Sign in with Facebook
Schmacko's Reviews > Watchmen
Watchmen
by
by
I can understand why this is considered a holy tome in the field of graphic novels. The plot is complex, it’s unique, and it’s well drawn. Also, it’s got the Holy Grail of every geeky comic book fan's wetdreams – lots of cool gadgets and stuff.
I ain’t knocking that. Imagination abounds, and I am thoroughly impressed. I love that comic books and graphic novels create their entire world – but – BUT then again every piece of art creates it’s own world. And ALL OF THOSE OTHER ARTS MAKE EMOTIONALLY ENGAGING STORIES!
I get frustrated because my graphic-novel friends keep foisting these things on me. They love me, they see me as very imaginative and very supportive of their creativity, but they cannot seem to get why I go cold at graphic novels.
This one was thrust upon me, because I was affected by the movie The Dark Knight. I got emotionally engaged. I felt hopeless with Batman. I got a knot in my stomach when that horrible, unspeakable thing happened two-thirds of the way through the film. I was troubled by Joker’s logic, and I was frustrated with the people in the ferries. In other words, I WAS EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED!
A lot of these graphic novels and stuff seem to think that if they simply tickle your creative brain, they’ve succeeded. I want more – I want to laugh and cry and cheer and feel despair. I want a core of true human story. Gadgets and colors and costumes and superpowers don't make me weep or shout or ponder or giggle or sigh. Well, they make me sigh - with frustrationa nd boredom.
I know I sound angry at these things. I get frustrated, because I don’t think this is so hard to understand that I need emotional stimulation. And yet, my graphic-novel friends still press these books in my hand, hoping to unlock my wonder and amazement.
I was full of wonder and amazement at The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, a novel about a superhero and the super-human who spawned him. I am not above the magical, mystical, and fantastic (I love Harry Potter), but there has to be more than just gadgetry and explosions. There has to be honesty and the courage to plumb the human experience. I felt terribly at Kavalier’s struggles with violence and anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. Sam Clay’s secrets were heart-breaking. Kavalier’s search for revenge and Sam’s search for respect were emotionally engaging. In Harry Potter, I rallied behind Mrs. Weasley's maternal drive. I loved Harry's indignance at cruelty. I thought Hermione's concern for elves was sweet, and complicated (who know they wanted to be slaves). Chabon succeeded at making me feel, and so did Rowling. Watchmen did not.
Watchmen is about two generations of heroes. One was human – using costumes, strength, and cunning. The next was led bys a superhuman, Dr. Manhattan – they were both human and somewhat superhuman. Then a law was passed making their work illegal, and they went underground. It’s only when someone starts bumping off the old retired heroes that a mystery starts, a mystery that asks the esoteric and totally intellectual (read: unemotional) question of why humans can be drawn to the edge of doom, and what they need to do to stop just at the edge.
Oh - for the people who know and love Watchmen - I felt bad for how Dr. Manhattan couldn’t have a human relationship. And I understood why Laurie got infuriated. The thrill of Laurie and Dan becoming superheroes again was honest and wonderful. But that was it – I didn’t feel the panic of the world ending (mostly because if it did happen, there’d be no story). I didn’t care for the casual use of rape as a plot point. None of the long-winded, theoretical discussion about whether humanity was worth saving had any emotional pull to me. I didn’t care. In all 413 pages, I had four honest emotional reactions. One of my reactions was anger at the tangential pirate story (don’t ask – it doesn’t have any emotional or thematic reason for being there – it was just added because someone thought it was cool).
Cool. There’s the problem. Cool things don’t make me feel. People can imagine and draw all the cool things in the world, and it won’t make me emotional engage. Cool things don’t make my heart race or break or pause. They leave me cold. Graphic novels are mostly cool.
I ain’t knocking that. Imagination abounds, and I am thoroughly impressed. I love that comic books and graphic novels create their entire world – but – BUT then again every piece of art creates it’s own world. And ALL OF THOSE OTHER ARTS MAKE EMOTIONALLY ENGAGING STORIES!
I get frustrated because my graphic-novel friends keep foisting these things on me. They love me, they see me as very imaginative and very supportive of their creativity, but they cannot seem to get why I go cold at graphic novels.
This one was thrust upon me, because I was affected by the movie The Dark Knight. I got emotionally engaged. I felt hopeless with Batman. I got a knot in my stomach when that horrible, unspeakable thing happened two-thirds of the way through the film. I was troubled by Joker’s logic, and I was frustrated with the people in the ferries. In other words, I WAS EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED!
