REVIEW: WATCHMEN: Out of the Past
Stephen Sarazin
Out of the Past
review:
Reflections on
_Watchmen_
writer: Alan Moore
artist: Dave Gibbons
Rating: ****/****
CAPSULE: Revisionist superhero classic is brilliantly tight
storytelling. Dense, carefully crafted in every detail, and absorbing.
The pinnacle, and end, of Moore's career at DC.
Alan Moore's contribution to the art of comic book writing was
the tightly structured, carefully planned story. Like the film The
Killing, Moore's stories tend to be very carefully and willfully put
together, with no unnecessary pieces, nonsequitors or lingering in the
scene for its own sake. Moore changed the very process of
script-writing, with his new style, in which the author provides much
more detail to the artist than was previously done. The Moore formula
filled the void left by the outdatedness of the "Marvel way". Moore was
a master of detail and careful pacing. Grant Morrison once called Moore
"anal retentive". I think he had a point, though this wasn't necessarily
a bad thing. (What is a problem is when this style (or any style)
becomes so imitated that it decreased the range of work that is out there)
The cover of each issue focuses on a small aspect of the story.
The transitions between scenes in the story almost always use
similar-looking objects or similar actions or puns or similar things to
link the scenes together smoothly and thematically. The end of each
issue is a scrapbook of papers, pictures, newspaper headlines etc. that
contributes to fleshing out the full story behind what is happening.
For all its influencialness, the art style of Watchmen was very
different from the norm, but hasn't resulted in much imitation. Gibbon's
art reminds me of Moebius with all its thin lines. The nine-panel grid
fits well with Moore's style and pacing. There is a somewhat fifties
style in the costumes and buildings. Ditko's influence is clearly there,
beyond simply the character of Rorschach. The coloring is atypical. It
stays away from primary colors and concentrates on the atmosphere, the
color of the room or the street rather than the natural color of the
objects, the characters etc. It's unorthodox and complex, but it works.
It is clear from interviews, and other things, that Moore
intended Ozymandius and Doctor Manhattan to be heroes of the story, and
Rorschach as "villain", more or less. This doesn't wash for me at all.
Either Moore does a poor job of making his case or Moore's ideology is so
alien and repulsive to me that I get just the opposite out of this.
Rorschach comes across as a hero in this story to me. He is not
afraid to get his hands dirty if that's what it takes to do right. He
believes in principles which he will not compromise. All his paranoia
and cynicism is ultimately justified by the world he lives in.
Rorschach is especially appealing when compared to the other
characters in the story. Daniel Dreiberg, the second Nite Owl and Sally
Juspeczyk, the second Silk Spectre are shallow, spineless characters
willing to go with whatever direction the prevailing wind goes. Doctor
Manhattan and Ozymandius are self-absorbed, vain characters corrupted by
their power. The only other truly appealing character is Hollis Mason,
the original Nite Owl.
Related to that is that Moore's "God" characters generally leave
me cold. Moore has created a whole progression of superhero-as-God
characters as part of his revisionist superhero work. These include:
Marvelman/Miracleman, Swamp Thing, his version of Superman, and Doctor
Manhattan. I find these characters boring and don't find much value in
the profundity Moore tries to produce through these characters.
One of the principal successes of Moore here is creating a world
both materially and stylistically altered by the presence of superheroes,
most significantly that of Doctor Manhattan. Gibbons and Moore do a good
job of having a style of clothing different from that of the real world
of the time, but similar enough to be believable. The presence of
electric cars and other innovations is expertly weaved in so that a
reader can still relate to this reality. The political and social
differences (like Nixon still being president) are made believable even
when outlandish. The Keene Act seems like what might happen if there
really were superheroes.
Though Moore is masterful in this story, it is not without
moments of weakness. The conversation between the two cops in the first
part of issue 1 is quite expositionistic. Moore normally avoids this
sort of thing. These things serves as a reminder of the fact that no one
is perfect, even Moore, the most "perfect", though not necessarily the
best, of writers.
_Watchmen_ had a tremendous effect on comics in America, It was
the peak of the revisionist, "adult" superhero trend. It made people
take comics, even superhero comics, seriously. It was also very popular
and commercially successful, unlike other revisionist efforts. For the
year and a half it was published, _Watchmen_ had the full attention of
the comic book industry.
Much of the adoration of _Watchmen_, _The Dark Knight Returns_
and similar work rests on the assumption that superhero comics, to be the
best that they can be, should be serious. I think there is something to
be said for the opinion of those, like Groth, who say that the idea of
"serious" superhero comics is absurd. I would not join such people in
blanketly denouncing superhero comics, though. They assume that comics,
or art in general, should be serious. While serious work is good, I
think it is snobbish to dismiss fun, enjoyable things and say that they
cannot be good.
_Watchmen_ is a model of the kind of professionalism and quality
craftsmanship that one doesn't see much anymore in the American comics
industry. It is worth nothing that the last two issues came out quite
late. However, the quality was never compromised and the books did
eventually come out, which is more than can be said of much of the work
in the present comics industry. With more work like _Watchmen_, the
industry might not be in the hole it is in today.
Watchmen is the kind of graphic novel that should be in public
libraries. It is of at least as high quality of the majority of fiction
public libraries have. It is carried in many bookstores. I often see it
at Barnes and Noble. It is the sort of graphic novel that can be enjoyed
by all sorts of people, not simply the stereotypic comic book reader.
The Shaler division of the Carnegie is the only local (Pittsburgh) public
library that does carry this book.
Stephen
adam louis stephanides
Stephen Sarazin <ssar...@lis.pitt.edu> writes:
> It is clear from interviews, and other things, that Moore
>intended Ozymandius and Doctor Manhattan to be heroes of the story, and
>Rorschach as "villain", more or less. This doesn't wash for me at all.
What "interviews and other things" were these? Just from reading
the comics, I don't see how Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan could be con-
sidered the heroes of the story, especially not Ozymandias.
> Rorschach comes across as a hero in this story to me. He is not
>afraid to get his hands dirty if that's what it takes to do right. He
>believes in principles which he will not compromise. All his paranoia
>and cynicism is ultimately justified by the world he lives in.
Setting aside moral judgments, for me Rorschach is not characterized
by paranoia and cynicism. He's characterized by a completely black-
and-white view of morality, which is emphatically not borne out by the
story.
That said, I agree that he comes off as more attractive than Moore
probably consciously intended. I think I once read an interview
where he cited this as a failing of the series.
> Rorschach is especially appealing when compared to the other
>characters in the story. Daniel Dreiberg, the second Nite Owl and Sally
>Juspeczyk, the second Silk Spectre are shallow, spineless characters
>willing to go with whatever direction the prevailing wind goes.
Why do you say this? To me Daniel and Sally are the "heroes" of
the story if anybody is. They may be neurotic, but they're not
psychotic, and they genuinely try to use their skills to help
people.
xDoctor
>Manhattan and Ozymandius are self-absorbed, vain characters corrupted by
>their power.
True for Ozymandias. Doctor Manhattan is simply detached.
>The only other truly appealing character is Hollis Mason,
>the original Nite Owl.
What do you see in Hollis that you don't in Daniel or Sally?
> Related to that is that Moore's "God" characters generally leave
>me cold. Moore has created a whole progression of superhero-as-God
>characters as part of his revisionist superhero work. These include:
>Marvelman/Miracleman, Swamp Thing, his version of Superman, and Doctor
>Manhattan. I find these characters boring and don't find much value in
>the profundity Moore tries to produce through these characters.
I don't recall Moore's Superman as being particularly godlike. He was
just the pre-Crisis Superman.
--Adam
Hernan Espinoza
Stephen Sarazin <ssar...@lis.pitt.edu> writes:
> It is clear from interviews, and other things, that Moore
>intended Ozymandius and Doctor Manhattan to be heroes of the story, and
>Rorschach as "villain", more or less.
Hmmm...Let me start by saying I think the concepts of hero and
villain won't work for this story. You can try to make the characters
fit the definitions, but I think it would be stretching, either way.
I think it would be simplistic to call anyone of the characters in
Watchmen "heroes" or "villains". That said...
> This doesn't wash for me at all.
>Either Moore does a poor job of making his case or Moore's ideology is so
>alien and repulsive to me that I get just the opposite out of this.
Ozymandius probably saved the world. You may think (and I would
agree) that the way he did it was horrible, but it appeared to be
working at the end (even though these things never end). It is ironic
that you follow this immediately with the following...
> Rorschach comes across as a hero in this story to me. He is not
>afraid to get his hands dirty if that's what it takes to do right.
How is that different (except in scale) to what Ozymandius
did? He saw a great wrong and a great danger to all humanity and he
did what it took to make it right and got his hands *VERY* dirty in
the process.
Let me say this straight, because I'm sure someone will misinterpret.
I consider neither Ozymandius, Manhattan, or Rorschach to be heroes.
Not even close...but that was the point. This was superhero story that
basically dispensed with the black and white (even dark and light grey
for that matter) morality that sits at the heart of most superhero
stories (then and now). The most interesting scene for me was the one
where the protagonists had to choose what to do in response to Ozymandius'
actions, and it was a struggle for the sane ones. I'm not going to
argue right/wrong here, just what was interesting dramatically.
-Hernan
Keith Kushner
adam louis stephanides (aste...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>
> Setting aside moral judgments, for me Rorschach is not characterized
> by paranoia and cynicism. He's characterized by a completely black-
> and-white view of morality, which is emphatically not borne out by the
> story.
>
the limitations of a Manichean/black-and-white moral stance.
Apropos of nothing save that it was on cable today, and that it sort
of fits here (no, my ISP didn't receive the original post, and undoubtedly
most of its followups) has anyone considered the possibility that
Roschach was, at least in part, based on the Kirk Douglas character
in 1951's _Detective Story_? He plays a cop with a black/white moral
view (and in fact this is pointed out to him in just those words by
another character as a shortcoming likely to destroy him) and he dies
in a manner not too dissimilar to Rorschach. There's even a scene
with him up on a rooftop. And the movie, too, is set in New York.
> >The only other truly appealing character is Hollis Mason,
> >the original Nite Owl.
>
> What do you see in Hollis that you don't in Daniel or Sally?
>
The fact that he's successfully *retired* from the costumed-hero business?
None of the others save Sally managed that trick.
OTOH, do you know of anything more useless than a *retired* hero....?
