near a comic shop at the time, I did manage to purchase back issues from Mile High within a year of its completion), at the right time (I was in my early teens and toward the beginning of my comic collecting). The main story captivated me then, and the characters were so much more complex than anything I had read in comics up to that point. It really hit me at the most opportune time to have the most significant impact on my comic reading. And then, as I got older and learned more about what Moore & Gibbons were trying to accomplish with the book, I was able to go back and read it with a new perspective.
Ultimately, what I appreciate most about Watchmen, is the fact that every time I read it, I take something new from it. It might be a new insight into a character, or a bit of foreshadowing or symbolism that I didn't catch on previous readings, or something in the art that I might have missed before. It doesn't matter (and it could be my advanced age wreaking havoc with my memory :-O ), every single time something new becomes evident. That's why I think of it as such a masterpiece within the medium (not THE masterpiece, as that is far too subjective a topic to debate, though I do feel it is the best example of exhibiting what is unique to comics as a storytelling medium), and why I decided to finally try to share that with others through Reading Watchmen - thanks @Caliban for the shout out above.
chris