OK, I’ll concede that most comic books are schlock. So what? Most of every literary, musical, film, or other entertainment-related genre is schlock. Are comic books a limited art form? I would say sure, but I think the primary limitation is the small page numbers. To get a really good, well-fleshed out story, you either need amultiple issue miniseries (such as the currently running Identity Crisis or the War Games storyline running through eight Batman titles) or a graphic novel.
But I do think that comic books are just as valid a form of literary art as… well, at one time, Lovecraft was considered a hack. Now he’s high literature.
Do most comic books deserve to be called “high literature”? Hell, no. Does The Watchmen? Hell, yes. I was never really much of a comic book reader, but The Watchmen piqued my interest, so for years I was an irregular but unembarrassed occasional purchaser and reader of TPB’s and graphic novels. Mind you, when I was in middle school, I considered Steinbeck to be recreational reading. I read Homer for the fun of it. I’ve read Lord of the Rings three times. I’ve read the Bible all the way through. I took Comp and Lit courses in high school because I figured it would be a good way to get turned on to good books. So, yes, I think I do have a pretty good handle on what great literature is. And I think The Watchmen, along with The Dark Knight Returns belong in that category.
And really, even comic book series’ and graphic novels that don’t make it as great literature still frequently feature some damn fine storytelling.
Lochdale, you didn’t like Watchmen? OK, that’s fine. I loved it, but that genre isn’t for everyone. How about sitting down and reading Neil Gaiman’s Sandman series, then tell me that comic books are limited in scope, that they cannot attain this “high literature” status, or that they only deal with “make believe themes.” There are many other titles I could name that do not deal with costumed supers in tights, but Gaiman was the first name that came to mind, probably because he spanned the genres when he won the World Fantasy Award for “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” a first for a graphic novel, and well-deserved.
Do you have a problem with speculative fiction in general? Because anything from mythology and religious texts, to dime store horror pulps, to the classics of Tolkien, Bradbury, Herbert, et al, all the way up to modern comic books and graphic novels, take place in “make believe” worlds (doesn’t all fiction, actually?). Does that prevent them from depicting real human truths, or meaningful themes that resonate for the average reader? Not at all. A good author is a good author in whatever medium, and the presence of pictures does not detract from that one jot (in fact, it enhances my enjoyment most of the time-- that’ s part of the joy of this particular medium).
Anyway, I agree with numerous posters who have cried elitism. There is no high art v. low art argument to be made. There is only skillful storytelling, which Watchmen most certainly embodies. I think this argument happens whenever a new mode of storytelling gains popularity; remember the arguments against comedy in The Name of the Rose?
Back on topic: judging Moore by Watchmen alone is ridiculous - it’s only the tip of the iceberg, albeit a very big tip. Where’s lochdale’s enlightened commentary on V For Vendetta, Skizz, The Ballad of Halo Jones, Top 10, From Hell, and so on? The answer is that he ain’t got one - though I would expect nothing more from someone who can’t spell “Ayn Rand”.
Moore is important because he was the first comic writer to think about how science and super powers interact with realistic people instead of with larger than life characters. The chief protagonists in Skizz are unemployed Brummies; Halo Jones is also unemployed, this time in a future New York. Watchmen posed the question of why people with secret identities spend their time grandstanding, and why they’d wear the masks in the first place. That’s why he’s a renowned writer whose books are considered literature.
I’ll pretend this describes me and my motivations. Actually, I was taking a young adult literature course and we had to read two or more books from a variety of genres, one of them being graphic novels. I picked up WATCHMEN because it had won awards- said so right on the cover. I read it. I neither loved it nor hated it but got a different appreciation for the genre (I had read MAUS previously, that assigned in a “literature” course). I enjoyed WATCHMEN as much as I could be expected to, given that it seemed excessively violent and sometimes grotesque. I liked the interweaving of the stories.
I haven’t read any more graphic novels since I finished that course, the medium still doesn’t really appeal to me, and most of the stories in it wouldn’t appeal to me if they were straight prose, no pictures.
As to the issue of whether WATCHMEN will have the longevity of Tolkien- my guess is no. I think it is too set in a time frame that young people will not remember. The LOTR will endure because the themes are universal. Yes, there are those who percieve parallels to WWII, but I think the important themes are enduring. The mere act of putting something in picture form “sets” it in time and place more firmly than a description does. Though having said that, I should acknowledge that being set in a former time and place does not neccessarily make things uninteresting- look at the popularity of historical fiction.
Unfortunately, I have not had the time to respond to all of the comments just yet. May have to wait for the weekend Some of the comments have been excellent and will bear some real thought before I answer (for the record, I’m a big fan of the Sandman series).
