J.G. Keely's Reviews > Watchmen

Watchmen by Alan             Moore
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
84023
's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: comics, science-fiction, reviewed, capes

Since the movie came out, I've found myself having to explain why Watchmen is important and interesting. Despite being the most revered comic book of all time, it never really entered the mainstream until the film. Now, people are rushing to read it in droves, but approaching Watchmen without an understanding of its history and influences means missing most of what makes it truly special.

The entire work is an exploration of the history and purpose of the superhero genre: how readers connect to it, and what it means philosophically. Moore stretches from fond satire to outright subversion to minute allusion, encasing the once-simple genre in layers of meaning. Even as he refines and compresses the genre, he also constantly pushes its boundaries. Watchmen is unapologetic, unflinching, and most miraculous of all, freed from the shame which binds so many comics.

Moore never stoops to making an entirely sympathetic character. There is no real hero, and none of the characters represents Moore's own opinions. Superhero comics are almost always built around wholly sympathetic, admirable characters. They represent what people wish they were, and they do the things normal people wish they could do.

It is immediately gratifying escapism, which many people attach themselves to, especially the meek who lead tedious, unfulfilled lives. Many people also do the same thing with celebrities, idolizing them and patterning their own lives on the choices those famous people make. But in this modern age of reality TV and gossip media, we know that celebrities are not ideal people.

Indeed, their wealth and prominence often drives them mad. While everyone else views the world from the bottom up, they view it from the top down, and this skewed perspective wreaks havoc with their morality and sense of self. Moore's superheroes represent something even beyond this celebrity. Not only are they on the top of the heap, but they are physically different from other human beings. Their superiority is not just in their heads and pocketbooks, but in their genetics.

They are not meant to be sympathetic, they are meant to be human. They are as flawed and conflicted as any of us, and while we may sometimes agree with them, as often, we find them distant and unstable.

Many people have fingered Rorschach as the 'hero' of this tale, but that is as flawed as pinning Satan as the hero of 'Paradise Lost'. Following the classic fantasy of power, Rorschach inflicts his morality on the world around him. But, since he is not an ideal, but a flawed human, we recognize that his one-man fascist revolution is unjustified.

We all feel that we see the world clearly, and everyone around us is somehow confused and mistaken. Often, we cannot understand how others can possibly think they way they do. Sometimes, we try to communicate, but there is often an impassable barrier between two minds: no matter how much we talk or how pure our intentions, one will never be able to convince the other.

We all feel the temptation to act out--if only those disagreeable people were gone, the world would be a better place. While this justification may be enough for most comic writers, Moore realizes that the other guy thinks everything would be better if we were gone. Rorschach lashes out because his ideas are too 'out there' and he is too socially insecure to convince anyone that he is right. He is unwilling to question himself, and so becomes a force of his own violent affirmation.

Most who sympathize with him are like him: short-sighted and desperate, unable to communicate with or understand their fellow man. Many are unwilling even to try. Rorschach becomes a satire of the super hero code, which says that as long as you call someone evil, you are justified in beating him to death. This same code is also commonly adopted as foreign policy by leaders in war, which Moore constantly reminds us of with references to real world politics.

The rest of the characters take on other aspects of violent morality, with varying levels of self-righteousness. Like the British government of the 1980's, which inspired Moore, or the American government of the beginning of this century, we can see that equating physical power with moral power is both flawed and dangerous. Subjugating others 'for their own good' is only a justification for leaders who feel entitled to take what they can by force.

The only character with the power to really change the world doesn't do so. His point of view is so drastically different from the common man that he sees that resolving such petty squabbles by force won't actually solve anything. It won't put people on the same page, and will only create more conflict and inequality. Dr. Manhattan sees man only as a tiny, nearly insignificant part of the vast complexity of the cosmos. Though he retains some of his humanity, his perspective is so remote that he sees little justification for interference, any more than you or I would crush the ants of one colony to promote the other.

The ending presents another example of one man trying to enforce his moral solutions upon the entire world. Not only does this subvert the role of the super hero throughout comic book history, but reflects upon the political themes touched on throughout the book. Man is already under the subjugation of men--they may not be superhuman, but still hold the lives of countless billions in their hands. It is no coincidence that Moore shows us president Nixon, a compulsive liar and paranoid delusional who ran the most powerful country in the world as he saw fit.

Moore's strength as a writer--even more than creating flawed, human characters--is telling many different stories, which are really the same story told in different ways, all layered over each other. Each story then comments on the others, presenting many views. His plots are deceptively complex, but since they all share themes, they flow one into the next with an effortlessness that marks Moore as a truly sophisticated writer.

