Writing a review of ‘Watchmen’ is hard work for any poor bastard assigned with the task. No matter what angle you choose to approach this seminal work with, no matter how you dissect it and not matter how many fancy words you use to shroud your intent, you only end up saying the same god-damn thing:
‘Watchmen’ is the best graphic novel I’ve ever read.
Now, that sentence sure looks nice when it’s centred and highlighted like I’ve done here, but it doesn’t mean as much as you’d think. It doesn’t mean that I haven’t read other comics that I haven’t found more enjoyable on certain levels, nor does it necessarily imply that I think it’s perfect on all accounts. But it does mean that ‘Watchmen’ is so jaw-droppingly awesome that I can’t quite believe it actually exists.
The most common way to describe the plot of ‘Watchmen’ is to say that it’s in part a political drama and murder mystery, but that’s such a insufficient way to put it that you might as well have said that the Sistine Chapel has paintings with nice colours or that Space is a pretty big place; it’s true to a point, but it’s such a vast understatement that it boggles the mind. But just like the Sistine Chapel or Space, ‘Watchmen’ is a piece of art that defies short & sweets summaries because its content is too layered with meaning, juxtapositions and daunting themes that I could easily spend a year’s worth of time trying to analyze this book and I wouldn’t even come close to understanding it all.
Which brings me to my first problem with this book, though whether or not it’s really a problem is something I haven’t decided yet. ‘Watchmen’ is so multi-layered that it requires a remarkably perceptive reader to fully grasp what the author is trying to tell you. Now, you do get a some enjoyment out of following the shallower plots I mentioned above, but if you judged this book based solely on those… well, suffice to say that this book would be far from seminal and would probably only go down in history as an unusually grim and realistic told tale with some major narrative hiccups. There are certain passages here that I spent several hours trying to discern exactly what was going on (and I mean exactly, though I didn’t succeed), and when I was finally satisfied I felt like crying with the sheer brilliance of it… but I was also left with the niggling thought in the back of my mind; “Should it be this hard to read a comic book?” I’ve read a lot of books in my time, and I can honestly say that I don’t think I’ve encountered something as demanding ‘Watchmen’ anywhere in fiction before.
And I applaud that fact, I really do, because it’s yet another testament to the genius of this graphic novel, but it’s also a warning to other readers that haven’t ventured into the deep marshes of Alan Moore’s imagination… If I read it again (which I will do at some point), I wouldn’t do it the way I did this time. I’d tear through it once, then twice, then I’d carefully study the art on the third turn, then I’d carefully read all the intermissions, and then and only then do I believe that I’d be fully equipped to get near-to-maximum enjoyment out of this novel. If that sounds a bit much, then so be it, ’cause there are no short-cuts to reading ‘Watchmen’. Leafing through it simply won’t do.
Regarding the artwork by Dave Gibbons, there are a few things I feel like should be mentioned: It is far from spectacular in a purely aesthetic way, which in most cases would be a complaint of mine but no so with ‘Watchmen’. This is a graphic novel that doesn’t draw its inherit awesomeness fifty-fifty from prose and illustrations; actually, I often wondered if certain passages would have worked better if they were in pure prose interspersed with art rather then having both mediums compete for importance to such a degree that I had problems focusing correctly. I still think the most convoluted passages were too crowded, but while I was marvelling at them, it struck me why Gibbon deserves an equal share as Moore in pulling this off. Sure, his panels aren’t beaut’s, nor are they High Art like Moore’s story is, but they are very effective in a simplistic way, which is the only way art could be squeezed into this book at all.
My main beef with the Art department aren’t therefore the illustrations, but rather the washed-out and often-times boring colouring by John Higgins. I mean, I get what he’s trying to do in accordance with the themes and tone of the book, but it still felt off more than it felt right to me, but maybe I’m just too modern a comic reader to fully appreciate the colour-jobs of yore… I hope it’s the latter.
Praising ‘Watchmen’ seems all but moot at this point. I could tick off all the pretty words I normally use to describe the best things, the real classics, I sometimes review on this blog. I could add whole paragraphs where I don’t do anything but wave my hands in the air, trying hopelessly to make it clear just how good ‘Watchmen’ really is. I could do these things (or at least do more of ’em then I’ve already done), but I can’t don’t see the point. If you are at all interested in modern fiction, you’ve either read ‘Watchmen’ already or it’s on the top of your read-stack at this very moment.
Anything else would be a travesty.