That said, some of the comments are getting a little personal and it seems that I have struck a nerve.with some posters.
Evil Death wrote:
The answer is that he ain’t got one - though I would expect nothing more from someone who can’t spell "Ayn Rand
Attacking someone’s spelling on this board isn’t being nitpicky it’s being pendantic. Perhaps this marks you as the perfect comic book store geek. :wally If you are going to take a debate this personally then I’d rather you never addressed me directly again.
Which highlights the fact that I need to spend time on my posts (or that I don’t have to time to respond to the comments at the moment). As for suggesting the poster was exercising restraint? We are here to debate/discuss issues without flaming someone. There was no restraint, just stupidity
Lochdale. You began this whole discussion by flaming Alan Moore as “a demented socialist hack,” then went on to deride WATCHMEN as no more than “a decent dime store horror yarn,” taking “itself and its medium too seriously” and for being “excessively violent.”
All this might make for an interesting discussion/debate if you seemed to know what you were talking about. But you’ve made some other statements (and some glaring omissions) that make me think that your reading Moore’s work is likely rather limited and your knowledge of the comic book medium as a whole is possibly less so. Your pronouncement of Moore’s possible motives for working in the comics medium, for example, seem fully contrived and not based on any statements of Moore’s in the dozen or so interviews of his I’ve read in the last 18 years.
Now I’ve made occassional similar silly statements about comics professionals (I remember saying “Mort Weisinger sucks all kinds of ass” in a debate with Fenris, before he countered with how Weisinger’s editorial direction on Superman was successful because the comic book market bore him out) but I have never, ever (okay – hardly ever) made the types of declarations you implicitly make about a given professionals entire body of work without 1) qualifying my statements that I’ve only read/ seen such and such and limiting my impressions to that one work or 2) having read a lot of that individual’s work and being prepared to back it up with examples.
(Example: Christopher Priest is a writer with some exciting ideas, but tends to elevate convoluted plot points over dialogue and characterization. He has a problem communicating visuals to his artists that has a tendency to garble his scripts. He relies on wordy exposition to move plot points and he goes to the secret-family-member plot twist well far too much. See? I can say this because I’ve been hitting the quarter bins to read a lot of Priest’s work lately – everything from JUSTICE LEAGUE TASK FORCE to THE CREW to QUANTUM & WOODY – and can back up everything I say with several examples.)
Mockingbird. Your linguistic contortions are malleble to the point of being criminal. Keep up the good words.
I found Watchmen interesting specifically because it did choose to confront the Superhero paradigm. I’ve got the kind of familiarity with superhero comics (and superheroes in other media) that you’d expect of someone my age (late 20s) based on picking up comic books at the local newsagency when I was a kid, watching Superman and Batman franchise movies and such. I think that, from my reading of it, Watchmen did a good job of exploring some of the psychological back-end so to speak of a culture that turns out superheroes. By concentrating on what a society with superheroes might really be like, and what the moral questions facing it and facing the superheroes would be, I felt that Moore was also asking the audience to ask questions about our own society and our need to create costumed heroes in fiction.
Of course, I read it once, a few years ago, and may well be talking out my ass. It’s always a high probability But I didn’t find at all that Moore’s exploration of what has been a popular, lowbrow medium in any way cheapened the story he had to tell, rather, it was essential to what he had to say. High art, low art? That’s the sort of thing the judgment of history tends to get to decide. All I know is that I won’t write off a particular work just because the medium it’s in hasn’t been taken seriously yet. Obviously, comic books and graphic novels are constantly hovering on the edge of serious critical regard, to me, that’s not even a question that needs asking, comic books as a medium have long arrived in the ranks of art bearing serious consideration as far as I’m concerned. It’s only that some mainstream critics haven’t caught up.
Nicely done, Askia - very thoughtful, articulate and reflective of my POV to boot.
When I started this thread, frankly, I found Lochdale’s arguments to be naive and misinformed - please note Lochdale, I am NOT trying to slam or flame you, merely stating my opinion about your arguments, NOT you as a person. I felt his position could be easily refuted, but it got me thinking - are there folks out there, at least in Doper land, who have a thoughtful, articulate rationale for not liking, or maybe even not respecting, the Watchmen? That might be an interesting discussion…
Having read it more recently than you (apparently), this is exactly why I think it’s an important piece of literature. And since the superhero genre shows no signs of going away — and indeed, as Hollywood is finally having success with superhero adaptations beyond Superman, and the detailed mythos (more than the broad strokes) is beginning to penetrate the mainstream — Watchmen is even more important and more relevant than it was when Moore wrote it for his limited comics audience.
Some of the comments have been excellent and will bear some real thought before I answer (for the record, I’m a big fan of the Sandman series).