In this thread on the TV version of Moore’s The Man Who Has Everything, Lochdale hijacks the thread (no slam on hijacking here - just want it to have its own thread):
Bottom line - I disagree wholeheartedly. I am someone who read comics when I was a teenager, stopped for 12 - 15 years, and happened across The Watchmen. When I read it, it floored me - to me, to took the basic conventions of the superhero comic and took them to extremes - for instance:
latent sexuality and neuroses were made more explicit
the inherent conflict between vigilante heroes working for/against/in spite of the government was explored
the manifestation of ultimate power (Dr. Manhattan) and its implications was shown
the ultimate lust for power was taken to a more logical extreme than is normally shown in comics (“I will take over the Woorrrrrlllldddd! Curse you, Capt GoodGuy!” type of action)
Bottom line - you say “it takes the medium all too seriously” I say “it walks the fine line between honoring the genre while making it more plausible to an adult reader” - in short, it “gets it.” The fact that the story was compelling in a classic comics kind of way - to me - puts the icing on the cake.
As for the violence - it fit with where Moore was trying to go with the story. It is certainly no more violent than the Dark Knight Returns.
I love The Watchmen - it is my favorite and I feel like I have a clear take as to why. YM clearly V’s…
The Asbestos Mango took lochdale to task far more concisely and humorously than I ever could.
Anybody who would dismiss Alan Moore’s entire ouvere as the work of a “demented socialist hack” hasn’t read enough of his work, or interviews about his work, to make an informed opinion.
Anyone who equates comics with children’s medium as the pinnacle of the art form is 40 years behind the times.
The criticism of Moore came at me from out of the blue, for an entirely different reason. Lockdale asserts that
…which is completely alien to my mindset. To me, all fictional media is entertainment. Certainly the author may have cloaked allegories or political viewpoints in the work - but that’s not why I read it. I read it to be entertained. I don’t distinguish betwen ‘art’ and ‘high art’ - nor ‘literature’ and ‘novels’. It’s an arbitrary distinction made by people who, in my view, are basically elitist snobs.
Or, in other words, Comics are just as valuable as any other written medium to me. And Alan Moore is a good writer thereof - the man actually made me interested in Swamp Thing, for crying out loud.
Now, specifically on the subject of Watchmen, I came upon it relatively late in my comics career - 4 or 5 years ago, I think. I was quite entertained by his alternative superhero universe - I thought the dialogue was solid and the plot held together well. It drew me in, held my interest, and lead me on to other Moore projects.
Thank you for creating another thread. It was a blatant hijack on my part so I appreciate the non-too subtle suggestion that I should have created a separate thread
Where to begin! I supposed I’ll start with this, Asbestos Mango’s response to me:
"cracks knuckles
So, Lochsdale, perhaps you would like to step outside and discuss the matter …"
Real concise but non-too humorous. I presumed he was joking which is kind of funny but not really. If he isn’t, well then he has some real issues.
As to Moore himself, well I do feel I have read a fair amount of his work. I am currently trolling through The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Perhaps socialist hack was a little strong, neo-Marxist, unreformed anarchist? All depends on what side of the bed Moore gets up from that morning.
My issue with the Watchmen is that it has been elevated to high literature which it most certainly isn’t. I simply don’t equate superhero comic books with other forms or art or literature. To suggest, for example, that the Watchmen is equal on merit with something like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is, imho, utterly absurd. I am confident, however, that such an opinion is shared by most literary critics and that Moore will be forgotten in 50 years whereas Tolkien will not. The comics medium, by its definition, lends itself to a simplistic and basic style of storytelling. There really isn’t much room for true character development (witness Moore’s use of numerous textual sidebars in the Watchmen). If we were to focus merely on the narrative itself I don’t believe it would standup as much more than a good Twilight Zone episode or a short story. It seems that many fans of the medium are so desperate for some sort of intellectual recognition of the medium that they will elevate this sort of thing to high art when it is clearly nothing of the sort.