--
* Keith Kushner * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal *
* myc...@escape.com * *
James R. Olson, jr.
espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Hernan Espinoza) wrote:
->Stephen Sarazin <ssar...@lis.pitt.edu> writes:
->> This doesn't wash for me at all.
->>Either Moore does a poor job of making his case or Moore's ideology is so
->>alien and repulsive to me that I get just the opposite out of this.
->
-> Ozymandius probably saved the world. You may think (and I would
->agree) that the way he did it was horrible, but it appeared to be
->working at the end (even though these things never end).
Thanks. I'm glad someone else noticed this.
It is ironic
->that you follow this immediately with the following...
->
->> Rorschach comes across as a hero in this story to me. He is not
->>afraid to get his hands dirty if that's what it takes to do right.
Breaking the fingers of some poor schmo who attracts his ire is
heroic? He sure got his hands dirty, but his notion of right was
pretty deranged, if you ask me.
I find it disturbing how many fans find Rorschach to be a sympathetic,
even admirable character. My best friend went on for years about how
they should do a Rorschach book, and took it badly when I said that we
already knew what was necessary about him, that anything else would be
redundant.
He is the character we see most deeply into, followed by Laurie, so
it's somewhat reflexive for readers to identify with him, whether or
not that was Moore's intention.
If Moore had drawn Veidt in more detail, I think readers would have
been more sympathetic to his position, but I think Moore was hoping
that people would make the leap to understanding him without having
their hands held. Or maybe he just miscalculated.
-> How is that different (except in scale) to what Ozymandius
->did? He saw a great wrong and a great danger to all humanity and he
->did what it took to make it right and got his hands *VERY* dirty in
->the process.
The moral difference between Veidt and Rorschach was that Veidt
understood and felt the wrong he did, while Rorschach simply excused
away everything he did as being necessary.
Note that Rorschach does have sympathy for others, despite his denial
of the fact. He makes notes about how he should turn in various
people for this or that, but never actually does so.
-> Let me say this straight, because I'm sure someone will misinterpret.
->I consider neither Ozymandius, Manhattan, or Rorschach to be heroes.
->Not even close...but that was the point. This was superhero story that
->basically dispensed with the black and white (even dark and light grey
->for that matter) morality that sits at the heart of most superhero
->stories (then and now). The most interesting scene for me was the one
->where the protagonists had to choose what to do in response to Ozymandius'
->actions, and it was a struggle for the sane ones. I'm not going to
->argue right/wrong here, just what was interesting dramatically.
The theme of the comic is the different reactions to moral ambiguity.
Rorschach denied it, Osterman (Dr. Manhattan) was paralyzed by his
power and awareness, Blake (the Comedian) reveled in it, Mason (Nite
Owl I) simplified it away, Dreiberg (Nite Owl II) and Laurie Juspezyk
(Silk Spectre II) retreated from any action that wasn't forced on
them. Veidt (Ozymandias) was the only one who accepted it, and did
his best to resolve the problem his ability presented him, without
denying the bind it placed him in. In the end, he couldn't go all the
way and left Dreiberg and Juspezyk alive, perhaps to be his
conscience.
The biggest irony of the story is that the character who could have
solved the problem neatly, Ostrander, wouldn't, leaving Veidt to do it
in a much messier way with his lesser (though still nothing to sneer
at) abilities.
(Overall, I'd say that Ostrander and Veidt are the only "super"
characters in the book.)
Mikel Midnight
In article <espinoza....@cgl.ucsf.edu>, espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Hernan
Espinoza) wrote:
> Ozymandius probably saved the world. You may think (and I would
> agree) that the way he did it was horrible, but it appeared to be
> working at the end (even though these things never end). It is ironic
> that you follow this immediately with the following...
Like hell he did, at best he delayed the due-date for armageddon. Sure,
the world is on an economic boom ... but that's because it's put all its
resources into mass weapons production in order to battle the alien menace.
When no further aliens arrive ... do you think the nations of Earth are
going to look around and say "Why, we've been getting along so well since
we've been working together in Earth's defense, let's all be friends from
here on!" No, instead the weapons buildup and increased paranoia is going
to incite a whole series of wars. It never ends.
In article <648ngt$7de$1...@news.stealth.net>, myc...@escape.com (Keith
Kushner) wrote:
> Apropos of nothing save that it was on cable today, and that it sort
> of fits here (no, my ISP didn't receive the original post, and undoubtedly
> most of its followups) has anyone considered the possibility that
> Roschach was, at least in part, based on the Kirk Douglas character
> in 1951's _Detective Story_? He plays a cop with a black/white moral
> view (and in fact this is pointed out to him in just those words by
> another character as a shortcoming likely to destroy him) and he dies
> in a manner not too dissimilar to Rorschach. There's even a scene
> with him up on a rooftop. And the movie, too, is set in New York.
I believe Rorschach was based on Mr. A, a Ditko-created character who was
similar to the Question but even farther along in the direction of
black-and-white world view.
In article <346c1b6c....@news.lava.net>,
jha...@antibot.stuff.lava.net (James R. Olson, jr.) wrote:
> I find it disturbing how many fans find Rorschach to be a sympathetic,
> even admirable character. My best friend went on for years about how
> they should do a Rorschach book, and took it badly when I said that we
> already knew what was necessary about him, that anything else would be
> redundant.
Agreed. I still ong for a Minutemen book though. I loved those characters.
> He is the character we see most deeply into, followed by Laurie, so
> it's somewhat reflexive for readers to identify with him, whether or
> not that was Moore's intention.
I think the main thing is that Moore gave him a sort of machismo, and such
an engaging and unusual fighting style, that people were enchanted. As
Moore himself stated, there is a bit of a thrill about walking into a bar
and having everyone be afraid of you ...
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Dan Coyle
Brian Hance wrote:
>
>
> Rorschach was, IMHO, hardly heroic. He was troubled, scarred, and
> painfully twisted by his life. And his paranoia and cynicism about
> the 'Mask Killer' were correct, but usually he carried those feelings
> to the extreme.
What I found interesting about Rorschach was alll the pain he carried
inside of him: when Manhattan confronted him outside of the Arctic base,
the dialogue indicated his anger over what had happened, and the hurt he
felt inside that in a way, he was about to be relieved of by the Doc.
> >That said, I agree that he comes off as more attractive than Moore
> >probably consciously intended. I think I once read an interview
> >where he cited this as a failing of the series.
>
> Well, then Moore really shouldn't have dedicated an entire
> chapter/issue to him. Chapter 6 made him the most interesting
> character of the whole series, and probably the most sympathetic.
I think that was a bit of Moore's Anti-DC, anti-tredny feelings slipping
in. I certainly didn't think he was appealing. The moment in the story
that was most powerful, for me, is when Daniel said to Rorschach, "Do
you know how hard it is being your friend?" That really spoke to me, and
I was a bit disappointed that Daniel ddin't care about what happened to
Rorschach much in the end.
> It can be argued that Ozymandius was only using his skill to help
> people. He averted what was an almost certain nuclear war. He may
> have been vain but he was also right, after a fashion.
Onee thing that bugs me- and Peter David pointed it out years agoa in
But I Digress- is that, would Ozzy's plan really work? obviously, this
takes place in an extremely more paranoid world of the cold war, and,
well, if an alien appeared in New York and did that, would all countries
immediately unite against it? in PAD's words, "ten or twelve terriorist
groups would claim responsibility for it. Then accustations would fly,
and so would missiles." And also, "why not let [Rorschach] go and try to
convince people of Veidt's duplicity? Who are people going to believe? a
case of tying off a loose end that didn't need to be tied." PAD couldn't
buy the ending, and I hav trouble swallowing it, but it didn't fall
apart for me like it did for him. Plus, why show that journal in the
end? There's nothig in there that could be traced absck to Veidt anyway.
and one final thing: even i thew world of Watchmen, would everyone be so
jazzed about a millionaire like Ozzy? I mean he's a have, and the have
nots love him. Huh?
--Dan
JUST SAY NO TO STARSHIP TROOPERS!!
JUST SAY NO TO STARSHIP
Hernan Espinoza
blak...@best.com#nospam (Mikel Midnight) writes:
>Hernan Espinoza) wrote:
>> Ozymandius probably saved the world. You may think (and I would
>> agree) that the way he did it was horrible, but it appeared to be
>> working at the end (even though these things never end).
>Like hell he did, at best he delayed the due-date for armageddon. Sure,
>the world is on an economic boom ... but that's because it's put all its
>resources into mass weapons production in order to battle the alien menace.
>When no further aliens arrive ... do you think the nations of Earth are
>going to look around and say "Why, we've been getting along so well since
>we've been working together in Earth's defense, let's all be friends from
>here on!" No, instead the weapons buildup and increased paranoia is going
>to incite a whole series of wars. It never ends.
I always thought that was obvious, but let me state this in
more explicit terms:
If Superman saved a man from falling to his death who later
that day shot himself dead, did Superman save him? Ozymandius saved the
world from a real, immediate threat. Further, he did it in such a way
as to _try_ to keep that particualr threat (US/USSR war) from being a
problem again in the near future. The fact that humans are barbaric and
there will be new problems in the future is not his fault nor does it
make what he did futile, at least, no more so that anything _any_
superhero in the book did. For all they tried to do, nothing really changed
or got better in the long-term... even Ozymandius' grand stroke would
eventually be lost. That was one of the book's main themes.
Re: Rorschach
>I think the main thing is that Moore gave him a sort of machismo, and such
>an engaging and unusual fighting style, that people were enchanted. As
>Moore himself stated, there is a bit of a thrill about walking into a bar
>and having everyone be afraid of you ...
Well stated.
-Hernan
David Goldfarb
Keith Kushner <myc...@escape.com> wrote:
)OTOH, do you know of anything more useless than a *retired* hero....?
I can think of two things. Although you could argue that they
break up the monotony of the male chest.
(I am rather curious as to whether you were intentionally quoting
Heinlein or not...:-)
David Goldfarb <*>| "Speak softly, drive a Sherman tank
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank."
gold...@UCBOCF.BITNET |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- TMBG
Keith Kushner
David Goldfarb (gold...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
> Keith Kushner <myc...@escape.com> wrote:
> )OTOH, do you know of anything more useless than a *retired* hero....?
