# Did you read comic books in the '80s? I have a question for you. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 21, 2006, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686 "2006-04-21T20:47:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/21 "2006-04-23T08:15:24Z")
Urk. I meant to say this, but missed it. I don’t think _Watchmen_, being a deconstruction of superheroes, should be anyone’s _introduction_ to the genre. It’s a burlesque, more or less, which tries to poke holes in the conventional idea of the powerful using his powers for the good of mankind. Also, whatever Moore meant by it, the “masked man = homosexual” meme\* he hammered home\* has been picked up by crass writers like Frank Miller & Mark Millar as a cheap way of mocking conventional superheroes. Grr. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/22 "2006-04-23T14:46:20Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Well, I call it a ripoff. I call _League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ a ripoff (actually, that’s much nicer than what I call it, but this isn’t the Pit). So if a writer uses characters that someone else created, it’s a ripoff? This is confusing. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > In the public release about _Watchmen_, Giordano was very nice about it, but I imagine he was “noticeably upset” in private, It is unreasonable, unless you have spoken with Giordano personally, to slam Watchmen or Moore on the basis of what you imagine Giordano’s unknown private response may have been. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > considering what he must have gone through to get the rights to his old Action Heroes moved to DC, & to have this self-important punk come in & propose a project which would drain most of them of nobility, morality, & admirability. Again, basing a response on things which for all you know don’t exist. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > the “masked man = homosexual” meme he hammered home Buh wha? He had some gay characters, most of whom were dead before the series even started. All of his primary characters were heterosexual (with the possible exception of Rohrshack, who as near as I could tell was sexually neuter). Even if Moore did suggest or even propogate this meme, it’s unreasonable to hold him responsible for what other creators with whom he has no involvement whatsoever do with it. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/23 "2006-04-23T16:15:03Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > It is unreasonable, unless you have spoken with Giordano personally, to slam Watchmen or Moore on the basis of what you imagine Giordano’s unknown private response may have been. Giordano has discussed this in interviews, most memorably one in **Comic Book Artist**. **foolsguinea** ’s take isn’t so far out of left field. Considering what they actually wound up doing with the Action Heroes in **Living Automatic Weapons** , they might as well have let Moore have the characters back in '86. ---
**Author:** ![Brainiac4](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brainiac4/32/3534_2.png) [@Brainiac4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brainiac4)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/24 "2006-04-23T22:05:15Z")
**foolsguinea** , I agree wholeheartedly that \*Watchmen \*should not be used to introduce someone to comics. Other than that, though, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I thought (and still do think) \*Watchmen \*was brilliant. As I noted before, I think _Dark Knight_ was more important, but I’m more likely to re-read _Watchmen_. Particularly the scenes with Rorschach, who is far and away my favorite character from the series. Although I will agree with you on one more thing – the Question should not act like Rorschach. That would be bad. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/25 "2006-04-23T23:00:37Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > Giordano has discussed this in interviews, most memorably one in **Comic Book Artist**. **foolsguinea** ’s take isn’t so far out of left field. That’s different, then. If he’s actually expressed that sort of sentiment, OK. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/26 "2006-04-24T13:52:59Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Then there’s the fact that the most influential superhero writer of the last twenty years is actually a horror writer Really, this is irrelevant. A good story is a good story. A good storyteller is a good storyteller. > [@](#): > > ; & that so many superhero fans tout _Watchmen_ as if it were the introduction to the form. I don’t know that many people tout it as an “introduction to the form.” It is merely admired as a high point of the form. When you introduce people to something you like, it’s natural to begin with examples that you consider the best of the form. > [@](#): > > it is not that unique or clever in its attempts to inject realism into that genre Sub sole nihil novi est. > [@](#): > > , & its most distinct critique is its dismissal of superhero fundamentals. Which is a perfectly valid point of view and one that is refreshing in the context of a superhero story. > [@](#): > > indulgent :dubious: > [@](#): > > If you want gritty superheroes, there were plenty running around before _Watchmen_ came along. I don’t know what you mean by “gritty,” but what I remember is mostly increasing gratuitous violence and gore. Nothing else was as serious and self-examining as _Watchmen_, one of whose themes was something on the order of, “In real life, costumed heroes would be a societal problem; costumed heroes with real super powers would be an even bigger problem.” > [@](#): > > Well, I call it a ripoff. A ripoff of what, exactly? Gritty superhero stories? More of a ripoff than Shakespeare’s plays? Shakespeare actually copies whole plots. Does Watchmen do this much even? > [@](#): > > I call _League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ a ripoff Again, a ripoff of what? Using existing characters is perfectly valid in literature. Using existing genres is perfectly valid. Did _League_ copy someone’s entire story? > [@](#): > > In the public release about _Watchmen_, Giordano was very nice about it, but I imagine he was “noticeably upset” in private Who cares? Such sentiment has absolutely no relevance to the value of Moore’s work. > [@](#): > > considering what he must have gone through to get the rights to his old Action Heroes moved to DC, & to have this self-important punk come in & propose a project which would drain most of them of nobility, morality, & admirability. Boo freakin’ hoo. Writers retell old stories and reuse old characters from different viewpoints. Superhero comics are entirely based on this system. Giordano might not have liked Moore’s idea, but that’s his own opinion and irrelevant to any valid criticism of Moore’s story. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Also, whatever Moore meant by it, the “masked man = homosexual” meme\* he hammered home\* I don’t think he did any such thing. I did think he hammered home the theme that people who become masked heroes have some serious abnormality, and homosexuality was not one of those abnormality, except to the extent that society’s disapproval of it had a negative effect on one’s self esteem. The people who became masked heroes had a variety of problems, including insecurity, sadism, disconnection from reality, or (with regards to Dr. Manhattan) had become completely non-human. I think this was a perfect premise for a superhero story. It shows a serious examination of what kind of person it would take to become a masked hero for any length of time. ---
**Author:** ![First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@First\_Amongst\_Daves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/First_Amongst_Daves)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/27 "2006-04-24T14:27:13Z")
> [@ddgryphon](#): > > Camelot began with much promise and just fizzled to nothing, and ended with a whimpering chronically late last issue. Yes, although perhaps not so oddly Bolland’s art dramatically improved as the issues became later. I remember more promotion and hype for Camelot 3000 than for Watchmen. I just happened to buy it because I liked the cover to the first issue, which totally hooked me. (Also, I had liked Dave Gibbon’s art on Green Lantern.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686/28 "2006-04-24T16:05:36Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > considering what he must have gone through to get the rights to his old Action Heroes moved to DC, & to have this self-important punk come in & propose a project which would drain most of them of nobility, morality, & admirability. > > Boo freakin’ hoo. Writers retell old stories and reuse old characters from different viewpoints. Superhero comics are entirely based on this system. Giordano might not have liked Moore’s idea, but that’s his own opinion and irrelevant to any valid criticism of Moore’s story. And, I should add, Giordano exercised his (valid) ownership rights to stop Moore from using his characters. So what has he to be upset about now? That Moore had an _idea_ that used his characters in a way that he didn’t like? Now, that’s a new degree of touchiness. Frankly, I had never heard of the Charlton characters when I first read Watchmen. It was only years later I learned that the Watchmen characters were based on the Charlton heroes. In the end, Moore’s story and characters have a lot more substance than the Charlton heroes and I predict that whatever notoriety the Question, etc., has in the future will be thanks to their slim association with Watchmen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-you-read-comic-books-in-the-80s-i-have-a-question-for-you/353686.md?page=1)