I am not suggestion that all comics should have idealized heroes but that we at least recognize both the medium and the market. As I noted earlier, comics are basically potboilers. Monthly soap operas were nothing really happens in the long term. I appreciate what Moore was trying to do in the Maxi-series format but I still don’t think it resulted in anything other than a good story. The themes were still fairly basic and have been dealt with before, and better, by writers such as Orwell and Bradbury and even Ann Ryand. It all felt so superficial and made too much of an effort to appear effortlessly cool. Moore himself certainly added to that with his wild pronouncements and anti-establishment views (the long hair and beard helped too ). I felt the book was excessively violent (dog’s head being split open etc.) and was produced at a time when the American mature comics market was very immature. This meant that the book was marketed at a young audience and I do take issue with that. I am by no means a moralist but this book should not have been read by children.
Comic books are, by their very nature, limited in their range and scope. This book is limited insofar that it really only dealt with make-believe themes from a make-believe world (comics themselves, not just the world of the Watchmen). It is, by its nature, entirely insular and I think that is part of the problem. Comic fans can’t seem to grasp this fact so they take a good story about the world of comic superheroes and elevate it beyond what it merits. The Watchmen simply doesn’t hold up as good fiction outside of the world of superheroes. To me, a powerful morality tale/story transcends its setting as is applicable to other situations. The Watchmen simply doesn’t do this, doesn’t even come close. I distinguish between various mediums and I simply don’t rate superhero comics as highly as books as an expositive force. I’m a fan but I’d like to think I am also a realist. Comics are good fun and can make you think sometimes but let’s not get too ahead of ourselves.
Does your problem with Moore stem from some disagreement with his politics? Otherwise, I see no reason why your representation of his politics was included.
First off, you go from attacking the “superhero comic book” to attacking the whole “comics medium.” I don’t know if you meant superhero comics all along but, presuming you didn’t, I think you’re way wrong. If you believe sequential art, the graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it can’t be used to tell complex stories in any genre, I think you’re demonstrating you’re own ignorance of MANY acclaimed comics out there. Just check out the winners of the Harvey and Eisner Awards. Now I’ll be the first to admit that the major comic companies forced themselves into the superhero ghetto by not exploring other genres extensively, but that doesn’t mean comics CAN’T escape and become respectable.
I am not suggestion that all comics should have idealized heroes but that we at least recognize both the medium and the market. As I noted earlier, comics are basically potboilers. Monthly soap operas were nothing really happens in the long term. I appreciate what Moore was trying to do in the Maxi-series format but I still don’t think it resulted in anything other than a good story. The themes were still fairly basic and have been dealt with before, and better, by writers such as Orwell and Bradbury and even Ann Ryand.
It all felt so superficial and made too much of an effort to appear effortlessly cool. Moore himself certainly added to that with his wild pronouncements and anti-establishment views (the long hair and beard helped too ). I felt the book was excessively violent (dog’s head being split open etc.) and was produced at a time when the American mature comics market was very immature. This meant that the book was marketed at a young audience and I do take issue with that. I am by no means a moralist but this book should not have been read by children.
Comic books are, by their very nature, limited in their range and scope. This book is limited insofar that it really only dealt with make-believe themes from a make-believe world (comics themselves, not just the world of the Watchmen). It is, by its nature, entirely insular and I think that is part of the problem. Comic fans can’t seem to grasp this fact so they take a good story about the world of comic superheroes and elevate it beyond what it merits. The Watchmen simply doesn’t hold up as good fiction outside of the world of superheroes. To me, a powerful morality tale/story transcends its setting as is applicable to other situations. The Watchmen simply doesn’t do this, doesn’t even come close. I distinguish between various mediums and I simply don’t rate superhero comics as highly as books as an expositive force. I’m a fan but I’d like to think I am also a realist. Comics are good fun and can make you think sometimes but let’s not get too ahead of ourselves.