>
> I can think of two things. Although you could argue that they
> break up the monotony of the male chest.
>
> (I am rather curious as to whether you were intentionally quoting
> Heinlein or not...:-)
>
intentionally quote Heinlein? 0:)
('Twas actually an afterthought to do so, as it fit in so well with
Night Owl I's retirement from the hero trade. I wondered if anybody'd
notice. Nice to know that someone did.)
Brian Hance
aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides) wrote:
>Stephen Sarazin <ssar...@lis.pitt.edu> writes:
>> It is clear from interviews, and other things, that Moore
>>intended Ozymandius and Doctor Manhattan to be heroes of the story, and
>>Rorschach as "villain", more or less. This doesn't wash for me at all.
>What "interviews and other things" were these? Just from reading
>the comics, I don't see how Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan could be con-
>sidered the heroes of the story, especially not Ozymandias.
The thing that appealed to me about Watchmen was the fact that it
totally lacked the hero/villian cliche that is prevalent in many
stories, regardless of the medium. The line between good and evil
simply didn't exist. Everybody, with the exception of the Comedian
(maybe), was simply doing what they thought was right.
>> Rorschach comes across as a hero in this story to me. He is not
>>afraid to get his hands dirty if that's what it takes to do right. He
>>believes in principles which he will not compromise. All his paranoia
>>and cynicism is ultimately justified by the world he lives in.
Rorschach was, IMHO, hardly heroic. He was troubled, scarred, and
painfully twisted by his life. And his paranoia and cynicism about
the 'Mask Killer' were correct, but usually he carried those feelings
to the extreme.
>Setting aside moral judgments, for me Rorschach is not characterized
>by paranoia and cynicism. He's characterized by a completely black-
>and-white view of morality, which is emphatically not borne out by the
>story.
>That said, I agree that he comes off as more attractive than Moore
>probably consciously intended. I think I once read an interview
>where he cited this as a failing of the series.
Well, then Moore really shouldn't have dedicated an entire
chapter/issue to him. Chapter 6 made him the most interesting
character of the whole series, and probably the most sympathetic.
>> Rorschach is especially appealing when compared to the other
>>characters in the story. Daniel Dreiberg, the second Nite Owl and Sally
>>Juspeczyk, the second Silk Spectre are shallow, spineless characters
>>willing to go with whatever direction the prevailing wind goes.
>Why do you say this? To me Daniel and Sally are the "heroes" of
>the story if anybody is. They may be neurotic, but they're not
>psychotic, and they genuinely try to use their skills to help
>people.
It can be argued that Ozymandius was only using his skill to help
people. He averted what was an almost certain nuclear war. He may
have been vain but he was also right, after a fashion.
Brian Hance * http://www.primenet.com/~bhance * bha...@primenet.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Disappointment doesn't kill."
"Right, rejection kills. Disappointment only maims."
Uma Thurman & Janeane Garafalo from 'The Truth about Cats and Dogs'
BradW8
The ending of WM never seemed likely to me.
Somewhere around here I have a parody comic called "Pigeon-Man."
The second issue led off with a WM parody ("Clockmen") where the Ozymandias
character is described as curing someone's weak heart by setting off an
explosion right behind him. "In a way it worked -- he never had another heart
attack after that..." After the fakeness of his alien invasion is discovered,
the nations of the earth go into all-out atomic attack mode, and we get -- the
world of Judge Dredd.
David Goldfarb
B. P. Uecker <uec...@cris.com> wrote:
)Veidt came perilously close to behaving as if he had to burn the village
)to save it. That was his hubris.
One might even say that he behaved as though he had to kill the
moneylender and wife in order to keep them from raising the alarm among
the pirates that he knew were occupying the village.
David Goldfarb <*>|"Sunset over Houma. The rains have stopped.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | Clouds like plugs of bloodied cotton wool dab
aste...@slip.net | ineffectually at the slashed wrists of the sky."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Alan Moore
JohannaLD
From: aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides)
>I agree that [Rorshach] comes off as more attractive than Moore
>probably consciously intended.
Why shouldn't he? We're talking about an audience of primarily
superhero readers, and he's Batman. Black-and-white morality,
vigilante putting justice above all, a little TOO dedicated to his
cause, a creepy costume ... Of course they identify the hero as the
person most like those they're used to reading about.
>To me Daniel and Sally are the "heroes" of
>the story if anybody is. They may be neurotic, but they're not
>psychotic, and they genuinely try to use their skills to help
>people.
Definitely. I found them the easiest to identify with, and the most
real.
Johanna
Denise L. Voskuil
In article <34803295....@news.concentric.net>, uec...@cris.com says...
>Denise L. Voskuil wrote:
>>Actually, it did detract attention from himself as the "mask killer,"
>>as it was set up to look like an assassination attempt that hit her
>>accidentally.
>But it wasn't. As was explained in the story, Veidt hired the assassin
>to kill *him*. When it was pointed out that the assassin might have
>shot Veidt first, he replied that he'd just have to catch the bullet.
Hmm, I hadn't seen it that way at all. I thought it'd have been more effort
for him to dodge a bullet than place a bystander in his path, and thus I
reasoned he set her up to die since she was along at the time. Innocent
civilians dying tend to get lots of sympathy from the public and stuff like
that.
- Denise
--
Denise L. Voskuil - dvoskuil@: uic.edu/mcs.com/eden.com
I'm too low in the hierarchy here to officially even
*have* an opinion.
adam louis stephanides
joha...@aol.com (JohannaLD) writes:
>From: aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides)
>>I agree that [Rorshach] comes off as more attractive than Moore
>>probably consciously intended.
>Why shouldn't he? We're talking about an audience of primarily
>superhero readers, and he's Batman. Black-and-white morality,
>vigilante putting justice above all, a little TOO dedicated to his
>cause, a creepy costume ... Of course they identify the hero as the
>person most like those they're used to reading about.
Yes, it was probably predictable that Rorschach would be most
fans' favorite character. I had gotten the impression from inter-
views (don't remember where, sorry) that Moore had not intended
this to happen. If so, it would be a case of Moore's penchant
for striking dialogue and theatrical effects had interfered with
his larger design.
>>To me Daniel and Sally are the "heroes" of
>>the story if anybody is. They may be neurotic, but they're not
>>psychotic, and they genuinely try to use their skills to help
>>people.
>Definitely. I found them the easiest to identify with, and the most
>real.
I'm glad somebody agrees with me on this.
--Adam
Todd Morman
Stephen Sarazin wrote:
[...]
> For all its influencialness, the art style of Watchmen was very
> different from the norm, but hasn't resulted in much imitation.
Well, there's that bit in the "She-Male" arc in _Invisibles_...
todd couldn't resist morman
Dan Eyer
JohannaLD wrote:
>
> From: aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides)
> >I agree that [Rorshach] comes off as more attractive than Moore
> >probably consciously intended.
>
> Why shouldn't he? We're talking about an audience of primarily
> superhero readers, and he's Batman. Black-and-white morality,
> vigilante putting justice above all, a little TOO dedicated to his
> cause, a creepy costume ... Of course they identify the hero as the
> person most like those they're used to reading about.
Good point; I hadn't thought of it quite that way before.
He was also the ONLY one (for me) that actually "felt" like
a SUPERhero. Ozymandias and Dr. Manhatten were both
superHUMAN, but had ceased (IMO) to be heroes. (Unless you
agree with Ozy's rationalization of his actions, which I
don't. They _may_ have been necessary, but they were _not_
heroic.)
Even though Rorschach had no powers, he managed (with or without
the costume) to pull off the Batman trick of projecting a sort
of larger-than-life iconic presence.
My personal quickie-distinction between heroes and superheroes
is that they either have to have superpowers (and be heroes),
or this presence (and be heroes), or both. Flash has the
powers. Batman has the presence. Superman has both.
(Yes, I can think of counter-examples too. This is only
meant to be a rough description of how they struck me.)
The rest of the characters had no powers and/or weren't
heroic, and Daniel and Sally were far too human to have the
"presence", so they didn't strike me as superheroes. I would
certainly call D&S heroes, though.
> >To me Daniel and Sally are the "heroes" of
> >the story if anybody is. They may be neurotic, but they're not
> >psychotic, and they genuinely try to use their skills to help
> >people.
>
> Definitely. I found them the easiest to identify with, and the most
> real.
Agreed. But if I had to pick one scene out of the whole of
Watchmen for how real it made the character to me, it wouldn't
be one of their scenes. It would be the panel where Rorschach has
just called his (former) landlady a whore and she's said something
like "Please, not in front of the kid, he doesn't know", and
Rorschach is looking down at the kid. The touch of compassion
it gave his character made him much more real and (somehow) more
iconic at the same time.
Thanks for reminding me of all this!
--
Dan Eyer
ey...@LL.mit.edu
WinningerR
>>>After the fakeness of his alien invasion is discovered,
the nations of the earth go into all-out atomic attack mode, and we get -- the
world of Judge Dredd.<<<
*If* the fakeness is discovered, and I don't think your scenario necessarily
follows logically from such a discovery (though, without a doubt, that's one
possible outcome).
The real problem with the Watchmen ending is that it's just too damn corny. The
moment at which we discover the true nature of the plan is the exact instant
where Moore's attempt to balance his weightier interests against the absurd
conventions of the superhero genre falls to pieces.
WinningerR
>>>There is no such thing as a "hero/villain cliche". The
protagonist/antagonist relationship is a staple of dramatic fiction,
your calling it a cliche seems to indicate that you think of it as an
actual flaw.<<<
I didn't write the quote to which you were responding, but superhero comics'
particular bent on the "protagonist/antagonist relationship" is certainly
cliched. This isn't necessary a flaw, though it often is so.
>>>Remember, it was Veidt's manipulation of Dr. Manhattan that brought
about the world crisis that serves as backdrop of the story. There was
no certainty of nuclear war without Veidt's interference.<<<
True, but the world's smartest man saw the crisis coming and the story
establishes that his track record in such matters is impeccable.
Brian Hance
Mr. Uecher's comments have yet to show up on my server, so I'm forced
to reply here.
espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Hernan Espinoza) wrote:
>uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) writes:
>>Brian Hance wrote:
>>>The thing that appealed to me about Watchmen was the fact that it
>>>totally lacked the hero/villian cliche that is prevalent in many
>>>stories, regardless of the medium.