A lot of these graphic novels and stuff seem to think that if they simply tickle your creative brain, they’ve succeeded. I want more – I want to laugh and cry and cheer and feel despair. I want a core of true human story. Gadgets and colors and costumes and superpowers don't make me weep or shout or ponder or giggle or sigh. Well, they make me sigh - with frustrationa nd boredom.
I know I sound angry at these things. I get frustrated, because I don’t think this is so hard to understand that I need emotional stimulation. And yet, my graphic-novel friends still press these books in my hand, hoping to unlock my wonder and amazement.
I was full of wonder and amazement at The Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, a novel about a superhero and the super-human who spawned him. I am not above the magical, mystical, and fantastic (I love Harry Potter), but there has to be more than just gadgetry and explosions. There has to be honesty and the courage to plumb the human experience. I felt terribly at Kavalier’s struggles with violence and anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe. Sam Clay’s secrets were heart-breaking. Kavalier’s search for revenge and Sam’s search for respect were emotionally engaging. In Harry Potter, I rallied behind Mrs. Weasley's maternal drive. I loved Harry's indignance at cruelty. I thought Hermione's concern for elves was sweet, and complicated (who know they wanted to be slaves). Chabon succeeded at making me feel, and so did Rowling. Watchmen did not.
Watchmen is about two generations of heroes. One was human – using costumes, strength, and cunning. The next was led bys a superhuman, Dr. Manhattan – they were both human and somewhat superhuman. Then a law was passed making their work illegal, and they went underground. It’s only when someone starts bumping off the old retired heroes that a mystery starts, a mystery that asks the esoteric and totally intellectual (read: unemotional) question of why humans can be drawn to the edge of doom, and what they need to do to stop just at the edge.
Oh - for the people who know and love Watchmen - I felt bad for how Dr. Manhattan couldn’t have a human relationship. And I understood why Laurie got infuriated. The thrill of Laurie and Dan becoming superheroes again was honest and wonderful. But that was it – I didn’t feel the panic of the world ending (mostly because if it did happen, there’d be no story). I didn’t care for the casual use of rape as a plot point. None of the long-winded, theoretical discussion about whether humanity was worth saving had any emotional pull to me. I didn’t care. In all 413 pages, I had four honest emotional reactions. One of my reactions was anger at the tangential pirate story (don’t ask – it doesn’t have any emotional or thematic reason for being there – it was just added because someone thought it was cool).
Cool. There’s the problem. Cool things don’t make me feel. People can imagine and draw all the cool things in the world, and it won’t make me emotional engage. Cool things don’t make my heart race or break or pause. They leave me cold. Graphic novels are mostly cool.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Watchmen.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
August 9, 2008
–
Finished Reading
August 11, 2008
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 55 (55 new)
Thanks for your note. I still think you may be talking about technical skill, whereas my major problem was lack of human involvement.The problem that I have with the pirate story is that its existence is purely technical. There are some cool technical links, but the MASSIVE time spent on it seems to frustrate and take us away from the primary storyline. If you consider plot, character, and theme as primary, the pirate story may tangentially relate to the theme, but it barely links to the plot, and I think to say it relates to Ozymandias (an Eqyptian king/god and not at all a pirate) is stretching it a bit.
I agree that some thematic reference can be made to the superheroes using bodies (much like the in the pirate story), but again, that’s a pretty lo and a LOT of time spent away from the initial story.
My major issue with this book is not technical – I think technically it was brilliant. But emotionally, I didn’t care. For specifics (and spoilers are included):
1) I understood why Laurie was upset at Doc splitting himself and doing lab work
while making love to her. I emotionally related.
2) After Laurie and Dan start fighting crime again, I understood their breathless moment of thrill, of “wow, that was great and did we really just do that!?!?!”
3) I understand Laurie upset to find that the Comedian was her dad, after the horrible things she was told about him. However, I found her mother’s reaction later seems to condone the Comedian’s rape, which I found repulsive.
Other than that, I was not emotionally involved AT ALL ANYWHERE ELSE IN THESTORY. For all the new technical aspects Watchmen brought, I did not empathize with the characters, because they didn’t seem wholly realized. They talked in esoteric circles about theories a LOT. I should have been horrified by the violence at the end, but by that time, the rest of everythign the characters did or did not do made it so I didn't care. I WAS NOT EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED.
Again, I can see people appreciating the artistry, the connected plot, and the technical skill. Maybe it’s a failing of mine that all this technical skill was not enough for me. I need human discussions, battles, and conflicts to be emotionally involved. I thought, “Well, technically, that’s a cool idea” a lot throughout Watchmen. But I didn’t say, “Ew, that’s horrible,” or “Great – kick their asses!” or “Yep, I’d feel the same way,” or “I’d hate to have to go through that” as much as I feel I should have.