Many readers probably read right across the top of this story, flowing smoothly from one moment to the next, and never even recognizing the bustling philosophical exploration that moves the whole thing along. The story-within-a-story 'The Black Freighter' winds itself through the whole of Watchmen, and for Moore, serves several purposes. Firstly, it is another subversion of comic book tropes: Moore is tapping into the history of the genre, when books about pirates, cowboys, spacemen, monsters, and teen love filled the racks next to the superhuman heroes before that variety was obliterated by the Comics Code (yet another authoritarian act of destruction by people who thought they were morally superior).

But in the world of Watchmen, there are real superheroes, and they are difficult, flawed, politically motivated, and petty. So, superhero comics are unpopular in the Watchmen world, because there, superheroes are fraught with political and moral complexity. These are not the requisite parts of an escapist romp. We don't have comic books about our politicians, after all. We may have political satire, but that's hardly escapist fun.

So, instead they read about pirates. Beyond referencing the history of comics, 'The Black Freighter' works intertextually with Watchmen. The themes and events of one follow the other, and the transitions between them create a continuous exploration of ideas. Moore never breaks off his story, because even superficially unrelated scenes flow from one to the other, in a continuous, multilayered, self-referential narrative.

I continually stand in awe of Moore's ability to connect such disparate threads. Many comic authors since have tried to do the same, but from Morrison to Ellis to Ennis, they have shown that striking that right balance is one of the hardest things an author can do. Most of Moore's followers end up with an unpalatable mish-mash instead of a carefully prepared and seasoned dish.

Unlike most comic authors, Moore scripted the entire layout for the artist: every panel, background object, and action. Using this absolute control, Moore stretched the comic book medium for all it was worth, filling every panel with references, allusions, and details which pointed to the fullness and complexity of his world. Moore even creates meaning with structure, so that the size, shape, and configuration of panels tell much of the story for him.

One of the volumes is even mirrored, so that the first page is almost identical to the last, the second page to the second last, and so on. That most readers don't even notice this is even more remarkable. That means that Moore used an extremely stylized technique so well that it didn't interfere with the story at all.

But therein lies the difficulty: if a reader isn't looking for it, they will probably have no idea what makes this books so original and so remarkable. This especially true if they don't know the tropes Moore is subverting, or the allusive history he calls upon to contextualize his ideas.

While many readers enjoy the book purely on its artistic merit, the strength of the writing, and the well-paced plot, others disregard the work when they are unable to recognize what makes it revolutionary. One might as well try to read Paradise Lost with no knowledge of the Bible, or watch Looney Toons without a familiarity with 1940's pop culture.

It is not a perfect work, but there is no such thing. Moore's lead heroine is unremarkable, which Moore himself has lamented. He did not feel entirely comfortable writing women at that point in his career, and the character was forced on him by the higher ups. Luckily, she's not bad enough to ruin the work, and only stands out because she lacks the depth of his other characters.

His politics sometimes run to the anarchic, but often this is just a satire of violence and hubris. Moore gives no easy answers in his grand reimagining. His interlocking stories present many thoughts, and many points of view. In the end, it is up to the reader to decide for himself who was right or wrong--as if anyone truly could be.

Moore never insults the intelligence of his readers, and so creates a work with more depth than anyone is likely to plumb even after numerous readings. Likewise, he does not want you to 'hold on for the ride', but expects that you will engage and question and try to come to terms with his work, yourself. No one is necessarily the hero or villain, and many people find themselves cowed and unsure of such an ambiguous world, just as we do with the real world.

Watchmen is not instructional, nor is it simply a romp. This book, like all great books, is a journey that you and the author share. The work is meant to connect us to the real world, and not to let us escape from it. This is Moore's greatest subversion of the superhero genre, and does even more than Milton to "justify the ways of God to man", for many men delude themselves to godhood, yet even these gods cannot escape their fundamental humanity.

My Suggested Readings in Comics
1175 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Watchmen.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
November 1, 2005 – Finished Reading
May 13, 2007 – Shelved
May 26, 2007 – Shelved as: comics
November 30, 2007 – Shelved as: science-fiction
June 9, 2009 – Shelved as: reviewed
October 21, 2010 – Shelved as: capes

Comments Showing 1-49 of 49 (49 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Karen (last edited May 18, 2011 11:26PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Karen from a strict story perspective I have to actually agree with everything you have said, and could probably add many more points on why Moore excells in this particular arena. He is, and will always be one of my favorite writers within the comic arena. I read the watchmen for the first time back before it was a graphic novel. And then again shortly after it was bound together in its graphic novel form.
I am surprised, no better statement:absolutely shocked, that you don't mention Dave Gibbons or John Higgins. Although i could understand if you left Higgins out (he did just colour after all, insert sarcasm font).