[/QUOTE]
Your argument starts by stating that, while you are a big fan of comics, you don’t consider them literature. That’s fine - you’re call, eye of the beholder and all that. Time was that most of the world agreed.
But now? Lots of folks - respected folks - disagree. Michael Chabon who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay - set during the emergence of and involving the history of comic books - broke it open. Now, there are:
Mature, sophisticated comics - Ghost World, Jimmy Corrigan the World’s Smartest Boy, etc…
Movies based on these graphic novels that are either big budget, received critical reviews or both - Ghost World, Road to Perdition, etc.
Movies based on superhero comics that are true to the spirit and story of the original comic that are super-successful and critically acclaimed - see most Marvel-based movies…
And now, upscale magazines like the New York Times Sunday Magazine just ran a cover story on comics emerging as a legitimate art form, and McSweeney’s - pretty much THE literary magazine of the past 4 years, with a list of contributors that have won every prize in the book - recently released a FULL issue in the form of a graphic novel.
Bottom line, Lochdale? You are welcome to your opinion, but a bunch of the world has passed you by - there are lots of respected, prizewinning, literary authors who consider it a viable art form.
One thing you need to consider is that most “popular” art forms start off as cheap stuff that appeals to the “common” people but become an artistic reflection of that culture. Folk music, the blues, jazz, rock n’ roll, serial novels (e.g., Dickens), Japanese woodblock prints (some folks used them to wrap fish, but they were highly influencial to the Impressionist and Post-Impressionists in Europe), photography, pulp fiction (Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler were considered common writers and now they are lauded as innovative literature writers) - all of these forms started off not considered art, but rose to acclaim. Clearly, comic books are emerging that way, too.
You state that the Watchmen will be forgotten, whereas Tolkien will be remembered. Okay - but Tolkien was almost forgotten for a couple of decades until the 60’s era flower-child movement embraced Tolkien’s “turn away from machines and go back to the shire” fantasy mindset. Plus characters like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man have proven endurance. Whether the Watchmen will endure, time will tell, but it doesn’t appear to have lost its popularity. What I think might be interesting will be to see how it, TDKR and a few other self-contained works do over time.
You talk of Moore as not doing anything new - are there any new plots? What I find interesting in a book is the characters and how they exist within a plot. I think Moore succeeds here. FWIW, Moore is held up as one of the greatest writers working - he was featured in that NYT Magazine story I mentioned and is regularly cited by respected authors.
Comics is a limited genre - well, rock n’ roll is about 3 chords and the Truth. A sonnet is 8 lines with a specific rhyme scheme. Haiku is 17 syllables with each of the 3 lines having to accomplish specific things to deliver a delicate poem. There’s that film style (something '95? I can’t remember) where you have to use natural lighting and handheld cameras. I could go on - but you should get the point: a limited structure is often a prerequisite for an art form. The question is what an artist does with it.
Minor acknowledgement - most comic books are crap. But you know what? Most examples of any form of expression are crap. Most novels are crap. Most paintings are crop. Most rock songs are crap. So???
Does your problem with Moore stem from some disagreement with his politics? Otherwise, I see no reason why your representation of his politics was included.
First off, you go from attacking the “superhero comic book” to attacking the whole “comics medium.” I don’t know if you meant superhero comics all along but, presuming you didn’t, I think you’re way wrong. If you believe sequential art, the graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it can’t be used to tell complex stories in any genre, I think you’re demonstrating you’re own ignorance of MANY acclaimed comics out there. Just check out the winners of the Harvey and Eisner Awards. Now I’ll be the first to admit that the major comic companies forced themselves into the superhero ghetto by not exploring other genres extensively, but that doesn’t mean comics CAN’T escape and become respectable.
???
You must be sheltered if you think Moore’s views are “wild.” You mentioned Orwell, that old anarcho-syndicalist. Ayn Rand, another person who is hardly mainstream (or at least her Objectivism). I think “From Hell” or “V for Vendetta” could be considered “wild,” but I think Watchmen is just as intelligent and as realistic as a super hero book can be.