Casablanca – that final speech he gives her to convince her to leave him to me is heartbreaking. We know he really wants to be with her, but he feels he is endangering her life. He knows that if he told her that, she’d stay. He comes up with an elaborate, poetic lie, and it is heartbreaking. In short, I felt.
Anyway, I appreciate you note. I stil feel like I am screaming "make me eel something" or "show me something about humans and humanity" when all these stories are doing cool technical stuff and using great art, and without human emotion, it just isn't enough.
As a side reference, I love Persepolis and the Stanger than Paradise series, and I loved Maus. Those three things were emotionally engaging.
Again, I appreciate you taking time to write a note.
Just wondering--the "thermodynamic miracle" speech didn't affect you at all? I found that one of the most moving parts of anything I've read in a while.
Hmm, if it's the speech I think you're refering to, it was a fascinating theoretical analysis. I also appreciated that the speech had to do with the people on the street that we'd come to know somehwat throughout the entire graphic novel (though we "knew" them behaviorially and not intimately). I wanted more of a unique human story with flawed but relateable persons reacting in intimate and singular, surprising ways based on personality and relationships. (The one very near the end?)
If I could give you another "14 people liked this review" I would have. That's it exactly.
Thank you!I think a lot of people see this differently than me. I just don't feel task, data, theory, fact, supposition, deliberation, function, measurement, technicality, principle, rule, and law are that "human."
I am engaged by rapport, intuition, relation, personal conflict, emotional process, behavior, character flaw, love, hate, passion, enthusiasm, and the like.
This is how I see it. Let's say some of my friends and I are watching a movie where two people are fighting and their marriage depends on the outcome of the argument. THAT fascinates me. But I sense that some of my serious "graphic" friends would be watching the same scene and looking for nifty kitchen appliances and cool light switches...
I think Rohrschack is deeply flawed (as are many of the other characters), and Moore explores that with the flashbacks involving his mothera and his origin (which are related to Kitty Genovese and the young girl who is butchered and fed to dogs). Plus, I think he has a LOT of passion for what he does--after all, when pressured to retire, he does leave a rapist on the steps of a police precinct with the note "Never!" And he's just one example of a character with flaws and personal conflict.As far as "cool gadgets" go, well, there's the Owlship, Ozymandias's giant squid, and some of the work of Dr. Manhattan. But I did not find those to overshadow the emotions and behavior of the characters.
I understand where you're coming from with this review, though I most definitely did react emotionally to the story. I loved it, even though it was incredibly frustrating and most definitely what the kids would call a "downer". I can understand your desire to have the story move you emotionally, though. And even though I had a different reaction to the story (it got five stars from me), I thought your review was excellent.
Thanks for your review. I DID have more emotional reactions to Watchmen than you did, though not a lot more. Have you read Jimmy Corrigan? Or Blankets? Or Persepolis? I had strong emotional reactions to all of those, particularly J.C. If you haven't read them, and want to find more emotionally contentful graphicl novels, they may fit the bill. But you say you've had lots of g.n.s pushed into your hands, so maybe you've read those, too, and didn't find them particularly moving either.
Luca wrote: "Thanks for your review. I DID have more emotional reactions to Watchmen than you did, though not a lot more. Have you read Jimmy Corrigan? Or Blankets? Or Persepolis? I had strong emotional reactio..."Well, if JC is like Persepolis (which I simply LOVED), then I may look into it. It's funny you hit one of the two graphic novels (the other being Maus) which I have fallen in love with. Thanks for the note!
Perhaps your lack of emotional attachment is due to the fact that the books is less of a story and more of a critic on conservatism, specifically on Ronald Reagan's arms race with Russia. Moore’s political vision – in part because it was so wrong – seems like 80’s kitsch today, may be one of the reasons why you could not emotionally connect with the book.
Perhaps your lack of emotional attachment is due to the fact that the books is less of a story and more of a critic on conservatism, specifically on Ronald Reagan's arms race with Russia. Moore’s political vision – in part because it was so wrong – seems like 80’s kitsch today, may be one of the reasons why you could not emotionally connect with the book.
Kristian - you may have hit upon something. What you're saying is that Moore's book is more of an essay or editorial (and I'd add with cool gadgets).Yes, I'd agree that would be a good reason not to feel emotionally drawn to the work.