>>There is no such thing as a "hero/villain cliche". The
>>protagonist/antagonist relationship is a staple of dramatic fiction,
>>your calling it a cliche seems to indicate that you think of it as an
>>actual flaw. What you mean is that Watchmen strives for some moral
>>ambiguity.
> Protagonist/Antagonist =/= Hero/villain. The latter is a
>subset of the former. Further, as the most common form of the
>of the P/A relationship in comics by far, the H/V relationship could
>be argued to be a cliche. Not by me, because I agree that calling it a
>cliche makes it seem like a bad thing, when it it's not, IMHO. It
>is nice to see the occasional deviation from it in superhero stories,
>though, if only for variety. 8-)
I did mean Hero/Villian as a subset of the Protagonist/Antagonist
theme. And cliche was probably too harsh a word. H/V can be handled
very well, but to often tend to tends to give the characters involved
kind of circular motivations. Heroes to good because they're heroes.
Villains are bad because they are evil. Usually, even the most vile
of people are not doing thing specifically to be evil. Good guys do
good because it's good. Feh. I prefer to see characters doing things
for a logical reason, not just to fill a character slot in a story.
>>Remember, it was Veidt's manipulation of Dr. Manhattan that brought
>>about the world crisis that serves as backdrop of the story. There was
>>no certainty of nuclear war without Veidt's interference.
> An excellent point.
True, but Veidt's manipulation of Dr. Manhattan was necessary to get
him off planet so he could go ahead with his plan. To Veidt's mind
this was probably a calculated risk.
>>Veidt came perilously close to behaving as if he had to burn the village
>>to save it. That was his hubris.
I never said Veidt was morally right or totally infallible. He is
just a man after all. :-)
Brian Hance
aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides) wrote:
>bha...@primenet.com (Brian Hance) writes:
>>aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides) wrote:
>>Rorschach was, IMHO, hardly heroic. He was troubled, scarred, and
>>painfully twisted by his life. And his paranoia and cynicism about
>>the 'Mask Killer' were correct, but usually he carried those feelings
>>to the extreme.
>Technically speaking, it wasn't: there was no "Mask Killer." And in
>a broader sense, it can be argued that Rorschach wasn't paranoid and
>cynical enough. At first he only envisaged the villains he'd formerly
>fought as possible culprits.
Technically speaking, there was someone deliberately trying to
eliminate costumed vigilantes. And for Rorschach to be any more
paranoid, he'd have been living in a compound in Montana. ;-)
>>>That said, I agree that he comes off as more attractive than Moore
>>>probably consciously intended. I think I once read an interview
>>>where he cited this as a failing of the series.
>>Well, then Moore really shouldn't have dedicated an entire
>>chapter/issue to him.
>He devoted an entire issue to all six main characters.
With the exception of Dr. Manhattan, none of the other stories had the
same single minded devotion to the character that Rorschach's did
IMHO. All of the other chapters were still moving the overall plot
along, but chapter 6 stopped (or at least radically slowed down) story
movement and focused entirely on humanizing Rorschach as a character.
>>It can be argued that Ozymandius was only using his skill to help
>>people. He averted what was an almost certain nuclear war. He may
>>have been vain but he was also right, after a fashion.
>My point had been that out of the six
>main characters, only Daniel and Sally were motivated by the desire
>to help people. Rorschach was motivated by vengeance, and the
>Comedian and Dr. Manhattan were amoral.
I'd argue that Daniel's motivations were a bit more selfish. He
seemed to be in it for the sense of completion it gave him. Daniel
didn't feel like a 'Man' without the NiteOwl persona.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:11:28 GMT, uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker)
wrote:
>sense and damonsense wrote:
>
>>...i think each character is meant to represent variosu faces of
>>morality, and expose those flaws.
>
>I'll buy that.
Y'know, reading this thread last night I had one of those Sudden
Insights. This one turned out to be wrong when I thought about it
further, but I'll mention it anyway...
I came up with this sudden theory that the major characters in
WATCHMEN reflected the traditional "seven deadly sins." Ozymandias
would be pride, Rorschach would be anger, the Comedian would be
despair -- because really, that's the sick joke he's laughing at; he's
decided that nothing matters and despaired of anything beyond what
he's got.
But that's where the theory falls apart, because I don't see the rest
fitting gluttony, sloth, avarice, or lust.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, now available! $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/9/97
Stephen Sarazin
Bard Sinister wrote:
>
> Where did Mr. A appear? I've heard about the character for
> years, mostly in association with the Quesiton, but I have never seen
> a mention of where the character showed up.
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric Gimlin
He appeared in several self-published comics by Ditko. They were
available through distributers of objectivist literature. Some of this
material was reprinted in the mid-80's by Fantagraphics. It was called
the Ditko Collection. There were at least two volumes. They are pretty
difficult to find. I have v.2 and I read v.1 at the Virginia
Commonwealth U. library.
Stephen
Jason Fliegel
In article <64fh6j$n5a$1...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
Mike Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
>Unless I have been misinformed, the seven deadly sins don't include
>despair, but rather envy.
I could ask that old guy who lives in the abandoned subway station near my
house. He knows all about that sort of thing.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
Henry Spencer
In article <64e3ns$d...@news.cybernews.net>,
Bradly E. Peterson <SPAMBLO...@fastlane.net> wrote:
>>> What do you see in Hollis that you don't in Daniel or Sally?
>>The fact that he's successfully *retired* from the costumed-hero business?
>
>Thanks to Dr. Manhattan, he was forced into an early retirement
>due to the obsolescence of fossil fuel powered vehicles.
No, his garage is still operating -- the sign is still out front. It may
not be doing as well as he'd hoped, but it still exists. The retirement
in question was from the hero business, not the garage business.
--
If NT is the answer, you didn't | Henry Spencer
understand the question. -- Peter Blake | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Jason Fliegel
In article <346b0a7b...@news.clark.net>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>I came up with this sudden theory that the major characters in
>WATCHMEN reflected the traditional "seven deadly sins." Ozymandias
>would be pride, Rorschach would be anger, the Comedian would be
>despair -- because really, that's the sick joke he's laughing at; he's
>decided that nothing matters and despaired of anything beyond what
>he's got.
I'd peg Doctor Manhatten as despair, due to his attitude that everything
is predetermined, and nothing anybody can do really matters.
>
>But that's where the theory falls apart, because I don't see the rest
>fitting gluttony, sloth, avarice, or lust.
>
Comedian probably fits in at lust. Neither Dan nor Laurie really seems to
fit any of the sins, and I'm not even sure who you'd use as the seventh
sin. Hollis? Sally? Nelson?
Tom Galloway
In article <346b0a7b...@news.clark.net> lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
>WATCHMEN reflected the traditional "seven deadly sins." Ozymandias
>would be pride, Rorschach would be anger, the Comedian would be
>despair -- because really, that's the sick joke he's laughing at; he's
>decided that nothing matters and despaired of anything beyond what he's got.
>fitting gluttony, sloth, avarice, or lust.
Dr. Manhattan is pretty obviously sloth in that he takes no initiative.
Lust and gluttony are sort of represented by a combination of Night Owl
II and Silk Spectre II; in addition to the love scenes, both are
somewhat gluttons in the sense of Night Owl's reaction to getting
back into the superhero lifestyle and Silk Spectre's staying with
Dr. Manhattan and the association lifestyle.
Averice is the tricky one. Several of the Minutemen would seem to
apply best there, but there's no major character for it.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 13 Nov 1997 08:40:00 -0700, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) wrote:
>In article <346b0a7b...@news.clark.net>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:11:28 GMT, uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>sense and damonsense wrote:
>>>
>>>>...i think each character is meant to represent variosu faces of
>>>>morality, and expose those flaws.
>>>
>>>I'll buy that.
>>
>>Y'know, reading this thread last night I had one of those Sudden
>>Insights. This one turned out to be wrong when I thought about it
>>further, but I'll mention it anyway...
>>
>>I came up with this sudden theory that the major characters in
>>WATCHMEN reflected the traditional "seven deadly sins." Ozymandias
>>would be pride, Rorschach would be anger, the Comedian would be
>>despair -- because really, that's the sick joke he's laughing at; he's
>>decided that nothing matters and despaired of anything beyond what
>>he's got.
>>
>>But that's where the theory falls apart, because I don't see the rest
>>fitting gluttony, sloth, avarice, or lust.
Dr. Manhattan is sloth. But the rest don't work.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 13 Nov 1997 18:33:55 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
Chary) wrote:
>Unless I have been misinformed, the seven deadly sins don't include
>despair, but rather envy.
Actually, I looked this up way back when (1972, I think it was), and
discovered there's more than one list. I think envy, anger, and
despair are a "pick two" situation. The other five are, so far as I
recall, invariant.
Nat Gertler
Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> Actually, I looked this up way back when (1972, I think it was), and
> discovered there's more than one list. I think envy, anger, and
> despair are a "pick two" situation. The other five are, so far as I
> recall, invariant.
Thomas Aquinas listed Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy, Anger, Gluttony, and
Covetousness; Marty Greenberg (in The Seven Deadly Sins of Science
Fiction) indicates that the common variation is replacing Covetousness
with Avarice.
Me, I can't reel off the list without coming up with Vegetables. But
that's an old Muppet fan for you.
Bradly E. Peterson
myc...@escape.com (Keith Kushner) done said this here deal:
>adam louis stephanides (aste...@students.uiuc.edu) wrote:
WATCHMEN SPOILERS AHEAD!
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
>> >The only other truly appealing character is Hollis Mason,
>> >the original Nite Owl.
>> What do you see in Hollis that you don't in Daniel or Sally?
>The fact that he's successfully *retired* from the costumed-hero business?
>None of the others save Sally managed that trick.
I'd agree with you except for the "successfully" retired part.
Thanks to Dr. Manhattan, he was forced into an early retirement
due to the obsolescence of fossil fuel powered vehicles.
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove SPAMBLOCK from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"You can't go home again,
they might pull off your skin."
(Shawn Hill on "The Invisibles")
Douglas Wolk
In article <64f70g$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, schl...@primenet.com (Mark
Schlesinger) wrote:
> >I came up with this sudden theory that the major characters in
> >WATCHMEN reflected the traditional "seven deadly sins." Ozymandias
> >would be pride, Rorschach would be anger, the Comedian would be
> >despair -- because really, that's the sick joke he's laughing at; he's
> >decided that nothing matters and despaired of anything beyond what
> >he's got.