If this graphic novel was a text based story (ie not an image based story) I probably would have given it a 5. But as a grahic novel I found the art and overall gestalt a little lacking. It wasn't just that it was ugly, I can appreciate the harkening back to the golden era style. but it was done soooooo poorly. I appreciate the repetative images that gibbons uses, but at times felt a little clobbered over the head by them. I even appreciate the fact that the overall layout was creative and groundbraking for its time. but again, I found the flow to be stuttered and only driven by the text as opposed to a blend of image and text. Overall, I think he could have done much better (well maybe he couldn't Gibbons is NOT one of my favorite artists in the genre AT ALL).
I have to say that the female lead wasn't just written poorly but drawn poorly too (this is unforgivable). There were so many panels that seemed to be missing something. I was left with a feeling almost akin to a tip of the tongue syndrome where everything was almost perfect. But alas it was not. As a result I was very, very, deeply disappointed. It's a damn shame when something so amazing doesn't live up to its full potential.


J.G. Keely "I appreciate the repetative images that gibbons uses, but at times felt a little clobbered over the head by them. I even appreciate the fact that the overall layout was creative and groundbraking for its time. but again, I found the flow to be stuttered and only driven by the text as opposed to a blend of image and text. Overall, I think he could have done much better"

Actually, Alan Moore is unusual amongst comic writers in that, when he scripts a comic, he meticulously describes the placement and content of every single panel. Every piece of graffiti, every magazine cover is only there due to Moore's script. He even specified that parts of words be covered or cut off by the frame to represent the incompleteness of certain ideas (for example, the phrase 'Who Watches the Watchmen' never appears in its entirety in the series).

Likewise, the positioning of characters, use of shots, and repetition (and symmetry) of frame are all the result of Moore's script. For instance, in Chapter V, page one is the same layout as page 28, page 2 the same as 27, and so on. There are a fair number of people who have sat down with the book, page-by-page, and worked out some of the layered meanings, allusions, and symbols; and Moore put in a lot of them.

So if you want to blame someone, it's all on Moore, here. Well, maybe not all:

". . . the female lead wasn't just written poorly but drawn poorly too . . ."

Moore's actually said in interviews that the main female character was not in his original scripts, but that his bosses wanted a central woman and a romance in the story, so he complied.

But yeah, I probably should have mentioned the art. Then again, this review is narrow, tackling only one small part of the book. I don't really have room to hit all the high points in the GR format.


Clara M. i completely agree, but i have to say that there are superhero comics in the watchmen universe. they are, however, just a fad and go out of print.


J.G. Keely Ah, quite right, thanks for the correction.


message 5: by Vee (new)

Vee Karen wrote: "from a strict story perspective I have to actually agree with everything you have said, and could probably add many more points on why Moore excells in this particular arena. He is, and will always..."

I came across the Watchmen as a limited series comic book before it became this huge iconic American novel according to Time. Gibbons work did not impress me when I was a kid. Years later, it still does register or add to the story. Now that I know Moore completely designed the entire book, it makes me look at the book differently.

Keely, are you going to check out DC's new series Before the Watchmen?


J.G. Keely No, I don't have much interest in that. Watchmen is a complete story, I don't think it needs to be added to. Though if I hear good things about it from other readers, I'm not opposed to reading it.

Funny to note that Len Wein will be the writer on some of them, since he's the original creator of Swamp Thing, who Alan Moore took over and used to completely revolutionize comics. Now Wein will be trying to reinvent Moore's characters--I don't see that going very well.


Nika Hall I read this before philosophy, politics,introspection or anything outside my own little existence and comfort interested me. I enjoyed it as a graphic novel and nothing more. Because of that outlook, I found it a little flat and yet still enjoyable. There were aspects missing, much like you stated. No specific hero that was lovable without flaws that went beyond little personality quirks. Having read this review, as well as the fact that it's been almost 10 years, I'm ready to pick it back up and read it again with new perspective that comes with time and age, and of course maturity. I have never read a book/comic with anything more that the escapist mentality, despite reading two to three books a week. As I get older, though, I find myself wanting more for my time and energy. I want challenges that make me think and feel outside what I know I be comfortable. And hopefully something i won't read in a day or two. Something I have to take a break from to absorb everything the author has to tell. Thank you for this review, as well as so many others. You inspire me to revisit some of my favorites and look at them with new eyes. I just hope it doesn't ruin some of the more "fluff" filled ones that I loved so much. I'll probably disagree with many of your statements and opinions, but I can appreciate your point of view and compare them to my own; maybe even change them.