I think there are timeless aspects that could have been given more attention, but none of these have to do with the Cold War or Reagan:
- The idea that the "heroes" want to do great and beneficial things but that the rest of humanity is holding them down has some possibility. I was also concerned by some of the heroes' sense of sociopathy - as if they (Rorschack (sp?), the Comedian, some others...) were above the law.
- There is the huge sociopathic idea of doing something horrible for "humanity's greater good" - that's fascinating, but that plot point comes so late in the novel, that the battle over that being a destructive and selfish perspective is never fully explored (Though is discussed ad nauseum! I wanted it to be explored through action and interaction and plot and character THROUGHOUT the book. Right there at the end, they sure TALK about it enough!)
- The whole history between Laurie, her mom, and the Comedian could be its own two-act play if it were fleshed out a bit. It just wasn't, and because it wasn't, the blase handling of the subject made me mervous and uncomfortable. (BTW, I am a movie critic, so I am hoping the filmmakers approached the Laurie/Mom/Comedian scenes with more sensitivity. I'd imagine shooting those days more like a small family drama instead of an action film.
It's one of the things I love about Dark Knight; you can tell director Christopher Nolan works with his very talented actors instead of just framing explosions and stunts. I knew Nolan was capable of this because of his work in Memento.
This same thing worries me about Watchmen director Zack Snyder, who has only directed 300 and the new Dawn of the Dead. Neither of those films are what I'd consider the pinnacle of dramatic or actorly skill.)
Your review is good, and everyone has an opinion of course... but calling the pirate story tangential? Yikes. Central theme... Is it good to have the people who perceive themselves as righteous (man chasing the pirates... he was acting out of pure, unselfish love) or heros (the main story) be either a) above the law, or b) willing to do anything with complete disregard for human life... if they just believe that their cause is good?
And if you give people this kind of power, who watches the watchmen?
Humans are flawed, make bad decisions, and try to implement grand schemes borne of megalomania. I think Moore is critiquing the ideas that you express dislike in the review above.
And, Moore leaves the tensions unresolved so that the morality play that never ends will continue. Rohrshach's Journal will be published and the whole discussion will start anew.
Thematically, yes, the pirate story does have a scant few threads that link it to the larger story. I feel these are mostly forced.Do pirates have a connection with superheroes? You could also force a connection about them both operating outside the law (one for personal gain, one for greater good). Again, thematically, it's a bit of a stretch.
My bigger concern: Does the fact that the kid is reading a pirate story affect the main plot of the superheroes and their murders? Nope. Not at all. The fact that the kid was on that corner becomes important, but why cover the backstory of him reading the ENTIRE pirate story and not cover the backstory of anyone else on that corner? Because I feel Moore thought the pirate story was cool and interesting.
To me, the pirate story is just there to show that worshipful and moral superhero commics would not exist if the heroes were seen as antagonistic to social establishment and maintenance. That's a theory more than a story, and it's only tangental to the superheroes getting murdered, why and how.
The plot of the pirate comic should have AFFFECTED the main plot or the main characters. That's why it's tangental. It's there merely as a supposition or as an observation about the world Moore creates (it's a pretty LONG observation at that, too. Didn't anyone else think, "OK, OK, get back to the main story! Or make this have something to do with the PLOT and CHARACTERS of the main story!")
Thanks for writing. I am not calling the pirate story BAD or UNARTISTIC. I am just saying it didn't affect the protagonists (Rorschach, Ozymadius, Dr. Manhattan) or their plotlines.
I am looking forward to the movie today. Because I am a reviewer, I am seeing it early. (Only two reviewers here in Orlando got invited to the prescreenings, which really ticks me off, but then that's tangental to our discussion here. ;-)
I've enjoyed this thread of comments, and think I can cast a bit of light on how your reaction to the book differs from your friends who are thrusting it in your hands. You have made several mentions of the "cool gadgets," and this to me says that you were never much of a comic book reader. Alan Moore was writing to people who read comic books. At the time Watchmen was first published, mainstream comics had barely scratched the surface of the idea that superheroes might not be completely pure agents of justice. Moore dared to ask how a person might really react if transformed into an omnipotent being, and to probe what sociopathic impulses would compel someone to put on a mask and fight crime. To a generation of comics readers who always assumed Superman, Batman, Spider-Man or the X-Men were by nature just and right (and mentally well-balanced), this was a revelation. If I'm right, and you didn't have that background as a comic book reader, then it makes sense that you wouldn't draw the same emotional connection.
For those who did, seeing Walter Kovacs scream "My face! Give me back my face!" when his Rorschach mask is removed is a very powerful moment. This is not a hero who stops a holdup, smiles and then goes home and props his feet up in self-righteous contentment. This is a boy who felt so small and powerless in his situation that he died unto himself and remade his personality. He won't stop because he CAN'T.