> >
> >But that's where the theory falls apart, because I don't see the rest
> >fitting gluttony, sloth, avarice, or lust.
> Avarice is the hard one. Possibly Captian Metropolis?
C'mon--Dollar Bill!
(And he _does_ get killed in a bank. Well, halfway in a bank...)
--
Douglas D. Wolk dbc...@panix.com
"You cannot suck the same piece of sugar forever."
David Goldfarb
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
)Dr. Manhattan is sloth. But the rest don't work.
Laurie Juspeczyk seems to have a healthy sex drive. But I
don't think she "is" lust in the same way that Ozymandias "is" pride, no.
And Dan Dreiberg doesn't fit either avarice or gluttony. Nor is there
a seventh major character for whichever one is left over.
David Goldfarb <*>| "You never learn until too late that everyone's
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | passing for normal."
aste...@slip.net |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Will Shetterly
Mike Chary
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On 13 Nov 1997 18:33:55 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
>Chary) wrote:
>
>>Unless I have been misinformed, the seven deadly sins don't include
>>despair, but rather envy.
>
>discovered there's more than one list. I think envy, anger, and
>despair are a "pick two" situation. The other five are, so far as I
>recall, invariant.
Where did you look this up? I've gone through a few of my sources here and
I find nothing to indicate despair?
--
Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary
In Memoriam Richie Ashburn, the Greatest Defensive Center Fielder of All
Time. A hell of a hitter and the best announcer this biased Phillies fan
ever heard. We'll miss you Whitey. :'(
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 20:48:25 -0800, Nat Gertler <n...@gertler.com>
wrote:
>Thomas Aquinas listed Sloth, Pride, Lust, Envy, Anger, Gluttony, and
>Covetousness; Marty Greenberg (in The Seven Deadly Sins of Science
>Fiction) indicates that the common variation is replacing Covetousness
>with Avarice.
Covetousness and avarice are the same thing; it's just a matter of how
you translate it from Latin.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 14 Nov 1997 12:29:04 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
Chary) wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On 13 Nov 1997 18:33:55 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
>>Chary) wrote:
>>
>>>Unless I have been misinformed, the seven deadly sins don't include
>>>despair, but rather envy.
>>
>>Actually, I looked this up way back when (1972, I think it was), and
>>discovered there's more than one list. I think envy, anger, and
>>despair are a "pick two" situation. The other five are, so far as I
>>recall, invariant.
>
>Where did you look this up? I've gone through a few of my sources here and
>I find nothing to indicate despair?
It was twenty-five years ago, fer pete's sake!
I believe my first reference was the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia
Americana, which I followed up with... something. Something from my
parents' library. Which was pretty extensive, since my father was an
associate professor.
Mike Chary
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>On 14 Nov 1997 12:29:04 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
>Chary) wrote:
>
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>>On 13 Nov 1997 18:33:55 GMT, fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike
>>>Chary) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Unless I have been misinformed, the seven deadly sins don't include
>>>>despair, but rather envy.
>>>
>>>Actually, I looked this up way back when (1972, I think it was), and
>>>discovered there's more than one list. I think envy, anger, and
>>>despair are a "pick two" situation. The other five are, so far as I
>>>recall, invariant.
>>
>>Where did you look this up? I've gone through a few of my sources here and
>>I find nothing to indicate despair?
>
>It was twenty-five years ago, fer pete's sake!
Yes, well, my copy of Summa Theologiae was written around 700 years ago,
and my man Thomas hasn't had time for a revision as yet, so I was
thinking maybe it was a source you'd just remember.
>I believe my first reference was the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia
>Americana, which I followed up with... something. Something from my
>parents' library. Which was pretty extensive, since my father was an
>associate professor.
I'll keep looking. I am intrigued :)
julio
> WinningerR wrote:
> The real problem with the Watchmen ending is that it's just too damn
corny. The
> moment at which we discover the true nature of the plan is the exact instant
> where Moore's attempt to balance his weightier interests against the absurd
> conventions of the superhero genre falls to pieces.
I agree up to a point, but for me the real problem was rather that the
basic idea (behind Ozymandias' plan) had already been done decades earlier
by Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan (arguably, it was already corny
back then). The book fell apart for me too at that precise instant.
Julio
Who has never failed to be disappointed by the endings of Alan Moore's stories.
WinningerR
>>spoken by someone who has admitted to being unabole to get past
absurd conventions to look at weightier issues..<<<
Not this again!
>>.what ozy did was reminsicent of
what roosevelt is purported to have done with pearl harbor.<<<
Exactly -- only it's been reduced down to an absurdly simplistic degree.
>>>that was addressed in dark knight.<<<
What was addressed in DARK KNIGHT?
sense and damonsense
WinningerR wrote:
>
> >>spoken by someone who has admitted to being unabole to get past
> absurd conventions to look at weightier issues..<<<
>
> Not this again!
'never compromise- not even in the face of armegeddon.'
> >>.what ozy did was reminsicent of
> what roosevelt is purported to have done with pearl harbor.<<<
>
> Exactly -- only it's been reduced down to an absurdly simplistic degree.
i don't see this at all--
roosevelt possible deliberately did not act on prior knowledge to allow
massive causalities in order to gain support for an unpopular war.
ozy set up a whole set of events with the specific intent to
avert what he saw was near certain nuclear conflict.
i can see that you thought the actions were absurd and
unrealistic [because they involved giant extradimensional aliens]
but i don't see as how these actions were reduced to simplicity, nor
do i see how the plan is suffiicently different from roosevelt's
that the portrayed outcome is far fetched.
> >>>that was addressed in dark knight.<<<
>
> What was addressed in DARK KNIGHT?
roosevelt's actions.
one of the themes of darkknight was similar to the major theme of
watchmen-- that morals are relative, and that some actions
are so outside our moral system that one cannot really
judge them.
in dark knight, this was played out when the new commissioner
decided not to try to arrest bats that night ['he's too big'].
in watchmen, it was played out when an and laurie decided
to go along with ozy's scheme, and when the comedian
essentially went insane over it.
--
"Oh no, i think i'll call it, i feel a false alarm...well, i've
opened my eyes, just, just, just to refuse/ well, if i just held
back, back, back, and listened to your cues." Yo La Tengo,
"False Alarm" 38 IS DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
fan
Stephen Sarazin wrote:
> As someone else pointed out, the reaction to the "alien invasion"
> would be by no means predictable. I think that the reaction that
> Veidt assumed and that happened would actually be rather unlikely.
> Another interesting thing is that the solution Moore presents to
> Watchmen is quite similar to Reaganism on a broader scale. Create
> a demonic opponent to scare the population, unite the nation, and
> stimulate the economy. Actually, another thing is that the optimistic
> Golden Age brought on by Viedt's actions seems unlikely also. An
> age of miserable fear and foreboding seems more likely.
> Even accepting the reaction to the invasion, as others have pointed
> out, the solution would be temporary. Eventually people would
> realize that there was no true invasion, or, if not, the fear would fade
> away as time passed without further threat. (assuming Viedt isn't
> planning on further mass killings in the future). WIth the fear of
> invasion gone, the false unity created by that fear would also fall
> away and they'd be right back where they where.
>
> Stephen
Here's my take on this.
Adrian Veidt is, hands down, the smartest guy in the world. Think
about it: During the sixties, nobody knew that Ozymandias was Adrian
Veidt. All of the things we keep in the back of our heads (self-made
millionaire, invented the spark plug, expert at co-ordinating
intricate, twenty-year plans . . .) were unknown to the world at large
. . . yet it's Ozymandias who gets tagged as the world's smartest man.
His contemporaries include a particle physicist with a photographic
memory and knowledge of the future, a KNOWN inventor who built
everything from a radar-invisible airship to a pair of night-vision
goggles to a pocket laser, and a remarkably successful, high-profile
special agent with a knack for always being right. Ozymandias starts
off as "the guy who got beaten up by the Comedian," and still he walks
off with the title. That takes some cleverness. Becoming established
as amazingly acrobatic and an expert martial artist, that I can see.
But to be accepted as the world's smartest man against THAT
competition?
Add to that what we know: Veidt IS brilliant when it comes to
everything from advertising to history to genetics to covertly running
an international business empire. He knows politics, chemistry, music,
philosophy, and pretty much any other discipline under the sun. But if
we had to name his specialty, what would it be?
On returning to earth, Dr. Manhattan realizes that only one man could
have possibly had the intellect and the resources to employ tachyons as
such a specialized weapon. So, Veidt's about as good as it gets ('the
one man on the planet') when it comes to (a) subatomic physics and (b)
figuring out the limits of Dr. Manhattan's powers.
In addition, Veidt understands Manhattan's condition well enough to
have figured out the effects of subtracting Manhattan's intrinsic
field. In fact, it's Veidt's company that manufactured the I.F.
subtractor.
For that matter, Veidt's high-tech ruse is explicitly derived from an
intensive study of Manhattan's powers; he understands the physics well
enough to duplicate Manhattan's teleportation.
Similarly, the spark plug invention stemmed from figuring out how to
capitalize on Manhattan's effects on the automobile industry.
Veidt also worked extensively with Manhattan's former colleagues.
He also stole and studied Manhattan's psychological records.
Veidt bases his entire plan around being able to get Manhattan to
withdraw to Mars 'on cue;' if the Comedian hadn't accidentally
intervened, if Rorschach hadn't investigated, etc., he wouldn't have
come up with his damage control plans; for decades, he had been
concentrating on Manhattan. (He started the cancer plot far ahead of
time . . .)
All in all, this is someone who has doggedly applied his phenomenal
intellect toward understanding Dr. Manhattan's condition.
In all that studying . . . studying Dr. Manhattan's condition and
possible destruction, timestream perception and its disruption,
teleportation and its duplication, and so forth . . . Veidt learned the
details of how Osterman was transformed into Manhattan. See Veidt's
line in the interview, about the two ways of becoming a superhero, if
watching him subtract Manhattan's intrinsic field doesn't convince you.
Remember that Veidt will do whatever it takes to put his utopian plan
into effect, even risking himself in the process. He'll fake an
assassination attempt on himself, planning to catch the bullet if
necessary. This is, after all, the guy who gave away his inheritance
simply so he could start from nothing . . .