Well, I don’t think this is a valid criticism on the contents of Watchmen. Whether or not its appropriate for a specific audience has nothing to do with its value as art/entertainment. Countless quality films and novels shouldn’t be seen or read by an immature audience, but if they are, it shouldn’t reflect on these works.
I think I addresed a bit of this before, but once again I think you are way off. I’d like to see your explanation of how sequential art combined with dialogue and prose is some crippled artform compared to the just plain written word. And what are these “mave-believe themes” you speak of? A theme is a theme. Even if the world is fantastical, human truths can be explored thematically as I, and many others, believe happened in Watchmen. And why should it work outside its world of superheroes? Should it work as a romantic comedy or a sci-fi novel? I don;t get that point either. It’s about partialy about vigilantism, which is a key aspect OF superheroes. Anyway, what’s wrong with fictional comics about comics or films about films OR books about books? How many of those types of books are considered classics?
by the way, before folks go nuts on me - I do NOT wish to imply that Chabon was responsible for mature graphic novels. Tons of stuff, like Chris Ware’s work, Love and Rockets and the rest, let along R. Crumb - have been around for, like decades. I only meant to say that the popular reception of his novel opened a lot of literati’s eyes to comics.
And, of course you have to acknowledge Spiegelman’s Maus - can’t believe I forgot that. Won a special Pulitzer.
I am sure there are plenty I have neglected - sorry.
Bottom line -
The comic form can and has been used to create respected, sure-to-be-enduring works
The superhero form has existed for 70 years or so, with some characters enduring
The superhero form has been used to create art worthy of respect - IMHO, The Watchmen is at the top of the list…
Who’s elevated it to ‘high literature’? Then again, you say it certainly isn’t - this implies you think that ‘high literature’ as a category has some sort of objective definition. Please provide the definition you’re using so we might judge the merits of that assertion.
While I object to the idea of ‘merit’ intrinsic to any work, you’re right in that the Watchmen isn’t on the same level as Lord of the Rings - Moore’s grasp of pacing outstrips Tolkien’s a hundredfold.
Again, you’re suggesting that the fans, in their opinions, elevate this to high art, which implies that ‘high art’ is a subjective category, then pronounce from your throne that it is not high art, which implies that you either work from an objective definition (which I’d love to see) or that you only value your own opinion.
The comics medium, by its definition, is a hybrid of visual and textual styles of storytelling, and while it is certainly easy to use it for simplistic, basic stories (lends itself to), that’s not at all the same thing as being limited only to simplistic or basic stories. A comic book can be as long and complex as necessary. The artwork can show in a panel what might take a writer several pages to describe.
How do you propose that one goes about ‘maturing’ an art form, without producing mature works in that art form?
No more so than a book. Limited only by the page count and the author’s imagination.
The concept, plot and execution of The Watchmen is what set it apart. The fact that a visual medium (the graphic novel) was used, often leads those not familiar with the work to underestimate its quality of execution. Further, the implicit but clear criticism of the Reagan administration may lead some to dislike the work, especially those who find Ayn Rand to be an exemplary author.
Cite from a comic book Moore has written that establishes his political views? I’ve read most of his post-V work, and I haven’t picked up on any political slant other than an understandable distrust of fascism.
Tolkien is “high literature” now? I’m a fully accredited lit snob, and that’s news to me. As others have said out, I think we need a definition from you for “high literature.” As much as I love Tolkien, I find the suggestion that LotR is on equal merit with something like Melville’s Moby Dick to be pretty absurd itself.
Have you read any literary analysis of Watchmen that you could cite to support this opinion?
I agree that the long-form novel allows for a greater nuance and characterization than comic books. For that matter, it also allows for greater nuance and characterization than film, music, painting, or ballet. So what? Different mediums have different strengths. While personal preference might lead one to favor one medium over another (I generally prefer literature over most other art forms, myself) there’s no rational, objective basis to declare one medium as intrinsically superior to another.
