It’s just Dreiberg ruminating on the fact that the more in-depth he studies the anatomical structure of the owl, the less likely he is to simply step back and admire its beauty. I like it a lot.
I’m a big fan of all the in-between chapter things in the book, actually. I think each one adds a lot to the narrative.
I just picked up Watchmen for the very first time a week ago because I was intrigued by the hype over the movie. I too am not a real graphic novel fan (tho I was a Superman freak as a pre-teen in the 60’s) so wasn’t sure what to expect.
Well, I was very engrossed right from the start. I’m currently reading it for a second time, and plan to see the movie when it opens.
I just love the subtext, and things hinted at, or assumed, that leap out at me. I wonder what bits I’m missing because I don’t have that particular contextual background, but it seems to me I’m appreciating a good majority of that sort of stuff.
Yeah.
Like some others, I never got around to reading *Watchmen *until after I saw the trailer. I’ve read it twice now, and will probably read it a third time before the release date. It may seem like an overstatement to rank this creation up there with the great classics, but it’s not. I think some people are just fooled by it’s accessibility and the genre.
I’ve been reading these threads and I’m finding myself responding very emotionally to people who aren’t “getting” it, or who think that the book is nothing more than a PoMo look at superheroes.
But I restrain myself, lest I do nothing more than come across as a zealot, which never really impresses people, especially here.
But I wanted to share something that really struck me upon rereading, and could serve as an example of the hints and subtext that make *Watchmen *so worthwhile.
I’m going to try to spolier it here, both for those who haven’t read the book, and for those who have and would prefer not to have things spelled out for them.
[spoiler] Throughout the book, we are treated to references to the story of the Gordian Knot. The story serves as a seminal, transformative narrative for Adrian Veidt, and informs much of his character. This layers quite nicely with the various themes of the book.
Near the end of the book, the lesbians are fighting near the newstand. The one is begging the other to just “read this book”, because it’s about relationships, and could help them. The other rips the book in half. The book? R.D. Laing’s Knots. That was a pretty nifty reference in itself.
Having read Knots, for me that one small moment expands and informs the entirety of the rest of the novel, and shows that *Watchmen * is not just about superheroes. It’s about you, and me, and us, and them.[/spoiler]
Goddamn Orr–I read the comics when they were new and hit the newsstand, I bought the first graphic novel version of it when it came out (the one that shows the shattered window, not the Smiley Face badge one), and I’ve read it at least yearly since.
And I never caught the bit you put in your spoiler. Damn! Thanks! I’m really impressed. To add another layer to what you just shared…
[spoiler]
a further subtext is, right after she rips the book in half, Ozy dumps his killer squid on New York, killing them both instantly.
So if the two lesbians are quarreling and their quarrel is escalating (Joey (the butch one) hits whatshername-the femme one) might they be stand-ins for the USA and USSR? And if the micro-result of Ozy’s action is to kill them both, what does that say about the future of the macro-result?[/spoiler]
Has anyone else here watched the Watchmen “Motion Comics” on iTunes? It’s sort of a visual version of an audiobook. They take the actual art from the GN and “animate” it, adding some musical score, and the dialogue (and narration) is spoken by one male narrator. At first I thought it was a weird gimmick, but I quickly got hooked. It’s a little disconcerting at first to hear Laurie voiced by a man, but the voice actor is very good, and it isn’t long before you forget it’s the same guy. It makes you realize even more how cinematic the book is - there is not a lot of movement added but it’s very effective.
I’ve read the book several times over the past 15 years or so, and I noticed things in the motion comics I’ve never picked up before. They cut a few minor lines and you lose the extra material (ie. Under the Hood) but as a bridge between the GN and the film, it’s great. There are 12 episodes (matching the original chapters), each at about 20-25 minutes, so it’s good for anyone who wants to read the book but can’t quite commit to the paper version before next Friday.
One of my favorite little bits was at the end of each chapter where they have the quote against the black background, the minute hand on the clock actually ticks one minute closer to midnight. For some reason I thought that little touch was cool.
Funny. I started a thread not too long after 9/11 asking what people thought about the parallels between Watchmen and 9/11 and the response was mostly, “What are you talking about? There are no parallels between those two things.”
Ooh, awesome. I’d let this go to my head, but I’ll have to attribute this catch to a sort of “right place, right time” thing rather than my own brilliance.