What happened to Osterman was, presumably, a repeatable process.
That's why Manhattan refers to it as the first trick he learned; it's a
matter of physical law, of physics.
Unlike the pre-Manhattan Osterman, Veidt knows precisely how an
I.F.-subtracted spirit can rebuild itself.
Especially after his Antarctic cameras presumably recorded
Manhattan's second restructuring.
Unlike the pre-Manhattan Osterman, Veidt has an incredibly strong
will. And a better knowledge of subatomic physics, for that matter.
Whatever Osterman did, Veidt can do better.
So, Veidt's plan starts to unravel. He's intelligent enough to
notice this and willing to risk himself. His specialty is the
scientific understanding and duplication of Dr. Manhattan's condition.
He possesses his own, personal, I.F. subtractor.
Bottom line? I'm fairly sure Adrian Veidt has been considering one
last ploy just in case all else fails. It probably involves acquiring
godlike powers.
It probably works.
Kevin J. Maroney
On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:11:28 -0500, uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker)
wrote:
>>ozy was a situational ethicist-- the ends justify the means.
>
>Good call.
I disagree; I think that Ozymandias was an idealist, and that any
sacrifice was worth the pursuit of his ideal.
Moore distrusts idealists.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
"Love doesn't have a point. Love *is* the point."--Alan Moore
Kevin J. Maroney
>Dr. Manhattan is sloth. But the rest don't work.
As I mentioned a decade ago, each of the six focal characters in
_Watchmen_ represents an approach to the question of finding meaning
in a finite world. The Comedian an absurdist; Manhattan is a fatalist;
Nite Owl a romantic; Ozymandias an idealist. What Rorschach and Silk
Spectre are are harder to find single words for; Rorschach is a sort
of nihilist, denying that there is inherent meaning in the world, but
sort of an idealist, in that he stamps an absolute moral code on the
world, while Laurie is more Taoist, flowing with events like the Tao
Te Ching's water (spilled water being Laurie's physical emblem in the
novel).
WinningerR
>>>I agree up to a point, but for me the real problem was rather that the
basic idea (behind Ozymandias' plan) had already been done decades earlier
by Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan (arguably, it was already corny
back then). The book fell apart for me too at that precise instant.<<<
Of course, SIRENS OF TITAN was at least, in part, a comedy.
The ending had also been used on the OUTER LIMITS.
Personally, I think that within the context of pulp and/or superhero comics,
the "fake alien invasion to unite the world" plot works just fine. In Moore's
attempt to craft a "hyper-realistic" superhero world, though, it clunks.
Mike Chary
Mike Chary <ma...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>>I believe my first reference was the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia
>>Americana, which I followed up with... something. Something from my
>>parents' library. Which was pretty extensive, since my father was an
>>associate professor.
>
>I'll keep looking. I am intrigued :)
And so I did. And while I haven't been able to find despair on any lists.
(No, it's not possible that LWE is wrong, I just haven't found it yet.) I
have, however, found an interesting list in Rossell Hope Robbins' _The
Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology_. In 1589 Peter Binsfield
published a list of the seven deadly sins, mapping them to the archdevil
who had each one as its demesne. I, unfortunately, lost my copy of
_Tractatus de Confessionibus Maleficorum et Sagarum_ when St. Germaine
and I were forced to leave Prussia suddenly in the eighteenth century
(bloody peasants, no sense of humor.) That meant that until finding the
list here, I had forgotten about it. (Demonology bores me.) Anyway,
here's Binsfield's list:
Lucifer - Pride
Mammon - Avarice
Asmodeus - Lechery
Satan - Anger
Beelzebub - Gluttony
Leviathan - Envy
Belphegor - Sloth
[Note that Gluttony is usually mapped to Bohemoth.]
Now, why do we care? Or rather why do I care? Because based on other
stories I know of these fiends, I am going to try to map them to the
seven major Watchmen characters. "Seven?" I hear you cry. Yes, there's
going to be some rhetorical legerdemain here. Watch, at no time will my
fingers leave my hands.
I maintain that Rorschach is two characters. (Not really, but I'm now
engaged in lit crit bullshit, so I get to lie :)) The sane Rorschach who
thought he could change the world, and the insane Rorschach who thought
he could scare the world. (Note that the New Rorschach got so angry at
the end that the Old Rorschach came out to play again and was too proud
to give up his standards :))
Thus my list is as follows:
Old Rorschach - Pride
Ozymandias - Avarice (who wanted the world)
Nite Owl - Lechery (He was rife with sexual imagery)
New Rorschach - Anger
Comedian - Gluttony (who wanted what he wanted when he wanted it. And
then, finally, came to a fall when he couldn't decide what he
wanted)
Silk Spectre - Envy (who wanted the identity the others had, but only really
had her mother's identity)
Dr. Manhattan - Sloth
Comments? :)
julio
In article <19971116000...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) wrote:
> >>>I agree up to a point, but for me the real problem was rather that the
> basic idea (behind Ozymandias' plan) had already been done decades earlier
> by Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan (arguably, it was already corny
> back then). The book fell apart for me too at that precise instant.<<<
>
> Of course, SIRENS OF TITAN was at least, in part, a comedy.
It's also my least favorite of all the Vonnegut I've read (which is
limited to Cat's Cradle, Mother Night, Hocus Pocus and Breakfast of
Champions--and looking at this list I see it's the most sf/pulpish of the
lot, which is probably not a coincidence).
> Personally, I think that within the context of pulp and/or superhero comics,
> the "fake alien invasion to unite the world" plot works just fine. In Moore's
> attempt to craft a "hyper-realistic" superhero world, though, it clunks.
I'll agree with this...
Julio
(who thought Mother Night was great, but would find it too painful to
reread it now).
Andrew Ducker
In article <346C30...@virginia.edu>, fan <ds...@virginia.edu> writes
>Stephen Sarazin wrote:
>> As someone else pointed out, the reaction to the "alien invasion"
>> would be by no means predictable. I think that the reaction that
>> Veidt assumed and that happened would actually be rather unlikely.
>> invasion gone, the false unity created by that fear would also fall
>> away and they'd be right back where they where.
>
>last ploy just in case all else fails. It probably involves acquiring
>godlike powers.
>
> It probably works.
Note: Loadza stuff snipped out of there.
Congrats on one of the best dissections I've seen in a long, long time
and one of the first original things I've seen said about Watchmen in
about 6 years. Have a cool point.
Can anyone here forward this one on to Moore? He might even be tickled
by it.
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com * I'm a brit. Infer Necessary Smileys
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk * This is _not_ a rehearsal
adam louis stephanides
espi...@cgl.ucsf.edu (Hernan Espinoza) writes:
>aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides) writes:
>> My point had been that out of the six
>>main characters, only Daniel and Sally were motivated by the desire
>>to help people.
> Daniel was in it for the thrills which were mixed up
>with sex in an unsettling way (unsettling to me, at any rate).
>Sally was originally in it because her mother wanted her to be.
>Eventually, she wanted it for herself, but it's not clear to me it
>was to help people or because it was thrilling.
My statement was really meant to apply to their actions during
WATCHMEN, not to their previous "official" heroic careers; I
should have made that clearer.
I didn't get the impression Sally was interested in thrills. As for
Daniel, his sexual hang-ups were obviously a part of it, but if that
was all he cared about, he could have just dressed up in the basement,
as most people who get turned on by wearing costumes do. He didn't
have to go out and save all those people (thus risking trouble with
the police as well).
> Don't get me wrong here, I loved these two characters and felt
>a great affinity for them, but I think it is simplistic to say that
>they were solely motivated by the desire to help people. The only
Yes, "solely motivated" would be going too far. But as far as I'm
concerned, they're the only two of the six primary characters whose
motive is even primarily to help people.
>> Rorschach was motivated by vengeance, and the
>>Comedian and Dr. Manhattan were amoral.
> The Comedian had great self-understanding. People often overlook him,
>but the Comedian was a brilliant character and understanding him is
>important to understanding the story (IMHO)
I realize that was how Moore wanted us to see him. To me, he didn't
come off that way; I never saw him as much more than a crude lout.
--Adam
adam louis stephanides
bha...@primenet.com (Brian Hance) writes:
>aste...@students.uiuc.edu (adam louis stephanides) wrote:
>>bha...@primenet.com (Brian Hance) writes:
>>>Rorschach was, IMHO, hardly heroic. He was troubled, scarred, and
>>>painfully twisted by his life. And his paranoia and cynicism about
>>>the 'Mask Killer' were correct, but usually he carried those feelings
>>>to the extreme.
>>Technically speaking, it wasn't: there was no "Mask Killer." And in
>>a broader sense, it can be argued that Rorschach wasn't paranoid and
>>cynical enough. At first he only envisaged the villains he'd formerly
>>fought as possible culprits.
>Technically speaking, there was someone deliberately trying to
>eliminate costumed vigilantes. And for Rorschach to be any more
>paranoid, he'd have been living in a compound in Montana. ;-)
Rorschach's "Mask Killer" was supposedly trying to kill all the cos-
tumed vigilantes or former vigilantes. He didn't exist. There was
someone eliminating specific vigilantes, in each case for specific
reasons.
As for Rorschach's paranoia, come to think of it I don't recall
much evidence at all that he is "paranoid" in the sense of believing
in conspiracies, aside from his readership of the New Frontiersman,
which could be just on account of its right-wing politics.
>>>Well, then Moore really shouldn't have dedicated an entire
>>>chapter/issue to him.
>>He devoted an entire issue to all six main characters.
>With the exception of Dr. Manhattan, none of the other stories had the
>same single minded devotion to the character that Rorschach's did
>IMHO. All of the other chapters were still moving the overall plot
>along, but chapter 6 stopped (or at least radically slowed down) story
>movement and focused entirely on humanizing Rorschach as a character.
Point taken, but for me chapter 6 didn't "humanize" Rorschach.
His drive to destroy evil was shown as so implacable as to almost
cut him off from humanity.
--Adam
Keith Kushner
would Moore have had *that* particular episode playing on TV
in the last book?
And ::ahem:: one might logically infer that Veidt had seen it
using one of his earlier "wall-of-TV-screens" setups, and consider
the possibility that the episode inspired Veidt's master plan.
