May. 11th, 2007

I'd read this graphic novel when it came out, in the mid-eighties, and I didn't remember too much about it from then - only some of the characters, like Rorschach and Ozymandious, and some impressions from the story-line. But it was a long time ago (half a lifetime). I went looking for it in our stacks of books that we own, and couldn't find it, so I went to the local comic book store, and yeay! They had it in stock. It was the version with the English cover on it.

There's a reason this book won a Hugo. There's a reason Heroes, the newest hit on TV, has gotten a huge amount of inspiration from it - it's fantastic. The little details within the narrative; the Rashoman-like viewings of the same events from the perspectives of all the different characters, and what those events and people involved meant to them; the interweaving of the meta-comic within Watchmen to the disappearance of a minor character in the main storyline; the subtle clues dropped within the panels telling backstory and history without banging you on the head with it; fantastic!

Of course, I think the real reason for the success of this book are the characters. Each one clearly has their own philosophy (or not) for being a masked adventurer (as the characters call themselves) and that drives their every move.  My mother once told me that as people get older, their personalities get more exaggurated, until when they're so old, they're the distilled essense of what they always were.  Moore takes that thinking to an extreme. All of his characters are extremes, as they would have to be in order to dress up in costumes. 

What makes Watchmen even more interesting to me is how Moore incorporates ephemera into the storytelling at the end of each chapter. Letters from one hero to another, or from their agent to another hero, or excerpts from the books they've written, or psychological reviews and childhood writings. It's simply amazing. You *must* read this tags to the chapters, because they fill in vital portions of the narrative.

To me, the most compelling of the characters - as I think it was for Moore - was the character of Rorschach. He's the first hero you see and then meet (you don't know you've already met him as himself until later on in the story) and he's the lynchpin for all the characters. He's the one who is *least* able to make human connections, yet at the same time, he's desperate for connections. He's the only one who never questions his own morality; and never gives it up. He does horrific things - but then, he's also seen horrific things, and had horrific things done to him, as well.

The other most compelling characters is Dr Manhattan, or Jon, as he prefers to be called. There is much between the lines of his story; and oddly, his story is the one most similiar to Sylar's on Heroes. He wanted to work with watches and small gears and mechanical things. He's passive. He was passive from the time he was a child, doing what his father told him. He never tells his father that he survived the atomic blast that blew his atomic structure to bits, and only after his father dies, does he start using his real name again. He does what people tell him to do, without question. He's the only character in the book with true superhuman powers; but excellently, Moore deals with those changes in Jon logically. How *would* a real person deal with suddenly having superhuman powers, living all moments in time simultaneously? What would they do? How would they react, especially if that person were not very proactive to begin with?

And then there's the Comedian - you never see him alive, but always in someone's memory as they recall seminal moments in their history. He was the engine for a lot of what goes on in Watchmen. It's not a new technique, but man, done as well as it could ever be done. Even though he's dead, he is as complex as anyone in this book; he's not whitewashed in memory as many are after death. Dave Gibbon's illustrations capture the cockiness of the Comedian, his cruelty, and his effect on all the characters through their facial expressions. It's a relief to see that he (and the other characters) are NEVER shown hitting those stereotypical Superhero poses in other books - you know the ones; their legs are spread wide, muscles bursting at the seams of their spandex outfits. Nothing is extreme in their phsyiology.  The Comedian is a mystery to the other characters, even to Jon the blue Super man; and he's never explained in the ephemera at the ends of the chapters. The reader is left to puzzle him, with all of his inconsistencies. It makes him very human, and somewhat psychotic; although, is he a true psychotic, like Rorschach?  It's hard to tell: but at one or two points, Moore points out that he *deliberately* does the things he does.  I'm glad Moore didn't spell it all out, because it leaves me, the reader, to do some speculating of my own.

I think Heroes on television gets a LOT of its inspiration from Watchmen, but it's all good. There may be similiarities between some of the characters, but the way they're played out on screen, as opposed to in the book, is different.  I sort of wish that Heroes had followed the structure of Watchmen a little more closely - introduce all of the characters in one or two chapters, get their personalities down, THEN get into detail with the individuals while exposing the past through their stories as THEY see them. But of course, the difference between Heroes and Watchmen is that the heroes in Watchmen have a long history together, whereas the heroes in Heroes have none (at least that we know of).  So of course the structure is different; and Heroes has many more chapter to tell its story. And of course, they're different sorts of media.

If you haven't read Watchmen yet, please do, especially if you're a fan of Heroes - or even if you're NOT a fan of Heroes. The structuring of the story is first rate, as is the character development and the progression of their decisions. 10/10 stars.   And you know what? It's easy enough to put this book down after reading a chapter - they're related, of course, but since it was originally published monthly, each chapter has some self-containment, so you can go back weeks later, if you want, without feeling like you're going to forget the essentials and reread the whole darned thing.
Michael Shank's new blog entry on TVguide.com is up now (thank you [personal profile] whisper99) and, er, wow.  His description of his passion, hockey, was this time, very funny, especially about the poor Vancouver goalie.  I'm not into hockey at all, unless it's the Bruins winning the Cup, but anyhow.

Very personal blog - very! I hope it doesn't get him into trouble with the folks who do the hiring in Hollywood!  It was very funny, especially his opinions of Paris Hilton.  And yes, it was longer this time. I'm looking forward to his new project with Chris Judge. Considering this is a Judge idea, and knowing his sense of humor and story, once he gets writing, it should be a decent show, should it be bought up by a network. Crossing fingers!

Profile

gategrrl

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
5 67891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2025 11:38 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios