Reading roundup: Watchmen
I'm going out of order in my reading roundup because I just finished Watchmen and want to get it out of my head so I can move on with my other reading.
26. Watchmen, by Alan Moore -- _grayswandir_you will probably be unsurprised to learn that we once again liked something for pretty much opposite reasons... XP But I did like it, mostly.
Well! First off, there's something weird about reading graphic novels (which I almost never do) that makes it so much more difficult for me to put them down. I read Sandman that way, and the same was true of Watchmen. I think it's something about being able to look ahead more easily to the pictures and then getting sucked in?
Anyway, about the actual content... I was very impressed with what it was trying to do. I can see why it's considered the world's best graphic novel or whatever. The scope of its ambition alone could account for that. As for what it actually achieved... I'm less sold on that. My problems are two-fold, and they're both kind of central to the plot, to the point where I almost wish Moore had taken most of these characters, the historical AU world, and his intended theme and done something different with them.
My first problem, and the bigger one, I think, is Dr Manhattan. He is, at face value, no more ridiculous than most other superheroes, Superman or whatever. But because the world he inhabits is otherwise much more realistic and serious, the bits that don't make much sense stand out. For starters, why is he blue? He can clearly adjust the color of his skin (as he does at the TV interview), and he reconstituted himself from the molecular level up. Why the hell would he go to the extra trouble of making himself blue? Also, the whole accident that disintegrated him -- I liked most of the backstory, and the watchmaker imagery, and the branching of coincidences that inevitably led up to him going back to the chamber -- but, safety precautions would not let them let him out? What the hell kind of safety precaution is that? That's, uh, not how things like interlocks work, at least not any that I've come across. That's all minor, though. The thing that bugged me the most is actually something that Laurie calls out specifically -- Jon's surprise at learning that his associates had died of cancer. He says something about his surprised reaction also being preordained but, I'm sorry, that's just dumb. I will happily accept paradoxes where trying to avoid a course of action or merely knowing about it leads to the predermined action anyway, but knowing about something and still being/acting surprised is just silly. Same with what plays out when he "finds out" about Laurie and Dan.
In general, I think he is a very uneven character. When he was trying to get Laurie to convince him to save the world, his earlier arguments were far too human for the position he was supposedly espousing (e.g. "All that pain and conflict done with? All that needless suffering over at last? No... No, that doesn't bother me."), and I didn't believe his change of mind either. And, in general, I have a hard time accepting that he is at once human enough to care about Laurie enough to consider her his last link to the world and inhuman enough to forget that she needed to breathe. (But he is also way too inhuman to lie about the first or do the second on purpose or... it just doesn't fit, not as I can see it, anyway.)
So, yeah. I feel like Dr Manhattan, while possessing a pretty interesting backstory, is just kind of a net drain on the overall narrative, detracting more than he contributes. And why is a hydrogen atom an appropriate symbol for him, anyhow? (I'm not even going to go to the geeky level of asking why he opted for the Bohr's model H atom, when he is obviously some kind of quantum superhero. It should've been, like, the Shrodinger equation.) But I did like the general idea of his disappearing humanity, and the gradual divestment of clothes as he let go of other human things.
Anyway, so Dr Manhattan was my first and biggest and most lasting problem, and my second one was Veidt's plan to save the world and its aftermath. Necromantically sourced psychic squids supposedly from outer space/another dimension are inherently slightly preposterous, but, OK. I could suspend disbelief in psychic squids. The cessation of hostilities in response to presumed psychic squids from outer space doesn't strike me as particularly believable, though. I do think it's possible for humankind to unite against a common enemy, but not like that (Ender's Game has a somewhat more plausible scenario). Especially when the threat occurred just once and just against one side of the conflict. I'd just as soon believe that the USSR's reaction would be to assume the alleged psychic squid was a nuke test gone wrong or something and take that as further provocation. It's not even a UFO where multiple nations could've seen it, raising questions -- it just teleported into place. Unless the psychic waves were felt as far as Russia? Which, doubtful, since Our Heroes did not feel anything in Antarctica. And, at best, this is a temporary solution. Unless more psychic squid are forthcoming, things would just go back to exactly the way they were in a few years, wouldn't they? Veidt's stated goal was to stop treating the symptoms of the problem, but he did not exactly offer a root cause solution, either. (I don't think a root cause solution can be built on a trick, anyway, unless one is prepared to tamper with humanity far more fundamentally than seems to be in Veidt's plans -- I'm thinking of a Brave New World kind of approach.)
But, OK, he executed his psychic squid plan and it worked. (I did like it that, at least, he purposefully avoided the "serial villain" pitfall of explaining his masterstroke before it was executed, and commented on that.) I don't see at all why Nite Owl et al could not have killed Veidt, if they were so inclined. Not exposed his trick, OK, because might as well take advantage of whatever benefits his crazy plan offered. But there was already the excuse he'd prepared for his servants' deaths -- why couldn't he have died of exposure too, due to the same oversight/negligence? How difficult would that have been to stage? Whether he should have died is another question, but not, for me, a very difficult one, since, however good his intentions, he is still a mass murderer. And he did not prevent imminent human destruction, just moved off the possibility of it. The (rather tedious, though ultimately interesting) pirate story in the comics seems to suggest that one who commits atrocities for a good cause is still worthy of damnation, too. Of course, (almost) everyone else feeling like they had to go along with Veidt's plan now allowed Rorschach to have his heroic stand against Dr Manhattan as the one person unwilling to compromise his principles -- and being, for once, right, IMO. Which, OK, that was pretty powerful.
I did like it that, in the end, Veidt looked to Jon for reassurance that he'd done the right thing -- and did not receive it. That was... almost sweet, really. Also, poor kitty... :(
Rorschach... I'm possibly doing this wrong, but I found him kind of hilarious. I did feel sorry for young Walter, and root for Rorschach while he was in prison, but when he was fully "in character" (that is to say, himself), he was just really funny. His over-the-top-ness, apparent lack of perspective when it came to minor violations like not having a gun license, total unwareness of his mental state, his diction... I just kept wanting to laugh. Not in a bad way, I hasten to add -- I think he's really successful as a character, in a scary-and-yet-occasionally-pitiful-occasionally-endearing-and-occasionally-admirable-crackpot way, but I'm very puzzled that some people apparently think of him as their personal hero or ideal. (I did think it was neat that his speech bubbles got regular, round, non-blobby edges when he didn't have the mask on.)
The Comedian was interesting. I actually quite liked him as a character, despite all of the reprehensible things he does. As numerous characters remark about him, he is just so cheerfully, unrepentantly amoral, and I tend to like characters like that. And I find it interesting that Rorschach approves of him, since morally they're really far apart, even though they seem to be aligned ideologically. And he did seem interested in reaching out to Laurie... not that it makes up for anything.
I really liked Laurie, who was the one (relatively) normal person in the whole bunch of them. Well, OK, not normal, she's got her own issues, stemming, no doubt, from the unhealthy-sounding way she was brought up. But less insane than most of them. I had a hard time believing she hadn't realized earlier that the Comedian was her real father, even with the assumption that it was something she didn't *want* to know. I wasn't crazy about Dan at first, but he definitely grew on me as the adorable dork he is (but it really is kind of boring to have him talk about ornithology; no wonder people tune out). I'm glad they get a happy ending. I also really liked Hollis Mason, both in-comic and especially through "Under the Hood", and was very sad when he died. (Intriguing to see Dan come so close to losing it over him, though. And Rorschach trying to comfort him in his socially inept, bloodthristy fashion.)
I've gotten into specifics, but should take a step back. I really liked the examinations of masked heroes/superheroes as flawed, potentially sick people, both as it shows up in the comic and especially in "Under the Hood", and the examination of why they became masked heroes, and the admission of how silly the whole thing can be. I also liked the idea that, with masked heroes and superheroes becoming reality, the comics had to find a different outlet for their escapism (not sure I get why they focused on pirates of all things, but, OK). The story-in-story pirate comic dragged on too long and was way too purple for my taste, but I did like the twist in the end, and the frequent clever juxtaposition of words in the comic and stuff happening in the "real world".
I think the general sense of imminent armageddon pervading the book worked better for me than it would for most of my local contemporaries, because I remember the A-bomb drills we had in my elementary school (USSR took the Cold War more seriously far longer than the US did, I've found), and that atmosphere is very well done, and reinforced with the newspapers and signs and things. Speaking of signs and things, I liked the recurrent appearance of "Gunga Diner" (a reference to "Gunga Din", I presume). And I should comment on the art in general -- after the unevenness of Sandman, I was really impressed.
Also, I'm sure everyone has seen these already but:
And this, via ender839, was just funny, even if I'd never heard of the Deadpool guy before:
ETA: And there are icons of the above, too!