James Gatz did something similar, but not everyone finds The Great Gatsby to be a great novel, either.
By now, of course, those themes have been explored many times over and in many of the characters mentioned above (and yes, The Dark Knight did it better, in my opinion) But Moore was one of the first to tackle this theme for that audience, and that is why he and Watchmen are a big deal.
And I will agree that the "Black Freighter" pirate story does more to detract from the narrative than add to it, and that Moore's '80s vision of an ultra-conservative distopia dates the piece.
I'm curious about what you thought of the film. I went into the theater thinking the novel would not translate well on the screen, and didn't leave feeling differently.
Nice review! I also had a similar feeling when reading this book, and had a similar background too. I had a couple friends hoist it upon me as a sort of 'Bible' amongst graphic novels. It wasn't so much that I didn't like the book, only that I found many of the characters unapproachable. I think part of my problem is that I am not used to gleaning so much of the nuance from the pictures rather than the text (I too, got more out of the interludes). But I think my real problem was that I have already been introduced to the concept of anti-hero in so many other genres.Adam, the commenter above me puts it very well. What was revolutionary in this genre was old-hat to me by the time I got around to Watchmen.
I'll still go see the film and be interested to see how it gets adapted, but I won't go into it with the same expectations as I went into the novel.
Thanks for the review!
Adam, I think you have a good point about the movie and the book, as Danny said. The film - there were also some serious directoial problems; anytime director Snyder (300) made a choice that wasn't in Moore's book, it was almost always the worst choice he could've made at that given moment. Otherwise, it's pretty-much Moore's book, both with long fights/lectures and more conjecture and invention than actual human relationship and emotional connection.
Based on other comments and what kind of graphic novels you do like, I would check out "Blankets" and "Goodbye Chunky Rice," both by Craig Thompson. Also, "Three Shadows" is one of my favorite books of all time, let alone comics. I might also suggest "The Sandman" series, though I'm not sure it'll quite be your cup of tea (especially because I'd be surprised if you haven't had it hoisted on you already).
I wanted to say, I haven't read this book, nor do I have any plans to, but...This one was thrust upon me, because I was affected by the movie The Dark Knight. I got emotionally engaged. I felt hopeless with Batman. I got a knot in my stomach when that horrible, unspeakable thing happened two-thirds of the way through the film. I was troubled by Joker’s logic, and I was frustrated with the people in the ferries. In other words, I WAS EMOTIONALLY ENGAGED!
That is exactly the point I have tried to make to my husband about comic book movies as a whole. (I don't care if he watches them, but please don't drag me along and then try to engage me in a long drawn out conversation about how "awesome" it was. Unless I say something about how great it was, chances are I do not want to have someone try to convince me that it was great.)
I can completely see your point about not being emotionally engaged by the story. When I read it, being extremely mentally and theologically engaged was enough to earn it four stars--but certainly not five. For me, five stars means tears. Four just means the proverbial "awesome."I want to echo some others' graphic novel recommendations here and say that "Blankets" and "Three Shadows" are both worth a look. "Blankets" is another one that I find more engaging on a spiritual level, but "Three Shadows" might pull at the heart strings for you.
Try reading "Maus" or "Bone" I know what you're talking about as far as not being involved.
I had far more of an emotional connection to the characters of Watchmen than I ever did to Batman in The Dark Knight, in all honesty. To each his own.
Schmacko Miller - re: The Dark Knight vs. Watchmen, regardless of medium, why do you more easily identify with a story that heroically portrays reactionary law-and-order types snooping on citizens to extrajudicially punish one-dimensional 'criminals', rather than a story where the 'crime-fighters' are just as likely to be sexually maladjusted misogynists and totalitarian-minded pathological racists? Which story speaks more truth about our society?
Ganglion - LOL. Umm, I would say neither. I think the fact that Batman had a moral compass that created the problem of Joker is a complex one. We love moral absolutes, but they come with a price; that is the message of Dark Knight, to me. And, even as a gay man, I don't perceive I live in a world heavily populated by "sexually maladjusted misogynists and totalitarian-minded pathological racists." Though I simply adore your turn of phrase!