J.G. Keely Yeah, Watchmen is not a book designed for most people to be able to 'lose themselves' in. It tends to require some thought. Certainly, as I mention in my review, there are those who mistakenly idolize Rorschach, but that path isn't really open to nonviolent people.

It's interesting for me when I hear about people who want to escape into a book, or a movie, because they tend to think of the activity as being passive, and not having an effect on them--but whenever we let down our guard and get lost in a story, we're letting the assumptions and prejudices of that story into our heads, and I'm always left wondering: what does the unguarded mind internalize?

How long is it until a person only reads books that agree with their prejudices, and rejects anything else? I know plenty of people who read the same stories over and over again--always looking for the same settings, characters, and philosophies. The whole notion of genres and subgenres can turn into a way for people to try to feel justified by surrounding themselves with familiar things.

I know part of the reason I started becoming more critical of books is because, in studying literature, I started realizing how much books are capable of changing you, and I worried that some of the books I read were making me a worse person, or at least a less informed person.

But another reason I started looking at books critically is because I wanted to know why I liked books, or why I disliked them, in the hope that I'd be able to find more and more awesome books to read, and it totally did.

It's true that there is some 'fluff' that has been ruined for me, but it's never been because I stopped enjoying books. In every case, it was because I found a book so awesome, so original, and so much fun, that that old stuff just didn't cut it any more. I wouldn't want to go back, because that would mean losing all the amazing things I have now in order to regain something that wasn't that great--and in many cases, was kind of stupid and insulting.

But then, there are also a lot of books I thought were great when I was younger which, it turns out, are totally still great now. A lot of people seem to assume that if I don't like their favorite book, it's because I am bitter and don't know how to have fun, when the truth is that I have so much fun with the books I read that it makes those old books downright dull.

But I want to thank you for the comment, and I think it's very admirable for you to want to explore some new things and to try to look at the world in new ways. I'm interested to see where it leads you. I know it's been an interesting journey for me, I'm looking forward to your comments and reviews.


message 9: by Josh (last edited Aug 22, 2012 02:59AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Josh >>How long is it until a person only reads books that agree with their prejudices, and rejects anything else? I know plenty of people who read the same stories over and over again--always looking for the same settings, characters, and philosophies. The whole notion of genres and subgenres can turn into a way for people to try to feel justified by surrounding themselves with familiar things.

That's how I feel Keely. I feel you don't need to agree with a book to read it and be moved by it/experience/learn something new. I'm a very un-patriotic person but I still read and loved Yukio Mishima's work called Patriotism. I'm really interested by the whole Nazi movement but that doesn't mean I agree with them.

I think broadening our ideas and trying to understand how things we feel are/were terrible happen, instead of shunning them and always seeking non-confronting things. It seems like staying clear of non-confronting themes is pretty common because we all want to think we are good people and some don't like that being questioned about themselves.


J.G. Keely It's true: just because a book doesn't agree with you philosophically doesn't mean it isn't interesting or well-written. A lesson that is sometimes harder to learn is just because a book agrees with you doesn't mean it is good. I think now the books I am most disappointed in are not those that disagree with me, but those that agree with me, but are badly written or poorly-constructed.

But yeah, non-confrontation is a pretty popular theme for humans--it's part of how we get along, socially. You can't agree with everyone, and there are some people who, for various reason, cannot be reasoned with. It does seem problematic if a person has to be non-confrontational with themselves, though. That's quite the neurosis.

Thanks for the comment.


message 11: by Alex (new) - rated it 5 stars

Alex Richardson "
It is immediately gratifying escapism, which many people attach themselves to, especially the meek who lead tedious, unfulfilled lives."

While I agree with almost everything else you said on Watchmen, and completely agree that Alan Moore is a master of the craft, I can't say that I'm a fan of the line of thinking in regards to the quoted line. Fantasy, science fiction, super heroes, anime, video games, and other similar forms of entertainment that are often viewed as "low" are frequently hit with that kind of criticism. That the fantastic nature of the stories must deeply reflect the lack of excitement in the lives of those who consume the works. That the violent activities that take place in these stories occupy the secret desires of all prepubescent boys who read said material. It's the same type of criticism that Conan and the entire sword-and-sorcery genre often gets stuck with; as Stephen King puts it, it's for the meak middle-aged man whose afraid of being jumped by street punks. Personally, I couldn't disagree more. Not everything can be solved with Freudian psychology.