26. Watchmen, by Alan Moore -- _grayswandir_you will probably be unsurprised to learn that we once again liked something for pretty much opposite reasons... XP But I did like it, mostly.
Well! First off, there's something weird about reading graphic novels (which I almost never do) that makes it so much more difficult for me to put them down. I read Sandman that way, and the same was true of Watchmen. I think it's something about being able to look ahead more easily to the pictures and then getting sucked in?
Anyway, about the actual content... I was very impressed with what it was trying to do. I can see why it's considered the world's best graphic novel or whatever. The scope of its ambition alone could account for that. As for what it actually achieved... I'm less sold on that. My problems are two-fold, and they're both kind of central to the plot, to the point where I almost wish Moore had taken most of these characters, the historical AU world, and his intended theme and done something different with them.
My first problem, and the bigger one, I think, is Dr Manhattan. He is, at face value, no more ridiculous than most other superheroes, Superman or whatever. But because the world he inhabits is otherwise much more realistic and serious, the bits that don't make much sense stand out. For starters, why is he blue? He can clearly adjust the color of his skin (as he does at the TV interview), and he reconstituted himself from the molecular level up. Why the hell would he go to the extra trouble of making himself blue? Also, the whole accident that disintegrated him -- I liked most of the backstory, and the watchmaker imagery, and the branching of coincidences that inevitably led up to him going back to the chamber -- but, safety precautions would not let them let him out? What the hell kind of safety precaution is that? That's, uh, not how things like interlocks work, at least not any that I've come across. That's all minor, though. The thing that bugged me the most is actually something that Laurie calls out specifically -- Jon's surprise at learning that his associates had died of cancer. He says something about his surprised reaction also being preordained but, I'm sorry, that's just dumb. I will happily accept paradoxes where trying to avoid a course of action or merely knowing about it leads to the predermined action anyway, but knowing about something and still being/acting surprised is just silly. Same with what plays out when he "finds out" about Laurie and Dan.
In general, I think he is a very uneven character. When he was trying to get Laurie to convince him to save the world, his earlier arguments were far too human for the position he was supposedly espousing (e.g. "All that pain and conflict done with? All that needless suffering over at last? No... No, that doesn't bother me."), and I didn't believe his change of mind either. And, in general, I have a hard time accepting that he is at once human enough to care about Laurie enough to consider her his last link to the world and inhuman enough to forget that she needed to breathe. (But he is also way too inhuman to lie about the first or do the second on purpose or... it just doesn't fit, not as I can see it, anyway.)
So, yeah. I feel like Dr Manhattan, while possessing a pretty interesting backstory, is just kind of a net drain on the overall narrative, detracting more than he contributes. And why is a hydrogen atom an appropriate symbol for him, anyhow? (I'm not even going to go to the geeky level of asking why he opted for the Bohr's model H atom, when he is obviously some kind of quantum superhero. It should've been, like, the Shrodinger equation.) But I did like the general idea of his disappearing humanity, and the gradual divestment of clothes as he let go of other human things.
Anyway, so Dr Manhattan was my first and biggest and most lasting problem, and my second one was Veidt's plan to save the world and its aftermath. Necromantically sourced psychic squids supposedly from outer space/another dimension are inherently slightly preposterous, but, OK. I could suspend disbelief in psychic squids. The cessation of hostilities in response to presumed psychic squids from outer space doesn't strike me as particularly believable, though. I do think it's possible for humankind to unite against a common enemy, but not like that (Ender's Game has a somewhat more plausible scenario). Especially when the threat occurred just once and just against one side of the conflict. I'd just as soon believe that the USSR's reaction would be to assume the alleged psychic squid was a nuke test gone wrong or something and take that as further provocation. It's not even a UFO where multiple nations could've seen it, raising questions -- it just teleported into place. Unless the psychic waves were felt as far as Russia? Which, doubtful, since Our Heroes did not feel anything in Antarctica. And, at best, this is a temporary solution. Unless more psychic squid are forthcoming, things would just go back to exactly the way they were in a few years, wouldn't they? Veidt's stated goal was to stop treating the symptoms of the problem, but he did not exactly offer a root cause solution, either. (I don't think a root cause solution can be built on a trick, anyway, unless one is prepared to tamper with humanity far more fundamentally than seems to be in Veidt's plans -- I'm thinking of a Brave New World kind of approach.)