Hey, I found your review very interesting. I can relate to what your saying about graphic novels in terms of emotional connection, however I can't agree when it comes to watchmen. I think there is atmosphere and emotion in this book that seems to work in a unique way. But each to their own obviously. I also think people who appreciate graphic novels care about the art and the medium on another level. If you can't feel a rush of excitement or awe about the actual comic art than you probably aren't suited to the medium. Being an artist and graphic designer, what draws me to the graphic novel medium is the beauty of the brush strokes, the halftone dots on the page, the actual paper quality and scent, the quality of inks used to print the work, the way the artists has rendered the buildings and which approach they've taken to interpret the story and the characters. I love looking at the work of Herge, Frank Miller, Dave Gibbons, Seth (You should check out It's a good life if you don't weaken by Seth), Geoff Darrow, Suehiro Maruo and the list goes on. Sometimes the art trumps the story and it's simply an indulgent aesthetic experience. I guess if you have no real passion for the art side of it then it's not going to be such an involving or special experience. I guess that's the way I see it anyway, it's a strange medium and hard to compare with literature that relies on your mind to conjure up the imagery. I also love reading books and the really deep stuff about life is hands down conveyed far more drastically richly in books, but they're two different mediums and should be looked at and judged on a different value system. I'm sure I'm somewhat stating the obvious however your comment struck a cord with me and I was actually just being introspective and thought I'd share some thoughts. I'm not trying to make you like it or anything silly, simply trying to highlight the distinction between people who go cold at and people who connect with the medium.
Hmm, Thank you for your well-thought note, especially all the new details you bring in! I never think of book critique in terms of things like paper quality, scent, and half-tone dots. I think your ideas represent a unique way to look at the art, but I also think there's a danger of taking it too far - for example, giving a play a good review because the theater curtains are an attractive shade of red. ;-)I think you're right that the artwork is impressive, like I mention in the first part of my comments. In fact, I love graphic art from a visual sense, and I have a soft spot for the human emotions in Alex Ross pieces. Graphic novels - like movies - are a more visual medium and can tell their story through art instead of words. I think some of the work is Persepolis - with the stark tones and use of white space - certainly speak to the author's aloneness more than words could. And the foreboding in Maus is palpable. I even mention in the first two sentences that Watchmen is well drawn.
I just think the characters were not complex enough for me, and there were too many of them and their cool gadgets for me to get involved. Also, I just never got emotionally swept up in the rape subplot or the pirate tangent, the abandoned soldier's emotional struggle, no matter the color of ink or the smell of the paper. I really did not empathize with the characters, because they didn’t seem wholly realized. Like I mentioned earlier, they talked in esoteric circles about theories a LOT. I should have been horrified by the violence at the end, but by that time, I felt I'd spent too much time with gadgets and jumping from character subplot to subplot to care much about any one of them or their struggles.
I still think there might be a way to marry the visual storytelling of graphic novels with complex, emotional characters. Upon thinking of it, I'd be interested to see what a graphic artist could do with Geraldine Brooks' Pulitzer-Prize winning March. For me, the movie Inception touches on the lead character's cool invention and the emotional and ethical price he and his his wife had to pay, and it does it with neat graphic style. Like I said, I love Maus and Persepolis. Also, the meaty, battle-scarred look of Alex Ross's material has the visual ability to talk about the nobility and the price of always being in battle. I think that for me the book would have to include fewer characters, fewer gadgets, and more in-depth and complicated emotional struggles (plus much less lecturing) than Watchmen possesses. And maybe now you've made me think about it, I'll also notice the smell of the ink and the artistry of the binding. ;-) (Really, honestly, thanks, because your ideas made me think of things I've never previously considered!)
I agree 100% with your reasoning. I want to feel bad for a character and not think, "Well, what did you expect?!" I want to go through what a main character goes through on some level. It was very hard for me to give a crap about any of the characters, until Rorschach was trying to do the RIGHT and JUST thing at the end... and was blown up for it. Very great review!!!
You keep mentioning gadgets. Watchmen was not about gadgets at all. Watchmen was first and foremost a deconstruction and critique on the superhero concept. I'm not calling you dumb, but I think as a novice to comics, or rather, an outsider to superhero comics, a majority of the book went completely over your head. If you are not familiar with an art form, it's impossible to truly appreciate a seminal postmodern work on any level past superficial.Gadgets.
Well, I bet you're right; it is a deconstruction and critique about superheroes, not things that interest me like personalities, plot, and character arc. What you're describing, though, sounds more like a thesis or dissertation and not an engaging story. So you're probably right, in that I even found the deconstruction cold and machine-like. Thanks for your note.
Interesting review and comments. I agree that Watchmen isn't incredibly emotionally involving but I enjoyed it for other reasons. Strangely enough The Dark Knight left me completely uninvolved too, and somewhat bored. I think it's unfair to extend your critique of Watchmen to all graphic novels though. What did you think of Maus? I found that emotionally devastating and incredibly moving. I also think the Walking Dead (on a lighter note) is quite involving and emotional.