--
* Keith Kushner * Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal *
* myc...@escape.com * *
damontegration
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> sense and damonsense wrote:
> >laurie and dan i tink represented a more
> >normal moral system, wherein you live your life
> >by a code, but it's somwhat flexible--
> >
> >while you can argue that they are wimps and cowards,
> >i think their survival at the end has
> >more to do with moore's analysis of these moral systems.
>
> I found Daniel to be rather pathetic...Rorschach's assessment of him as
> a flabby failure was pretty much spot on. He is just too impotent.
i think that was the point---
normal people with normal morals could not handle
these special people.
laurie and dan were inept because they were in over their
heads, both intellectually and morally.
> >having said that, i think moral relativism is more preferable
> >than moral absolutism, but that rors.
> >was a more sympatheic character because he had all the good punchlines.
>
> Well, because he was actually struggling. It is more difficult to find
> Veidt's pampered lifestyle compelling, or his carefully laid out and
> more or less unopposed plan (unopposed because it was kept secret) as
> engaging as Rorschach's ongoing (and thus more realistic) conflict with
> what he felt to be society's disease. He was still crazy as a bedbug,
> but you always root for the guy who is fighting the fiercer and more
> uphill battle.
i was thinking of things like 'you don't understand. i'm not trapped in
here with you-- you're trapped in here with me.
> I did think Moore cheated a little in the Veidt-Rorschach fight.
hrrmm. i felt that way at the time...
but i think now it was like bats against daredevil--
if bats knew he was gonna fight dd ahead of time,
he'd have some metal filings in his batbelt.
also, moore does tend to cheat in fights...
that miracleman fight where he sort of slogged it off,
and v for vendetta didn't really have a big fight.
i don't know about his captain britain stuf tho.
--
"well is it really true? I mean I know, or I guess, or not. Well
is it really true, I know, too hard to figure out... I'm gonna
stand my ground, hide behind a fake smile. We can talk about
something else, just for a little while." Yo La Tengo,
damontegration
WinningerR wrote:
>
> Damon:
> >>>i don't see this at all--
> roosevelt possible deliberately did not act on prior knowledge to allow
> massive causalities in order to gain support for an unpopular war.
>
> ozy set up a whole set of events with the specific intent to
> avert what he saw was near certain nuclear conflict.
>
> i can see that you thought the actions were absurd and
> unrealistic [because they involved giant extradimensional aliens]
>
> but i don't see as how these actions were reduced to simplicity, nor
> do i see how the plan is suffiicently different from roosevelt's
> that the portrayed outcome is far fetched.<<<
>
>
> First, even the folks who "purported" that Roosevelt acted in this way drew out
> an elaborate and complex scenario that has many more layers than even
> WATCHMEN's conspiracy. Not to mention that far less would be necessary to
> justify how Roosevelt accomplished the relatively simple act of turning a deaf
> ear to some intelligence reports, as opposed to Ozy's conspiracy involving
> hundreds (if not thousands of individuals), several murders, secret bases, and
> a gigantic fake life form.
this implies that you think ozy's scheme is More complicated,
not simplified to the absurd.
> Second, even the accusations against Roosevelt come off as a bit too cartoony
> and "far-fetched" for the real world and, in fact, they are false.
do you think? we are talking about a federal goevrnment that knowingly
experimented on its own people 'for the good of the nation'.
i know of no concrete example wherein a government has willfully
enacted or sat idly by while a disaster occurred,
but i don't hink it's too far fetched.
in fact, i do know of some-- saddam and korea. but i understand they're
nuts.
i won't go so far as to say i believe the stuff about roose,
but i won't go so far as to dismiss it out of hand.
> >>>roosevelt's actions.
> one of the themes of darkknight was similar to the major theme of
> watchmen-- that morals are relative, and that some actions
> are so outside our moral system that one cannot really
> judge them.
>
> in dark knight, this was played out when the new commissioner
> decided not to try to arrest bats that night ['he's too big'].<<<
>
> I'd disagree with that assessment of DARK KNIGHT. To me, the work was saying
> just the opposite -- morality is *not* relative; there is definitely an
> absolute "right" and an absolute "wrong." In our complex times, it sometimes
> takes someone of remarkable courage to act for "right" and although such
> actions may sometimes cost society a modest price (the psychotic Batman
> immitators), they are still in the best interests of us all.
> In DK, Batman thought he knew what was in the best interests of us all; he was
> willing to take a courageous stand and make his will a reality. In the end,
> it's established that he *did* know what was best for us all; he undeniably
> saves the day and he's vindicated.
i'd argue instead that it was about self empowerment-
that the individual is supposed to live up to his own moral code.
bats was obviously acting outside the law, which means that the
moral code we're talking about, whether relativistic or not,
operates outside the bounds of what society dictates.
yet you argue that it's used to uphold society.
that's like arguing that rebeliion is necessary to uphold government.
and bats was doing a lot of things that were clearly widely considered
immoral,
like kicking guys through windows and shooting people.
he even broke the joker's neck....
if you don't find the moral code which states that it's
acceptable to cripple someone for life, but unacceptable to kill them,
relativistic, then i'd like to know why.
> In WATCHMEN, Rorschach thought he knew what was in the best interests of us all
> (revealing the truth, no matter how unpleasant; best exemplified by his desire
> to reveal Ozymandias' plan to the world). In the end, Moore doesn't vindicate
> Rorschach and, in fact, suggests that Rorschach's moral code might lead to
> instant disaster (if O's scheme is revealed, the world might soon be snuffed),
> though he leaves the question open for debate among the readers.
well, i think that's a bit wide-- i don't think r's journal
was a commentary on his moral leanings as much as it
was a comment on the frailty of 'nirvana'.
r's moral black and white was addressed in the scene where doc killed r.
--
"Oh no, i think i'll call it, i feel a false alarm...well, i've
opened my eyes, just, just, just to refuse/ well, if i just held
back, back, back, and listened to your cues." Yo La Tengo,
"well is it really true? I mean I know, or I guess, or not. Well
WinningerR
>>.this implies that you think ozy's scheme is More complicated,
not simplified to the absurd.<<
No, I meant to imply that the complications that Ozy's scheme would encounter
were simplified to the absurd. When you're dealing with a conspiracy involving
hundreds of individuals (some of them famous), dozens of deaths, colossal
secret bases spread over the globe, and the ever-popular enormous fake alien,
taking out Rorschach is going to be the least of your worries.
>>>do you think? we are talking about a federal goevrnment that knowingly
experimented on its own people 'for the good of the nation'.<<<
That's true -- but it's also a different situation. I didn't say that the US
Government can't be hard-hearted and cruel, I said that something as silly as
Roosevelt's purported conduct was far-fetched. And yes, scholars have pretty
thoroughly debunked the "Roosevelet deliberately allowed the Japanese to bomb
Pearl Harbor" myth.
>>>i know of no concrete example wherein a government has willfully
enacted or sat idly by while a disaster occurred,
but i don't hink it's too far fetched.<<<
I'm sure there are plenty of such examples -- though none that quite fit the
bill of the Roosevelt incident, or Ozy's mega-conspiracy. Iran Contra is
probably the closest we have -- no coincidence that Moore found it so ironic
that the Tower Report began with the "Who Watches the Watchmen" epigram.
>>>i'd argue instead that it was about self empowerment-
that the individual is supposed to live up to his own moral code.
bats was obviously acting outside the law, which means that the
moral code we're talking about, whether relativistic or not,
operates outside the bounds of what society dictates.
yet you argue that it's used to uphold society.<<<
No, I'm saying that Batman doesn't recognize "the law" because its the product
of a corrupt and degenerative society. The only way that society can be saved
and the sanctity of "the law" to be returned is for courageous individuals to
stand up for what is truly right.
>>>and bats was doing a lot of things that were clearly widely considered
immoral,
like kicking guys through windows and shooting people.
he even broke the joker's neck....
if you don't find the moral code which states that it's
acceptable to cripple someone for life, but unacceptable to kill them,
relativistic, then i'd like to know why.<<<
Just want to point out, first of all, that this isn't about me, it's about
Batman.
"Widely considered immoral" is exactly the problem that I believe Batman (and
DARK KNIGHT) is railing against. Batman believes that only a corrupt society
would find it immoral to use the appropriate force to reign in society's rogue
element -- the sort of society built by people like Carrie's parents and the
Joker's pscyhologist.
To Batman, none of this is "relative." In his eyes, if you don't think that its
okay to shoot a rampaging gang member to save the life of a small child, you're
a fool and part of the problem. He's going to save you from yourself.
It's Superman who plays the "relative" game -- he understands that not everyone
sees right and wrong the same way and respects a society that bases its
morality around the idea of pleasing all its disparate citizens. In the end,
this leaves him impotent and subject to the government's attempts to
rationalize its moral failures.
>>>well, i think that's a bit wide-- i don't think r's journal
was a commentary on his moral leanings as much as it
was a comment on the frailty of 'nirvana'.<<<
Hmm. I don't think Ozy's new world was ever depicted as "Nirvana."
Rorschach definitely believes in moral black-and-white. The greater narrative
of WATCHMEN does not support his belief, though, as the narrative of DARK
KNIGHT supports Batman's beliefs.
Andrew Ducker
In article <19971121065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, WinningerR
<winni...@aol.com> writes
>>>>well, i think that's a bit wide-- i don't think r's journal
>was a commentary on his moral leanings as much as it
>was a comment on the frailty of 'nirvana'.<<<
>
Nope, for that you have to go read MiracleMan.
damontegration
WinningerR wrote:
>
> >>.this implies that you think ozy's scheme is More complicated,
> not simplified to the absurd.<<
>
> were simplified to the absurd. When you're dealing with a conspiracy involving
> hundreds of individuals (some of them famous), dozens of deaths, colossal
> secret bases spread over the globe, and the ever-popular enormous fake alien,
> taking out Rorschach is going to be the least of your worries.
yes. i think moore didn't want to spend any time on this
aspect, so he dumped everybody on an island and just blew up the island.
given that he wrote this after he wrote v for vendetta, which
addressed those ideas to a greater extent, i suspect he was
deliberately ignoring those implications to make another point.
> >>>do you think? we are talking about a federal goevrnment that knowingly
> experimented on its own people 'for the good of the nation'.<<<
>
> That's true -- but it's also a different situation. I didn't say that the US
> Government can't be hard-hearted and cruel, I said that something as silly as
> Roosevelt's purported conduct was far-fetched. And yes, scholars have pretty
> thoroughly debunked the "Roosevelet deliberately allowed the Japanese to bomb
> Pearl Harbor" myth.
okay.