You make a very excellent point on "escapism". Although there are times, in my experience, that it helps to be able to lower your criticism and enjoy a story for what it is, I always believe that at least part of your mind should be analyzing what it is exposed to. Maybe you enjoyed that really, really awful action movie, but at least part of you should realize that it was shallow entertainment. In fact, I have argued at length before about how I believe "escapism" is largely nothing more than a buzzword. I believe, above all else, when the average person picks up a book or watches a film, they do not seek to "lose themselves" in it and become the characters; they want to be told a compelling a story. I do not believe these two things are synonymous. The sole purpose of stories, I believe, is to use the pursuits of the lives of others, fictional as they may be, to enrich your own.

In other words, the more optimistic side of me believes that the people buying Batman comics are not doing so to live out creepy fantasies of being a burly crime fighter in tights. They simply find that the stories resonate with them. You could easily argue that that is the same thing, that the stories would not resonate if they did not see something in the character that they may wish to emulate themselves, but I would argue that this is largely irrelevant. I would certainly argue that fans of the crime genre in no way wish they were Scarface.

That all said, it does tie in to why I have such great respect for Watchmen. It's said that all great art criticizes other art; while this is true, I think it's always best when the criticism does not overwhelm the work itself. Moore did a fantastic thing with Watchmen, in the way that he entirely deconstructed the superhero genre, but kept it as fun as any Silver Age comic. Watchmen is often described as a "superhero critique" story, but I believe that moniker does not do it justice, accurate as it may be. With Watchmen, you can tell Moore really loves and respects his medium, and of course, the people who read them.

This tangent may simply come off as a fanboy defending his comic collection; if it means anything at all, I can't really call myself a comic book fan. I mean, I've read the classics- Alan Moore, some of Frank Miller's stuff, some old Silver age issues, and so on- but I do see that somewhat derisive line of thought applied to other areas of entertainment as well. I know that you only wanted to highlight a section fo the fanbase, a section that it may very well be true for, but I do feel it's a rather unfortunate stereotype. Hey, look at Jack Thompson; the guy was under the impression that video games are such an interactive experience that they can actually coerce and train children to reenact what they do in the games.

In the end, every medium can be brought down to the very worst of its fanbase. Luckily, these are not the people that works like Watchmen are made for. I'm sure there are comic fans that have creepy male fantasties involving Batman, in the same way as old Doyle fans may have imagined themselves as Sherlock Holmes; I don't think enjoying these stories has to inevitably constitute a dull or aimless life.


J.G. Keely " I believe, above all else, when the average person picks up a book or watches a film, they do not seek to "lose themselves" in it"

Curious, because I have had a lot of people on this site, particularly readers of fantasy, sci fi, and comic books use exactly that phrase when describing it--that they 'lost themselves' in the book and that was their intention in reading it. They didn't want to be bogged down with details and they didn't notice inaccuracies or plot conflicts because they were just trying to enjoy themselves.

"The sole purpose of stories, I believe, is to use the pursuits of the lives of others, fictional as they may be, to enrich your own."

I think stories can and should be enriching, but that doesn't mean all of them are, or that people want to be enriched. There are a lot of people who read the same books over and over--the same genre, with the same character types and ideas. Whether it's a romance novel or a monomythic fantasy brick, it's difficult to imagine that these people are in any way enriching themselves.

There are a lot of people who, if you asked them what a book taught them, or how it changed them, couldn't give you and answer. Many people leave a book the same as they began it. I would consider such a book to be a waste of my time, but I do not seek escape.

My ex's mom used to do the same thing with business self-help books: she would get into a funk in her life, then read one of these books and suddenly feel that she could have a successful business next year. Then she'd forget about it and go back to her life until she started feeling upset again. The books never changed her, they just perpetuated the same thoughts and behaviors over and over.

And if a person is only seeking out books that agree with them, books that are familiar, that have themes that interest them, then they aren't going to be enriched, because they are just reinforcing what's already there. How could they be enriched by having the same experience over and over?

" I would certainly argue that fans of the crime genre in no way wish they were Scarface."

Curious that you bring that up, because I actually know quite a few guys who do wish they were Scarface. They have the poster, they dress the part, and they quote the film. Certainly, they wouldn't actually enjoy all the danger and pressure of being a crime boss, but that doesn't stop their fantasy.

It's like people who obsess about the zombie apocalypse: it's mostly an exercise in self-importance. People like to imagine a world where there aren't all those people around to bother them, where conflicts are solved by force, and where they can be important and clever. Of course, they'd be miserable, and probably die painfully, but that doesn't make the fantasy less appealing.