But, OK, he executed his psychic squid plan and it worked. (I did like it that, at least, he purposefully avoided the "serial villain" pitfall of explaining his masterstroke before it was executed, and commented on that.) I don't see at all why Nite Owl et al could not have killed Veidt, if they were so inclined. Not exposed his trick, OK, because might as well take advantage of whatever benefits his crazy plan offered. But there was already the excuse he'd prepared for his servants' deaths -- why couldn't he have died of exposure too, due to the same oversight/negligence? How difficult would that have been to stage? Whether he should have died is another question, but not, for me, a very difficult one, since, however good his intentions, he is still a mass murderer. And he did not prevent imminent human destruction, just moved off the possibility of it. The (rather tedious, though ultimately interesting) pirate story in the comics seems to suggest that one who commits atrocities for a good cause is still worthy of damnation, too. Of course, (almost) everyone else feeling like they had to go along with Veidt's plan now allowed Rorschach to have his heroic stand against Dr Manhattan as the one person unwilling to compromise his principles -- and being, for once, right, IMO. Which, OK, that was pretty powerful.
I did like it that, in the end, Veidt looked to Jon for reassurance that he'd done the right thing -- and did not receive it. That was... almost sweet, really. Also, poor kitty... :(
Rorschach... I'm possibly doing this wrong, but I found him kind of hilarious. I did feel sorry for young Walter, and root for Rorschach while he was in prison, but when he was fully "in character" (that is to say, himself), he was just really funny. His over-the-top-ness, apparent lack of perspective when it came to minor violations like not having a gun license, total unwareness of his mental state, his diction... I just kept wanting to laugh. Not in a bad way, I hasten to add -- I think he's really successful as a character, in a scary-and-yet-occasionally-pitiful-occasionally-endearing-and-occasionally-admirable-crackpot way, but I'm very puzzled that some people apparently think of him as their personal hero or ideal. (I did think it was neat that his speech bubbles got regular, round, non-blobby edges when he didn't have the mask on.)
The Comedian was interesting. I actually quite liked him as a character, despite all of the reprehensible things he does. As numerous characters remark about him, he is just so cheerfully, unrepentantly amoral, and I tend to like characters like that. And I find it interesting that Rorschach approves of him, since morally they're really far apart, even though they seem to be aligned ideologically. And he did seem interested in reaching out to Laurie... not that it makes up for anything.
I really liked Laurie, who was the one (relatively) normal person in the whole bunch of them. Well, OK, not normal, she's got her own issues, stemming, no doubt, from the unhealthy-sounding way she was brought up. But less insane than most of them. I had a hard time believing she hadn't realized earlier that the Comedian was her real father, even with the assumption that it was something she didn't *want* to know. I wasn't crazy about Dan at first, but he definitely grew on me as the adorable dork he is (but it really is kind of boring to have him talk about ornithology; no wonder people tune out). I'm glad they get a happy ending. I also really liked Hollis Mason, both in-comic and especially through "Under the Hood", and was very sad when he died. (Intriguing to see Dan come so close to losing it over him, though. And Rorschach trying to comfort him in his socially inept, bloodthristy fashion.)
I've gotten into specifics, but should take a step back. I really liked the examinations of masked heroes/superheroes as flawed, potentially sick people, both as it shows up in the comic and especially in "Under the Hood", and the examination of why they became masked heroes, and the admission of how silly the whole thing can be. I also liked the idea that, with masked heroes and superheroes becoming reality, the comics had to find a different outlet for their escapism (not sure I get why they focused on pirates of all things, but, OK). The story-in-story pirate comic dragged on too long and was way too purple for my taste, but I did like the twist in the end, and the frequent clever juxtaposition of words in the comic and stuff happening in the "real world".
I think the general sense of imminent armageddon pervading the book worked better for me than it would for most of my local contemporaries, because I remember the A-bomb drills we had in my elementary school (USSR took the Cold War more seriously far longer than the US did, I've found), and that atmosphere is very well done, and reinforced with the newspapers and signs and things. Speaking of signs and things, I liked the recurrent appearance of "Gunga Diner" (a reference to "Gunga Din", I presume). And I should comment on the art in general -- after the unevenness of Sandman, I was really impressed.
Also, I'm sure everyone has seen these already but:
Click to viewAnd this, via ender839, was just funny, even if I'd never heard of the Deadpool guy before:
ETA: And there are icons of the above, too!