I’m also somewhat thrown by your last sentence, where you say Watchmen’s narrative isn’t “much more” than a short story. Are we meant to infer, from this statement, that the short story is also an inferior artform to the novel? Because if it is, I’ve got Flannery O’Connor on line two, and she’d like to have a word with you.
FWIW, I stopped reading comics almost entirely before I started high school, and only got back into them after I received my degree in English literature. Watchmen was one of the key books that re-captured my interest in the medium. I’m not saying this to brag about how I’m all smart and college edumacated (it was only a BA, after all), just to point out that I’m not coming at this issue as someone who liked comics and wants an excuse to call them “high literature,” (whatever that means) but as someone who was already interested in “high literature” who found that Watchmen fit the bill just fine.
I agree with the comparison between most mainstream superhero comics and televised soap operas. However, soap operas are only a subset of the larger medium of drama. Your position seems analogous to saying that, since we have soap operas, we do not need Shakespeare.
Also, fuck the market. Marketing is the death of art.
Good Christ, I can’t believe you’re mention Ayn Rand in the same breath as Orwell and Bradbury. You want to talk about your demented political hacks trying to pass themselves off as artists, Ayn Rand set the mould.
Anyway, my anti-Objectivism biases aside, what themes in particular are you refering to?
Bullshit. First, cite that the book was marketed to children. Second, cite that there was no significant market for adult comics in the mid-eighties. Third, define “adult comic.” Fourth, how are comics supposed to ever move out of the kid’s stuff ghetto if any attempt to make an “adult” comic is criticized as inappropriate?
Sounds like your issue is with fiction, not with comic books. Or did Maus only deal with “make-believe themes?”
I agree, and that is exactly why Watchmen is such a great book. Look up the bombing of Coventry in WWII, and tell me you can’t see the parrallels between Winston Churchill and Ozymandius. Or the moral enigma of Rorsach’s death. Or the simple human romance between Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk. Watchmen succeeds because the characters are believably human, with believable human dilemmas, even if they are exagerated to super-human proportions.
Again, this discussion really needs a definition of literature and/or art from you if it’s going to go anywhere. I know that in my book, “great art” is pretty much defined as “good fun that makes you think.” Watchmen fits the definition pretty well.
Your comments come off to me as pretentious, elitist, and uneducated to the state of the industry and the consumer population.
Augment that with the fact that you seem oblivious to the fact that comic books have been skewed towards adult readers in a larger market share for the past twenty years, and you sound to me like someone who has had to defend their love of comic books and is now parrotting the smackdowns you have endured at the hands of the dense.
For the most part, comic books can only be found in comic book stores. There still are some chain stores and the rare drug store that still have a comic book rack, but they are uncommon in comparison to when I was a child.
Watchmen was only carried to the direct market via comic book stores and mail order retailers like Mile High and Westfield. While there are dealers at comic book stores who will sell to anyone who has money without concern to the youth of the buyer and the lack of appropriateness of the material, most will not risk the censure that will come from such an irresponsible nature. I was fifteen when Watchmen was coming out and had to get a signed permission slip(which had to be signed IN FRONT of the owners) for me to get what was correctly considered as adult content.
Content wise, there have been MANY series and graphic novels that I would think are rightly classified as literature:
The Hiketeia - Greg Rucka
Watchmen - Alan Moore
The Golden Age - James Robinson
Astro City - Kurt Busiek
Strangers in Paradise - Terry Moore
Omaha the Cat Dancer - Waller & Reid
The Sandman/The Books of Magic - Neil Gaiman
Some would say Cerebrus by Dave "I have big time issues with women. Sim.
There are more.
Just as modern horror literature grew out of penny dreadfuls of the 19th century, Varney the Vampyre lead to Shirley Jackson’s work in the Lottery and the House on Haunted Hill. It has lead to Clive Barker and Stephen King(before he became an ruddlerless, editor-free word vomiting machine).