Maus and Persepolis are the two graphic novels I feel affected me the most. Thanks for your comment!
I disagree entirely with the notion that Watchmen is unemotional. Few other books have touched me more emotionally than Watchmen did, and the character who I identified the most with was Dr. Manhattan. Many writers and artists suffer from depersonalization, in which they feel they are watching their lives lived from the outside, and can witness and understand emotion but not feel it. Stoic intellect, emptiness, and seeing the pointlessness of existence is just as much of an emotional experience as anything else. Dr. Manhattan is a perfect character to represent the dark hopelessness of the creative force of humanity. I found myself in tears when he comes to the realization that life is worth nurturing, or even creating, simply because of the sheer miracle of it. And in no way is the rape portrayed in the story casually thrown in there. The rape is integral to the growth of the characters, and the choices they end up making. I think alot of the negative reaction people have to Watchmen is that there are no clear antagonists or protagonists. Each character represents different aspects of the human condition latent in all of us. People reading it are bound to either attach themselves to one character or another, then be pained when their hero falls from grace or loses, or to reject all of the characters as a whole because they are all too human, too flawed, to identify with. But that is the point of Watchmen. It simply asks the moral questions...it lets the reader decide if they dare have any of the answers.
Also, I disagree that since much of the dialogue centers on theory, that it makes the book unemotional. Watchmen focuses more on humanity as a whole rather than on the intimate dynamics between close groups. That shouldn't make it unemotional. In fact, part of what I think Moore wanted to bring to the attention of the reader was how we ignore how our action or inaction affects the world as a whole because we are so focused with what directly affects us and those we know. I hope there comes a day when people understand that theory, philosophy, and the quest for ultimate truth are worthy of directing our hearts toward.
Wow, you're the first one to make a strong argument for possible emotional arc of Dr. M at the core. I would have to spend more time with it (and I've moved on to other stuff) to see how each character - especially The Owl - fits into that idea of futility, failings, miracles and grace. I guess to me it's like Shroedinger's cat (sp?). I hate that experiment - I get emotional - because it's a pet, and I hate cruelty to animals. To others, it's an experiment. To me, I never got emotionally involved in Moore's experiment, then, especially the tangent of the pirate story (though an argument could now be made for your line, that one human surviving that atrocity says something about humanity as a whole - which is a long tangent, honestly.).
But thank you for giving me your perspective and your reasoned responses. I am duly impressed.
I wish it changed my mind, but my heart just isnt in it. It may be a failing of my personal taste. There's a part of me that regrets ever posting a review of something so many people are virulent about protecting. I feel like I'm pissing on their Christmas because I didn't feel the same way...speaking of the emotional overruling the logical.
Just to put your mind at ease about Schrödinger's cat, it's only a thought experiment and has never actually been done (by its very nature it couldn't actually yield any experimental results). It was simply an intellectual critique of quantum uncertainty by demonstrating how potentially absurd it was when extended to macroscopic events. I know you were just using it to make a point so sorry for going off topic, haha.
Lol. I don't think there is such a thing as a failing of personal taste. I don't like superhero comics in general, (with the exception of Batman, who really isn't super and can be a sort of anti-hero himself), and that of course influenced how much I enjoyed Watchmen. But many people really love Superman, Spiderman, X-Men and the like, and there has to be a reason. I think they're a bit silly, but I try to take a step back from my own perspective to understand why others feel a connection with them. It doesn't always work. Minds are too relative, and there can never be a consensus even between people who the same work of art about what that work of art really means. You are perfectly entitled to point out why Watchmen didn't work for you, and fans are perfectly entitled to tell you that you are looking at it wrong. The best part of consuming art for me is the discussion afterward. Looking at your reasons for not liking Watchmen made me really think about why I did, and the whole discussion about logic and emotion is really interesting to me. I am glad to have had an insight into your perspective, and glad to have had you analyse mine. You shouldn't regret voicing your criticism of such a celebrated work- it was brave, and your perspective is valid. Fans need criticism so that they can have the opportunity to truly love a work of art by being able to defend it.
Also, off in the tangenital direction of Schrodinger's cat, the emotional response you have about the cat is the correct response, even if the experiment is really not an experiment but a hypothetical question. The point of it is that the very balance of life and death, which is so dear in our hearts, hangs on the whim of things we either cannot ever understand or which are as yet beyond us. Ah yes, I think Watchmen was written for hypothetical thinkers and lovers of the tangent- thus the pirate story. Some people just really love to be forced to make stretches in meaning the way that Watchmen does.