Like ** Dio**, the first graphic novel I ever read was Maus (which you all MUST READ if you haven’t), and the second was The Watchmen. I’m a little sad because I believe I may have set the bar too high for finding quality works in the future.
The Watchmen is certainly a marvelous work of art. What I found most interesting was the way in which it used its medium to do things that cannot be done in any other art form. Like many lovers of literature unfamiliar with graphic novels, my resounding question has always been, ‘‘What’s so special about comic books?’’ Watchmen answers this question in a huge way. It does things that only comic books can do, and shows you things that only comic books can show.
The characters are complex and interesting and it was an extremely satisfying read. I admit that many readers of this work picked up on things I didn’t, and I sort of pride myself on the ability to rapidly comprehend the subtext of literary art forms… for whatever reason, this one has been difficult for me to completely grasp. There are so many symbols and characters that one read-through just doesn’t give it justice. I’m hoping the film, a medium with which I am more familiar, will give me an in to re-read the book with a deeper understanding of what’s going on. The only thing I really got right off the bat was the transformation of Dr. Manhattan as an analogy for the world’s political landscape and how it was affected by the nuclear age… power isolates. The stuff some of you are pulling out in these posts is really fascinating and astonishing and makes me want to read it again before I see the film.
I didn’t read the spoiler about how the ending was changed for the movie, but if they change it dramatically they really do risk ruining the whole point of the story.
Would it be fair to tell a first-time reader that they could skip the pirate stuff and miss nothing? That was always the part that bored me the most.
Why would you tell someone to skip over part of anything the first time they read it? Just because it bored you doesn’t mean it won’t be the part they find the most fascinating.
“Going to Paris to see the Mona Lisa? Yeah, I’ll tell you what: don’t bother looking at her eyes, the only part you need to see is her mouth.”
But you do miss something. It is there for a reason.
NO SPOILERS, SAFE TO READ. They haven’t changed anything in terms of the plot, the characters, the motivation, the event, the why or the aftermath. They have just changed the means by which the event is made to happen.
I heartily agree, if only because when I first read the book I did not know this, and would have liked it if someone had told me! I think you’re doing first-timers a favour by letting them know that they can skip anything to do with the Black Freighter and still enjoy the main narrative, so they know this is an option. But I would stress the ‘can’. It’s not necessarily a good idea to skip it, and ‘boring’ is of course a subjective assessment (I know you know this). I personally enjoyed the ‘story within a story’ structure and the way that one related to the other, but at the same time I would have appreciated knowing that I had the option of just following the main story if I were pushed for time or just not into it.
One of the things that still blows me away about the book are the visual and textual references. In the chapter called Fearful Symmetry (coincidentally Chapter V), where Rorschach’s backstory is explored, the panel layouts are symmetrical. The center page of the chapter is a two-page spread: three panels down the right edge, three down the left edge, and a giant panel of Ozymandias in the center. Grab a page from the left and a page from the right, and bring them towards you… staring down at the previous page and the following page, you’ll notice that the layout of those two pages is also symmetrical, and it’s not just the layout: the contents of the panels reflect each other. Sometimes Rorschach (mask down) is used to reflect Rorschach (mask up). In one pairing, a triangle painted on something - a corporate logo? - is reflected several pages later as a poster for the Grateful Dead album AOXOMOXOA, which is itself a palindrome.
This kind of visual reference pops up over and over again throughout the story.
I never noticed that about the layout. I’ve reread the thing dozens of times, and there’s still something new in it all the time.
Oh, and re: the “Under the Hood” and “Black Frieghter” chapters, yes, you can skip them and still enjoy the story (I’m guilty of skimming them when I first read the book), but I wouldn’t advise doing it. The best analogy I can think of are the digressions Melville takes in Moby Dick. The chapters on cetology and the like don’t directly advance the storyline and you could certainly understand the plot if you skip them, but they add depth and dimension to the story as a whole.
The first time I read the book I skipped most of the Black Freighter and the supplemental material so I could focus more on the “main” story. But in subsequent readings I would gradually add in more and more of it until on the third or fourth reading I finally read every word from beginning to end. I agree that reading all of the material makes the book a much richer, more layered experience, and you DO miss a lot if you don’t read it. But you don’t necessarily need to read it the first time.
But I also think that if you don’t read it all at some point you’ve never read the whole book. You’ve only read the Cliff’s Notes version.
I think the Black Freighter story and the other supplemental stuff at least provide, in video game terms, “replay” value, even if you skip it on the first read-through.