Gardner Fox, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Bill Everett, and Dr. William Moulton Marston lead the way sixty plus years ago to Brian Michael Bendis, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Terry Moore, Peter David, and so many more talented writers and artists.
To deny that a segment of comic books are literature of enduring merit is ludicrous and simply wrong.
Please explain this. We have plenty of comic books that deal with the everyday sort of problems that crop up: death of a friend or family member, finding onesself in a new situation, getting a lesson that the world is not the way you thought of it, realizing that the way you used to act is no longer proper and you’ll need to either adapt or whither away in your own personal world, coming to grips with your own mortality, etc. I think these are all examples of what Joey Campbell would call mythic problems, the basic problems if the universe, and, coincidentially, they’re all in WATCHMEN.
I take issue to this as well. There have been many people who have read a copy of WATCHMEN and decided that not only was it good, but they should really start reading comic books because they are a worthy medium. I’m pretty sure there have been threads about this on this board, but I can think of college classes that have done this and people I’ve heard/seen on the train talking about this.
See above.
Above, you claim that all comic books are limited. Do you mean all comics or superhero comics only?
That said, I also think WATCHMEN is overrated. It’s basically a formal experiment using the various guises of Batman to try to make its point. As Mark Waid says, WATCHMEN is a great textbook (the CITIZEN KANE of comics, if you will), and FROM HELL does the formal thing much better.
I felt the book was excessively violent (dog’s head being split open etc.) and was produced at a time when the American mature comics market was very immature. This meant that the book was marketed at a young audience and I do take issue with that. I am by no means a moralist but this book should not have been read by children.
[/QUOTE]
I think you’re confusing violent and graphic, but that’s a semantic issue and your perogative. As far as the state of mature comics, you appear to confuse mature with the parental warning stickers that go on comics (the “suggested for mature readers” bit). True, this wasn’t applied to WATCHMEN, but certainly it helped pave the way for Vertigo (and would certainly have been released under it if the SWAMP THING issue with the zombies had been produced prior). If by mature, you mean “comics that aren’t to be read by kids,” you’ve got comics going back to the 50s for that. The independent scene of the late 60s-70s were certainly not meant to be read by kids and as far as “immature” think about what Sim and CEREBUS had done - 10 years (or so) by that time. Huge difference.
Also, you assertation that since this book was not makred as “adults only” then it was directly marketed to kids needs to be justified with a cite or experience. There’s an excluded middle in there somewhere.
Sorry, Lochdale, I can’t take your criticisms seriously. I understand you personally don’t care for Watchmen, and that’s a subjective opinion immune to argument, but the basis by which you ask us to buy into your opinion is seriously flawed.
Regarding the limitations of the comic medium: Read Harvey Pekar. Then get back to us.
Regarding the superhero genre as insular juvenalia not worthy of being called literature: You are somehow unaware of the millennia-old tradition of superhero storytelling? From The Iliad and Gilgamesh and Beowulf up through the tales of Wong Fei-hung and James Bond, the myth of the ultra-powerful hero transcends cultures and boundaries, and touches something very primal in our human hearts. Most of the time the myth is presented unadorned, allowing us to buy into it unquestioningly; this is as true about Odysseus as it is about Superman for most of his history. Occasionally there are departures from heroic perfection, Batman probably being the best-known example in the comics medium (at least at the beginning, before being watered down in his middle years, before being rediscovered lately). And sometimes there are works of art that directly examine our relationship with the hero myth. Watchmen is one of these, as is Shyamalan’s wholly misunderstood film Unbreakable. Works like this are accused of being navel-gazing, but trust me, it’s not the author’s own navel being examined.
You don’t have to like it. But if you want to convert people to your opinion, you’re gonna have to come up with a helluva better argument.
Just as an aside (hopefully humorous), I had never heard of the Watchmen until I came this at Something Awful Photoshop Phridaythis at Something Awful Photoshop Phriday.