Of epic proportions.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Regarding Zack Snyder’s Upcoming ‘Watchmen’
I really liked Snyder’s take on ‘300’. I even liked it better than Frank Miller’s original graphic novel, but you can’t claim that either of them were especially deep or multi-layered the way ‘Watchmen’ is. I can’t for the life of me see how Snyder is going to incorporate the stuff that makes this novel what it is; he’s most likely just going to make a summer blockbuster by the superficial plots, which are, in all honesty, not anything special.
That being said, I can’t claim that I’m not looking forward to watch the abomination. It’s most likely not going to be anything like the source material, but I can’t help but think that it’s going to be awesome in some totally different, and enjoyable, ways.
What?
Don’t look at me that way!
God-damn you – I am being optimistic, so shut the hell up. It can’t be that bad.
Glad you liked it. ^^ I feel unequipped to comment in detail, however, as I’ve only read it once, and that was probably way closer to the leafing-through-method than should be admitted… 😉 But I read it close enough to realize that, yeah, hardest piece of fiction I ever dug through as well. I didn’t expect you with your impressive reading-pace to agree, though, so colour me happy that in this, at least, I’m not thoroughly shamed by your potent reading-speed and -capacity.
Also, boy, am I ever glad to have read it at all after encountering the last paragraph in THAT review… ;D
You do have a way with the hyperbolic excessiveness, anybody ever tell you that? Very good review, though. You have a way with words, too, ya see.
Some of them seems to fall off the wayside anyhow, though:
“That being said, I can’t claim that I’m really looking forward to watch the abomination. ”
I suppose you meant “I can’t claim that I’m NOT looking forward to”, etc, etc?
“You do have a way with the hyperbolic excessiveness, anybody ever tell you that? Very good review, though. You have a way with words, too, ya see.”
I’m a little confused whether or not ‘my way with hyperbolic excessiveness’ is positive, or if you mean that I’m a little excessive in my use of hyperboles? Because I agree with both sentiments 😛
Oh, and thanks for the compliment(s) ^^
I” suppose you meant “I can’t claim that I’m NOT looking forward to”, etc, etc?”
Yes, of course. This is why I always appreciate YOU reading these posts first. You save me embarrassment later on.
I meant both.
And no problem. Pedantry is my only real skill.
I have extremely low hopes for Snyder’s film.
And yeah, Watchmen is AWESOME. It just works on so many levels, and the way it plays with several layers of text and images to explore several themes at once… Probably the best example of the unique possibilities of the medium.
Hopes for Snyder’s film? Seems to me the reasonable hope is that it’ll be a good, solid, well-working movie that’ll draw a big audience but only digs 20-30% into the depth of the comic, ‘causing a larger group of people to be interested in/aware of the graphic novel and go out and buy it.
You know, I believe I have to re-read Watchmen, ’cause I don’t think I can have read it right. Sure, I love it and hold it as the best comic I’ve read, but I never really felt it was a tough read. Thematically heavy? Hells yes. Tough? Neeh…
Granted, I didn’t really make an effort at really diving into it and submerging myself in it for as long as it took, and I seem to remember I pretty much skipped the interludes (or at least read them very quickly).
Rectification must be attempted. Sometime later.
Also, I agree with Ole: No expectations for Snyder’s Watchmen whatsoever. Hopes, yes, but rationally based expectations? Not so much. 300 was too much of a speculative gore fest with too thin a veneer of quasi-relevant yet infinitely banal morals for that. Visually stunning, true, but almost totally devoid of anything of substance…
(Then again, I didn’t think Watchmen was tough, so what the hell do I know, eh? 😛 )
Well, it *might* just be that I’m dimwitted. But I don’t think so (and certainly don’t hope so).
As for Snyder, I’ll repeat myself and say that I think the movie version of “300” is a lot more satisfying than the original comic, both visually AND thematically (I actually thought the comic a lot more shallow, which was a surprise). I have no where near the same hopes for ‘Watchmen’, but I don’t think it’ll suck; it’ll probably be exactly what Loki says.
Stressing that I said that was the robable HOPE. Not necessarily the LIKELY outcome, but of the less-than-miraculously-surprising outcomes, the one to hope for.
Watchmen obviously won’t seem to be a tough read if you skip all the interludes. Sheesh. Without the interludes you lose 70-80% of the backstory, motivations, themes and allegories in the main plot. And that’s just from the scratch-on-the-surface-stuff *I* noticed.