I know plenty of people for whom TV, books, and that sort of things are like drugs--it's a pick-me-up for when they feel down, and they never really analyze or internalize what they're receiving.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that comics, sci fi, fantasy, romance, or any genre is build for escapism; they can be just as experimental and thought-provoking as anything else. But as Sturgeon's Law states, the average example is going to be lackluster.

Which makes sense: take all the writers in the world and only a small number of them are going to have the skill to make something complex and meaningful. The rest have to rely on cliches and melodrama, and for a lot of readers, that's all they want.

It's not just the readers who want the same thing over and over, it's often what the writers produce. Think about all the long fantasy series with no end, with no build, where everything is just shifted back and forth until things peter out.

Or think of main line comics, where the same stories are told over and over, where anything unusual that happens is retconned away and we keep returning to the same characters in the same situations. That isn't enrichment, it's stagnation.

"people buying Batman comics are not doing so to live out creepy fantasies of being a burly crime fighter in tights."

I don't think it's that literal for most people. It's more that they feel frustrated and powerless and enjoy watching someone else be competent and powerful. It's a way to cope. I know a lot of guys who come home from work filled with a nameless rage and who just want to go shoot a bunch of Nazis online.

This doesn't mean they are violent people or that they imagine that they are soldiers, or that they want to be soldiers, but it also isn't enriching. They don't step away from the game at the end with any more understanding of themselves or of life than they went into it. It's a repetitive endorphin release, and I would definitely categorize that as a kind of escape from the reality of life.

"you can tell Moore really loves and respects his medium, and of course, the people who read them."

Definitely. He's there doing what he does because of that love. Despite all the awful stuff he's had to go through, it's what he wants to do, and I'm glad I get to experience it.

"I know that you only wanted to highlight a section fo the fanbase, a section that it may very well be true for, but I do feel it's a rather unfortunate stereotype."

It is unfortunate, but it keeps playing out again and again, and the big publishers feed into it--then again, they are now run by those same obsessive fanboys. I don't want to say comics are any different than movies or TV or gallery art--all media have the capability to be mindless escapism. They can all be a simple drug for a person who doesn't want to think at the end of the day. Comic fans shouldn't be typified as any more prone to this than anyone else. In fact I specifically mention that television can do the same thing in the next line after the one you quoted.

"I don't think enjoying these stories has to inevitably constitute a dull or aimless life."

Certainly not, and I never implied that it was inevitable--I merely stated that there was a particular appeal in simple, repetitive stories for people who feel unremarkable and powerless. The fact that Roschach, himself has become a popular 'heroic' figure in the fandom shows their tendency to feel a cathartic release at characters who have an intense ego and who solve problems through violence--even if those characters are unhinged, insane, and unpleasant.


Robbie Black Well said sir!


J.G. Keely Thank you much, glad you liked it.


Yasiru Excellent review. I'm finding fresh insights on my reread and you've articulated some of these better than I managed to cobble together.


J.G. Keely Cool, glad you liked it, and that it's giving you some food for thought. Thanks for the comment.


message 17: by Ada (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ada Sandoval Wow. I truly couldn't have said it better. While I admit not having much depth in analyzing the graphic novel, I did pick up the theme of how incredibly human these superheroes were. Truth be told, I got that idea from watching the movie first. I was immediately blown away. To see "superheroes" be just as human and vulnerable as we are was something entirely new to me. Years later, I found out it was adapted from Alan Moore's work. Read it and loved it. I don't think there'll ever be something as good as this. The combination of literature, imagery, and reflection of our society was outstanding.

I am thankful that you have made me understand why Laurie lacked the depth of other characters. I refuse to believe that Alan Moore is a misogynist, as others have pointed out.


J.G. Keely "Read it and loved it. I don't think there'll ever be something as good as this."

Actually, I think Milligan's Enigma is another comic that tackles the same subject in a fashion that is just as complex and multilayered, though he takes a more subtle, personal approach. But I think there are a few authors out there who are capable of reaching Moore's level, and there's still a lot about the medium we have yet to explore.

Glad you liked the review, thanks for the comment.


message 19: by Ada (new) - rated it 5 stars

Ada Sandoval That's good to know! I guess I spoke too soon. I'll consider reading Enigma in the future. Thank you for your reply!


Mohnish I haven't read many comics, so do you suggest any literature that I should go through beforehand to get most of the references?
Great review!


message 21: by Fish (new)

Fish Punch thank you. 'least now i know why i didnt get the movie. i did not empathize with the characters which was probably at least in part because i had some sort of expectation for a more easily recognizable comic book movie morality(i have never read comics). i can appreciate what the author is doing but apparently only when it is explicitly pointed out to me.


message 22: by Akash (last edited Dec 22, 2013 07:16AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Akash Do you think Rorschach wanted to die? He could have lied, deceived them that he won't reveal their plan but then do it anyways. Of course, deceiving Manhattan and Ozymandias would have been tough, but I think if Rorschach wanted he would have tried and should have tried, or rather, what was the writer's intention? I think if he really intend to make Rorschach reveal everything, he should have made him at least try to deceive M and O. The way it is, I think Rorschach wanted M to kill him, maybe he didn't want to sacrifice his ideals, but still could see the sense in the plan. What do you think?

