Watchmen Wiki

[Kinetix]

Anyone know a bunch about Watchmen?

The wiki is tagged to be cleaned up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen

[coldcut]

Anything I don't know I can look up in the boo itself. What are ya looking for?

[Charon]

Call In Solario.

[Solario]

Ask me again around New Years, most likely my most important school project of the year is going to focus on Watchmen and Alan Moore.

And I'll admit I've only glanced through the article at the current moment.

[Kinetix]

A school project....on comic books?! SWEET!

[coldcut]

Ask me again around New Years, most likely my most important school project of the year is going to focus on Watchmen and Alan Moore.

And I'll admit I've only glanced through the article at the current moment.

Time recently named it one of the top 100 novels of the 20th century. I was kind of shocked to see that. I had always said it was great literature in its own right, but I didn't expect to see anyone that mattered agree with me.

[Randomus]

Watchmen is socially acceptable because it's a "Graphic Novel".

Which is purely a semantic delineation, but what can you do. Elitist writers who look down on "genres" like Superheroes like to call all of their work "graphic novels" instead of "comics" because it sounds more important. People like Ennis, Ellis and Moore.

Anyway, the point is, go Watchmen.

[coldcut]

Watchmen is socially acceptable because it's a "Graphic Novel".

Which is purely a semantic delineation, but what can you do. Elitist writers who look down on "genres" like Superheroes like to call all of their work "graphic novels" instead of "comics" because it sounds more important. People like Ennis, Ellis and Moore.

Anyway, the point is, go Watchmen.

I don't think either one's particularly "socially acceptable" for the most part. If you explain graphic novel to the general public, most of them are going to go, "Oh, comic book," anyways no matter who you are. Things like Maus or a Contract With God might be an exception, but generally anything with tights is a step down on the rung.

And I'm kind of inclined to agree with 'them.' There are some great stories and themes in the superhero comics, but the nature of the material means that you're always a step behind. No matter what Starman may say about family and living up to your father, you still have to devote at least a third of the book to blasting someone with a cosmic rod. We all love that stuff, but I'll be the first to admit it's a tad juvenile. No more so than a military thriller or a romance novel, but you don't see many Tom Clancy or Danielle Steele novels on the "100 greatest" list either. (Although in defense of the military thriller genre, Howard Coyle and Ralph Peters have written some pretty darned good stuff in their own right. Ralph Peters in particular is probably the world's most underrated writer for reasons entirely his own.)

[Solario]

I highly disagree with the statement concerning Moore, given the fact that he has written "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow", "Tom Strong" and the rest of the ABC comic line. I highly doubt he looks down on the genre. With Ellis and Ennis though I think you have a point.

PS. If you guys read the last Time Magazine, they actually put it in the Top Ten.

[Randomus]

Moore, Ellis and Ennis are all awesome writers who have worked in the superhero field. That doesn't mean they pretend to like it. And whether they like it or not, it makes money, so they do it. You can argue about the flaws and merits of the superhero genre 'till the cows come home, but my personal feeling is that blasting things with a star rod isn't any sillier than shooting things with a gun.

And with Graphic Novel, this is why I said it's simply a semantic issue. If you don't bother explaining it, and simply say "graphic novel", people hear the word "novel" in there are are more appeased than if they had heard the term "comic book", which they associate with "funny book" and "silly men in tights". Try it sometime. I have.

[Solario]

Moore, Ellis and Ennis are all awesome writers who have worked in the superhero field. That doesn't mean they pretend to like it. And whether they like it or not, it makes money, so they do it. You can argue about the flaws and merits of the superhero genre 'till the cows come home, but my personal feeling is that blasting things with a star rod isn't any sillier than shooting things with a gun.

Oh I know you're not, it just that I've always got the feeling Moore really enjoyed doing superhero stories, where as Ellis and Ennis has flatout stated prefering more "real" settings. (Although I think Ellis is lying through his teeth. ;))

And yeah I'm with you on the whole "blasting things with a star rod isn't any sillier than shooting things with a gun."

[coldcut]

You can argue about the flaws and merits of the superhero genre 'till the cows come home, but my personal feeling is that blasting things with a star rod isn't any sillier than shooting things with a gun.

Point taken, but there is a difference between say, The Red Badge of Courage and the Punisher.

It's an interesting train of thought, that's for sure. I'm a pretty big critic of the elitist point of view of the current literary criticism set. (Ever since having to take an entire semester of some woman trying to force me to believe that As You Like It was a treatise on the role of gender in England in the Middle Ages. But that's another story.)

It's something I've been wrestling with for awhile: at what point is violence in a story a genuine way of advancing themes and introducing conflict, and when is it just a crutch for a person who can't deal with subtlety? I just about can't write a story without violence, whatever that says about me. I certainly don't read many without. But my favorite books are essentially non-violent, or have relatively low levels of violence.

[Randomus]

Point taken, but there is a difference between say, The Red Badge of Courage and the Punisher.

It's an interesting train of thought, that's for sure. I'm a pretty big critic of the elitist point of view of the current literary criticism set. (Ever since having to take an entire semester of some woman trying to force me to believe that As You Like It was a treatise on the role of gender in England in the Middle Ages. But that's another story.)

It's something I've been wrestling with for awhile: at what point is violence in a story a genuine way of advancing themes and introducing conflict, and when is it just a crutch for a person who can't deal with subtlety? I just about can't write a story without violence, whatever that says about me. I certainly don't read many without. But my favorite books are essentially non-violent, or have relatively low levels of violence.

That's something I often think about myself, especially when writing. Of course, I'm a total sellout, so what I'm usually thinking is "where do I have to put in violence to keep the audience reading, and how little can I get away with using?".