Also, stop dissing “300”. The movie did exactly what he comic did, except confusing Spartans with Athenians to suit the American audience, which was really only noticeable in a very few scenes, so… (Still, pro-democracy and freedom? Sparta?! They were a people of Tywin Lannisters, only meaner, for crying out loud.) So if you liked the comic, I fail to see how you could dislike the movie, or vice versa. Depth? Frak no. But depth really isn’t Frank Miller’s thing. He does the huge, flashy confrontations, the enormous show-downs, the broad, unyielding dichotomies and the Men So Manly The Only Thing They Lack Is An Extra Set Of Testicles – Of Iron better than anyone, but if there’s any subtleties to it I’ve yet to find them. When he on the rare occasion DOES try to do something a little more down to earth (like “Batman: Year One”) I tend to find his work a little bland, actually.
Point is, 300 did exactly what the source material did, except with the removal of the (rather skinny to begin with) “Leave democracy to the Athenians, son”-dimension of the comic making it a tad more black/white. Which, considering how black and white the comic was too, is really more of an accentuating something already there than anything else when you get right down to it.
“Watchmen obviously won’t seem to be a tough read if you skip all the interludes. Sheesh. Without the interludes you lose 70-80% of the backstory, motivations, themes and allegories in the main plot.”
That’s pretty much what I feared. Sigh. I suck at detecting and understanding subtext… 😦
As for 300, seems we’re pretty much on the same wavelength, only I didn’t think it was all that much, so I use crasser words. 😉
(I haven’t read the 300 comic, by the way, and by the sound of it, I don’t think I ever will.)
It wasn’t subtext, dude, it was text. In the interludes. There IS a ton of subtext, but I didn’t pick up on those either.
The 300-comic is kind of its own little brand of awesome. It’s Sin City, but in colours (read: red), and in Ancient Greece. It’s not genoius or anything like that. It’s just damned cool.
Seems like we’re delving more into ‘300’ than ‘Watchmen’ now. Works for me, so I’ll just add another cent to the dime:
I don’t think you meant me when you said “Stop dissing ‘300’”, Loki, but in case you did, I have to say that I absolutely loved the film by Snyder in a purely “Oh! Wow! That’s so awesome!” kind of way. I rated it a 8,5/10 (weak) on the big screen, but would probably bump it to a 7,5/10 on a regular crappy TV like the one I used to re-watched it on DVD. True, it’s not deep or much anything else, but definitely awesome and awe-inspiring on a more basic level.
“True, it’s not deep or much anything else, but definitely awesome and awe-inspiring on a more basic level.”
I do believe that’s exactly how I feel about nearly all the things by Frank Miller I’ve read and liked. (Sin City, 300, Dark Knight Returns, Dark Knight Strikes Again) I really need to read his famous run on DareDevil so I can see if it complies to the trend or if it somehow is Deeper.
And no, I only meant Terje. 😉
Have you read the comic, by the way? I think you’d quite like it.
I have indeed read the comic and I did *quite* like it, though I hugely prefer the movie version. I’m interested to see whether I’ll feel the same way about the ‘Sin City’ graphic novels.How does the film compare to the quality of the original material?
It’s the fucking identical same. The comic has the advantage of more story and plot than the movie can fit in, and the movie has the advantage of taking the insanely over the top action and dialogue into real, live pictures and sound. So the individual scenes are probably better in the movie, the stories as a whole is a little more fleshed out in the graphic novels.
Good. It’s a bit down on the list because I want to watch the movies first, but I’m definitely reading ’em at one point.
You’ve watched the first one, though, right? So it’s safe for you to read volumes 1, 3 and 4. (_NOT_ volume 2) Those stories were incorporated more or less in their entirety in the movie and shouldn’t spoil the other books and/or movies in any big way.
Yes, watched the first one and loved it mercilessly (especially Marv, whom I now quote on a regular basis: “That’s a nice jacket you got there” et cetera)
I guess I could read ’em, but I’m getting a little sick of buying one or two of a series. In the future I’ll buy them in their entirety if I like the two first volumes, and since I’m not reading ‘Sin City’ till at least sometime in 2009…
Not much point in reading the start now, is there?
“Jacket”? Isn’t it “coat”?
And right, I get the reasoning. ^^
“That there is one damn fine coat you’re wearin’. ” is the actual quote, yes. I’m not picky.
“It wasn’t subtext, dude, it was text. In the interludes.”
You know, I’m almost starting to doubt if I actually have read Watchmen at all. 😛
*laughs* Silly man.