EDIT- Actually, the question I am asking is not whether he wanted to die, it's clear that he did, what I am wondering is whether he recognized the sense in Veidt's plan? Also, would you kill a million to save a billion?


message 23: by Illumi (last edited Dec 22, 2013 04:12PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Illumi Sorry for barging in Keely. My apologies.
Alan Moore once said in an interview that as he went on, at one point he realized that Rorschach had a king size death wish.
Yes, he wanted to die. As a man who viewed world in stark black and white, he could not at all come in terms with the warped scheme of Adrian. He cannot come to terms with the idea of killing millions to save billions. To him right was right and wrong was wrong. And seeing that everyone going along with Adrian's plan, he was torn between two choices. Go along with it, against all his convictions and beliefs and live or not to accept it and die. He chose to die. If he had lived, he would have surely gone to disprove and dispose everything. It is in his character. So he sacrificed himself.


David W. Ironically, for years he praised President Truman for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ending the war on Japan without even more American troops dying. His death wish must have intensified when he realized that no life is cheap and he was wrong to have such double standards with obliterating Japanese civilians being OK but killing half of New York not.


Nikko So I've just finished this and it has quite simply blown my mind. I could not agree with your review any more.

Now this is a graphic novel had has spent a great deal of time in my 'to read' pile because, for some reason, my mind thought that a novel such as Watchmen would be a struggle: How on earth can something held in such high esteem by so many readers ever live up to its hype? And surely, a novel bearing this level of intellectual grandeur would require some significant hard work on the part of the reader.

Well, I tell you what: From the moment I read the first page I could not put it down. And I did not want it to finish. So so good all I want to do is read it again to catch some of the many nuances, messages and layers I must have missed the first time around.

I would give this novel 6 out of 5 if I could. Spot on!


Illumi David W. wrote: "Ironically, for years he praised President Truman for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ending the war on Japan without even more American troops dying. His death wish must ha..."

There are things that you think you are capable of. But you will never know until you are actually in that situation. He thought that dropping the atomic bomb was the right choice to have done and admired Truman for that. He may have even thought that he was capable of it too. He's certainly not squeamish. But when he comes to face a similar situation he can't do it. Maybe because he thought it was wrong or because that it was all a lie. Like I said, he really is a man of black and white, just like his mask. He could not make a choice so opposed to his beliefs and live with it afterwards.


David W. Illuminati8 wrote:There are things that you think you are capable of. But you will never know until you are actually in that situation. He thought that dropping the atomic bomb was the right choice to have done and admired Truman for that. He may have even thought that he was capable of it too. He's certainly not squeamish. But when he comes to face a similar situation he can't do it. Maybe because he thought it was wrong or because that it was all a lie. Like I said, he really is a man of black and white, just like his mask. He could not make a choice so opposed to his beliefs and live with it afterwards. "

His mask is a paradox in and of itself: Black and white, true, yet open to interpretation, not to mention the Ink Blots themselves are constantly changing, so that EVEN IF we have a "right interpretation" for a Rorscharch card, there'd still be a million interpretations because of the million shapes.


message 28: by Jill (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jill Marie Thank you, we are reading this in my Lit. class in college, you're review has been very helpful.


message 29: by Illumi (last edited Apr 06, 2015 09:45PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Illumi David W. wrote: "Illuminati8 wrote:There are things that you think you are capable of. But you will never know until you are actually in that situation. He thought that dropping the atomic bomb was the right choice..."

True. I've always had the assumption that that was Alan Moore's inside joke. Here we have a man who has such black and white views, when reality itself is shifting all the time. For what is reality if not our perceptions? Apart from things we can feel and see and sense in some way, reality really is based on how we chose to look at things. What is so cruel to someone is not at all a big deal for others. Alan Moore, for what he is with his reputation for his painstaking detail, has things like this (social commentaries and whatnot) hidden in his characters and stories. That is what makes him such a compelling author in my eyes.


David W. I love his work (granted I've only read this, Killing Joke and V For Vendetta so far...) and sometimes I'm saddened that some people easily dismiss him because his stories get too "rapey" or something.