Let me say this... Not every book or movie or piece of art moves you or everyone. But if you notice how complex and well-put together Watchmen is then you get it some. Maybe you understood the words but just don't get it. That's okay. The brilliance of Watchmen is a story before it's time and the way the artwork fits with it. Unfortunately the recent movie could also spoil it. Good on you for trying new thibgs and respecting the genre.
Wow I think you make a very good point about having an emotional connection with a piece of work to get you there. I think it's one of the most valid points as a reader to consider when picking favourites. Seriously, two gigantic thumbs up for a two starred review that doesn't bash the work ruthlessly based on the merits of your own trivial preferences but on the actual merit of the work itself. It really is too much to ask these days for a half decent review. Props!
Did you not get the significance behind each of the stereotypes specifically given to each of the characters?
I can never take a critique seriously when people put a random "The" before Watchmen. C'mon guys, look at the title.
Wow, I made that error 5 times in comments and the review by my count! Eek! Hopefully I caught all of them, and thanks for reminding me to appreciate my film review editors!
(Please do not read this in an accusatory tone; I'm just curious. And sorry if it doesn't make any sense, I may have forgotten to record a vital step in my thought process.)You seem to have an odd perspective on what is "human"; you identify something as "human" basically by whether or not it has emotional content relating to personal struggles and experiences (and also judge the value of a tangential plot line by whether or not it directly effects character development or general plot).
This view somewhat precludes the value of an emotional reaction to intellectual material or literary symbolism, relegating it to being "not human" and "cold".
I understand that it is not your personality to react emotionally to those more "intellectual”) things, and I am in no way disparaging you for thinking that way. I am merely commenting on how you appear to devalue that other way of viewing things; your worldview seems to be missing its proverbial other half.
(Sorry this is so off topic. I just had to say it.)
Well, good point. I work in Organizational Behavior, Psychology, and Communications - I have for 18 years. I fully believe that humans like to think they are logical and empirical, but we really aren't. Data doesn't hold as much strength with us as reactions, feelings, relationships, bonds, intuition, experience, etc. The things that drive us are not pure science; they are the feelings that the pursuit causes - the curiosity, the challenge, the love, etc. I'm also a believer of Joseph Campbell, so I believe in the power of these stories to fully affect and compel us, if told with clarity and heartfelt vision.
I feel like I've talked this book to death. I still feel that too much of Watchmen is a debate team competition instead of an engaging, enveloping story.
I LOVE a good graphic novel. This wasn't one of them, which was disappointing in itself since I had heard of it's nearly holy status in the world of comics. I think of all the characters, Dr. Manhattan was the most emotionally compelling, simply because he tugged at those same strings that Data does from ST:TNG, and I liked Rorschach for his anti-hero assholeishness. But what really killed it for me was the ending. I mean, really? REALLY? It was then that any of my investment in the story plummeted and I merely finished it because I had already gotten that far. Personally, I think the movie-ending was waaaay better. At least it made sense and brought the story full circle. But overall, I couldn't really bring myself to care about any of them much. Sure it was deep and political, and maybe if I'd read it back in the 80's I would have felt something different, but now it just feels extremely dated and kind of anti-climatic. Thanks for your review. It helped me pinpoint a few of the things I couldn't put my finger on that bugged me.
If you didn't cry for the original nightowl you have no soul.
I read your review... And think you should try reading "maus." It's a graphic novel, with great depth.
I can see why, based on your preferences, you might not have loved this one. However, I don't think it's an issue with the medium. When you say "graphic novels," you seem to be thinking mostly superhero stuff--or, in Watchmen's case, a critique on superheroes.
I heartily second all the graphic novel recommendations made so far in this thread, and would like to add:
-The Sandman series
-Habibi (by the author of Blankets, previously recommended here)
-Vattu (still being written, but the first volume is out)
-Digger
-Fun Home
-embroideries
Granted, I read "The Watchmen" when it was originally published twenty years ago, so I am coming at it from a different perspective, one without the precedent of the movie "The Dark Knight" or all the other hundred comic book movies or even the never-before-seen popularity and acceptance of comics. When I first saw the movie "Casablanca," I didn't appreciate it as much as I thought I would, and I think that's because I had seen it referenced or alluded to or seen the consequences of its influence. My reaction was valid, but it's not the original work's fault that I came at it only after decades of what one could call conditioning that would lessen the impact of the original work. Perhaps such "conditioning" is unavoidable. However, I think it's selling "The Watchmen" short to commend it for its "cool gadgets" when there's a lot more there to praise.