Illumi David W. wrote: "I love his work (granted I've only read this, Killing Joke and V For Vendetta so far...) and sometimes I'm saddened that some people easily dismiss him because his stories get too "rapey" or someth..."

Ha... That's the first time I've heard that. But it isn't hard to imagine why they easily dismiss him. There are authors who can entertain you and there are authors who bore you and then there are the authors who will challenge your beliefs, take you out of your safe little world and slap you with brutal reality. Alan Moore is not the entertaining kind or the boring kind. And questioning your own beliefs is not an easy thing to do for anyone.


message 32: by Matt (new) - rated it 5 stars

Matt Thanks for the review, very compelling and erudite if I may say so! I certainly agree with the theme of your review and the analytical points you have made. This is the second graphic novel I've read and I shall certainly be seeking out other Alan Moore titles. I think 'V for Vendetta' might be on the cards!


message 33: by Eric (new) - rated it 4 stars

Eric Great review, Keely. Thank you for writing it. I always enjoy finishing a good book and then seeing what you have to say about it. I loved the non-instructional voice of Moore's characters in Watchmen. By making the characters preachy in their own ways, Moore's voice remains disconnected from preaching, or at least takes it to a much less obvious/more meaningful plane. Also, Rorschach, what a perfect way to show the reader that we see what we want to see as we read, that we'll project our own meaning onto things if allowed, but that our conclusions can so easily be shown to be weak.

Spoilers ahead

There was one plot choice that I do not understand: when Jon decides to kill Rorschach in order to stop him from revealing Veidt's guilt. Although as I think about it now, perhaps it was done this way because it was the simplest solution and Jon's view of life is so far outside of normal human ethics. When I read it I thought Jon could have just wiped Rorschach's memory or chosen some other non-violent solution, but Jon didn't do any memory-wiping or mind-altering previously so it would have complicated the narrative I suppose. What do you think?

Thanks for the positive review. I'm excited to read more Moore, starting V for Vendetta now.


Lenny D Thank you for writing this review. Brilliant exposition that helped me get through a lot of the questions (Black Freighter) I had about the text. Have you ever read The Killing Joke, and is it worth reading? This was my first comic book so I'm interested in exploring the canon.


Eldrick I had read this book before, But I still like it.


Arjun subash A.I how is this book ?


message 37: by Kafunda (new)

Kafunda Banks Spot on! Loved your review. The movie, for me, seriously disappointed. And it was, unfortunately, my first introduction to The Watchmen. But there was enough in the movie that left me deeply curious about the author and what the work was really intended to be. Watching the movie was like eating a dish where the cook wasn't paying attention to the seasoning. Like, this could have been good but it is seriously missing something. Thanks for adding the "something"!


message 38: by JustForFun (new)

JustForFun Keely, I have a question.
Watchmen is in many places praised for its realism, even though the characters seem to be archetypal. Doesn't that make for a conflicting tone? Or can that go together?
My question is just, in general, about what makes a book have conflicted tone, in your opinion.
In your A Game of Thrones review, you mention that the book has melodramatic characters, yet goes for a realistic outlook, which makes for a conflicted tone. And now I was thinking about Watchmen, and does it also have conflicted tone, or not.


Stael Altidor if its it aint interpretriot


cOde qpqpp because t


message 41: by jerry (new) - added it

jerry increase font size ??


Chris Bowles Dude WELL SAID


message 43: by Idris (new) - added it

Idris hi this coool


message 44: by Jo (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jo Sé I’ll never understand the hate given to the movie, it follows the comic practically frame for frame and only changed the motivation for Veidts plan rather than the plan itself which doesn’t change anything. I read someone blog before the movie was released who spoke about this happening. He said the comics were that popular no one could have made it good enough for the fans and the reality proved it. Made as close to the comics as possible, as I said, getting it panel for panel most of the time and still it was panned


annika burman This review is so well-written I want to start reading Watchmen over from the beginning. Thank you for that.


Gabriel An excellent review for an amazing book.


message 47: by s.g. (new) - rated it 4 stars

s.g. Damn dude, what a review. Breath of fresh air


Michael Ball Unfortunately I saw the movie before viewing the comic/graphic novel, so my personal opinion is laterally ( not literally!) skewed. Each medium alters conceptuality to the detriment of the others. Thus the movie, fantastic as it is, merely presents flawed superheroes whereas the graphic novel presents a flawed society. Batman and Superman just would not gel in this world, they would watch the watchmen and their superpowers would be of no use. Why not? Because Watchmen, unlike The Matrix, is the Real World: Full of Zeroes not Heroes!


message 49: by s.g. (new) - rated it 4 stars

s.g. What a review 👏


back to top