> >>>i know of no concrete example wherein a government has willfully
> enacted or sat idly by while a disaster occurred,
> but i don't think it's too far fetched.<<<
>
> I'm sure there are plenty of such examples -- though none that quite fit the
> bill of the Roosevelt incident, or Ozy's mega-conspiracy. Iran Contra is
> probably the closest we have -- no coincidence that Moore found it so ironic
> that the Tower Report began with the "Who Watches the Watchmen" epigram.
look at north korea.. it is starving now because of
its leader's idealogical arrogance.
i find it perfectly reasonable that ozy would try a scheme like
this.
> >>>and bats was doing a lot of things that were clearly widely considered
> immoral,
> like kicking guys through windows and shooting people.
> he even broke the joker's neck....
> if you don't find the moral code which states that it's
> acceptable to cripple someone for life, but unacceptable to kill them,
> relativistic, then i'd like to know why.<<<
>
> Just want to point out, first of all, that this isn't about me, it's about
> Batman.
>
> "Widely considered immoral" is exactly the problem that I believe Batman (and
> DARK KNIGHT) is railing against. Batman believes that only a corrupt society
> would find it immoral to use the appropriate force to reign in society's rogue
> element -- the sort of society built by people like Carrie's parents and the
> Joker's pscyhologist.
>
> To Batman, none of this is "relative." In his eyes, if you don't think that its
> okay to shoot a rampaging gang member to save the life of a small child, you're
> a fool and part of the problem. He's going to save you from yourself.
>
> It's Superman who plays the "relative" game -- he understands that not everyone
> sees right and wrong the same way and respects a society that bases its
> morality around the idea of pleasing all its disparate citizens. In the end,
> this leaves him impotent and subject to the government's attempts to
> rationalize its moral failures.
i agree with this as far as i goes....
but look at bats's moral code--
killing is NEVER okay for him, but breaking the joker's
neck is. that's a completely arbitrary line.
also, while i can see you scenario for bats really well,
i am not convicned it was the *point* of the story--
my hypothesis about moral relativism stills stands
in terms of a possible theme of miller's.
> >>>well, i think that's a bit wide-- i don't think r's journal
> was a commentary on his moral leanings as much as it
> was a comment on the frailty of 'nirvana'.<<<
>
> Hmm. I don't think Ozy's new world was ever depicted as "Nirvana."
no, that's why i used quotes. don't knwo the right word for it.
i guess "peace" would do.
> Rorschach definitely believes in moral black-and-white. The greater narrative
> of WATCHMEN does not support his belief, though, as the narrative of DARK
> KNIGHT supports Batman's beliefs.
not so sure... the book is equivocal to some
extent on vigilanteism.
in the end, bats must operate outside society because society betrayed
him.
sure, that's acondemnation of society, but at the same time
he's still using a moral code borne of society ["watch you language,
son..."]
--
Pedro Dias
Andrew Ducker (and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <19971121065...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, WinningerR
: <winni...@aol.com> writes
: >
: >Hmm. I don't think Ozy's new world was ever depicted as "Nirvana."
: Nope, for that you have to go read MiracleMan.
In fact, you can read V, Watchmen and Miracleman as an interconnected
trilogy on the responsibility and consequences of power. Although the
Nirvana aspects of Miracleman were primarily the work of Neil Gaiman.
Kevin J. Maroney
pd...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Pedro Dias) wrote:
>In fact, you can read V, Watchmen and Miracleman as an interconnected
>trilogy on the responsibility and consequences of power. Although the
>Nirvana aspects of Miracleman were primarily the work of Neil Gaiman.
Moore's run on _Miracleman_ ended with Miracleman, Miraclewoman, and
various and sundry Powers and Dominions establishing a paradise on
Earth--eliminating hunger, poverty, inequality, disease, environmental
threats, and all Bad Things, and ushering in a Glorious New Tomorrow.
While Moore is, judging from his other works, distrustful of
idealists, idealism, and the image of paradise at wholesale prices, MM
#16 has always struck me as a genuine attempt to write about a group
of benevolent gods giving humanity exactly everything it has ever
needed, with irony withheld.
Gaiman, with Moore's blessing, then turned the series to look at the
people who would be unhappy even in paradise. I think that was a
reasonable thing to do, although I would have been interested in
seeing a writer as gifted as Gaiman explore the people who are *happy*
in paradise. (Well, Andy Warhol was mostly happy.)
Moore's 1980's works tended to have very powerful beings retreat from
the world--Dr. Manhattan, Swamp Thing, and Superman being the obvious
examples. In _Miracleman_, the powerful beings came forward.
(In what is probably Moore's most mainstream work, _Captain Britain_,
the powerful beings do both: Captain Britain is an active member of
his society, while Captain U.K. is afraid of her power and her
responsibility.)
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
jshunter
>> >>>and bats was doing a lot of things that were clearly widely
considered
>> immoral,
>> like kicking guys through windows and shooting people.
>> he even broke the joker's neck....
No he didn't. The Joker twisted his own neck, snapping it. Bats couldn't
bring himself to kill at the moment of truth (read the dialog carefully)
---John Hunter
damontegration
jshunter wrote:
>
> >> >>>and bats was doing a lot of things that were clearly widely
> considered
> >> immoral,
> >> like kicking guys through windows and shooting people.
> >> he even broke the joker's neck....
>
> bring himself to kill at the moment of truth (read the dialog carefully)
you seem to have missed the entire point of my post.
bats broke the joker's neck, but would NOT kill him.
i consider that to be moral relativism.
--
"Gonna hold my tongue in place, thinkin about what to do
well if you see nothing wrong this time, then I'll turn it out
on you." Yo La Tengo, "False Alarm"
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a pity he is not a Dutchman
In <3476b948...@news.crossover.com>, kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:16:35 -0500, lawr...@clark.net wrote:
>
> > Dr. Manhattan is sloth. But the rest don't work.
You could try the 7 classical planets! Sally Jupiter can be "Venus."....
> The Comedian an absurdist; Manhattan is a fatalist;
> Nite Owl a romantic; Ozymandias an idealist. What Rorschach and Silk
> Spectre are are harder to find single words for; Rorschach is a sort
> of nihilist, denying that there is inherent meaning in the world, but
> sort of an idealist, in that he stamps an absolute moral code on the
> world, ...
We call them "moralists." As Laurie pointed out ... they don't smell
very good.
-:-
"The mere understanding, however useful and indispensable,
is the meanest faculty in the human mind and the most to be
distrusted."
--T. De Quincey, "On the Knocking at the Gate in _Macbeth_"
--
G. L. Sicherman
work: sich...@lucent.com
home: col...@mail.monmouth.com
Jason Fliegel
In article <669ail$5...@nntpb.cb.lucent.com>,
What a pity he is not a Dutchman <sich...@lucent.com> wrote:
>In <3476b948...@news.crossover.com>, kmar...@crossover.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 16:16:35 -0500, lawr...@clark.net wrote:
>>
>> > Dr. Manhattan is sloth. But the rest don't work.
>
>You could try the 7 classical planets! Sally Jupiter can be "Venus."....
>
How about the seven dwarves? Rorschach can be Grumpy, Doc Manhatten can
be Doc, the Commedian can be Sleazy, and Dan Drieberg can be Flacid. I
leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
Or we could get really crazy and map the heroes to the classical Greek
pantheon. Or to the seven original members of Morrison's JLA.
Wait! I've got it! Lets map the Watchmen characters to the Charlton
characters DC purchased in the 1980s. Nite Owl could be Captain Atom,
Ozymandias could be Nightshade, Silk Specter could be Thunderbolt,
Rorschach could be the Peacemaker, and that kid who works at the New
Frontiersman could be the Question. Oh yeah, and Doctor Manhatten could
be Spider-Man.
--
Jason Fliegel
j-fl...@uchicago.edu
2L, University of Chicago Law School
JamPM
Jason Fliegel wrote in article ...
>Wait! I've got it! Lets map the Watchmen characters to the Charlton
>characters DC purchased in the 1980s. Nite Owl could be Captain Atom,
>Ozymandias could be Nightshade, Silk Specter could be Thunderbolt,
>Rorschach could be the Peacemaker, and that kid who works at the New
>Frontiersman could be the Question. Oh yeah, and Doctor Manhatten could
>be Spider-Man.
LOL. I still say the book is only classic because Gibbons' art carried
Moore's ass.
And that last issue SUCKED. Had anyone but Moore done that lame ass fake
alien ending they would have been laughed at.
Again it was Gibbons' Masterpiece Moore just put the words to the music. And
IMO the words were about as good as any Beatles tune(Which means lame over
hyped crap.).
Yes I just dissed Moore and the Beatles in the same sentence.
Jam
dr.zues don't rhyme baby
damontegration
B. P. Uecker wrote:
>
> JamPM wrote:
>
> >Again it was Gibbons' Masterpiece Moore just put the words to the music. And
> >IMO the words were about as good as any Beatles tune(Which means lame over
> >hyped crap.).
>
> he has done. For your theory to be correct, he would have to be putting
> sub-par effort into nearly every other project, because the ones I have
> seen have not been particularly well drawn. Some of his prior stuff was
> just hackwork, but I don't begrudge Gibbons the opportunity to earn a
> decent living.
>
> I don't disagree with you about the last book's weaknesses, and I have
> pointed out other problems the series has. But I feel certain that
> Moore's writing is motivating this discussion. There have not been many
> comments at all on the art, which was good but nothing mind-blowing.
i don't like gibon's art as a rule
[nor do i like lemur's art]
but the more i read the book, the more i decide
that gibbons was 100% competent, which is rare for an artist.
he really did a stand out job, but just in a style i don't like.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
adam louis stephanides
jbfl...@midway.uchicago.edu (Jason Fliegel) writes:
>How about the seven dwarves? Rorschach can be Grumpy, Doc Manhatten can
>be Doc, the Commedian can be Sleazy, and Dan Drieberg can be Flacid. I
>leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
>Or we could get really crazy and map the heroes to the classical Greek
>pantheon. Or to the seven original members of Morrison's JLA.
A long time ago, somebody posted a hilarious post mapping the heroes to
Pogo characters.
Anyone still have it? It's not on DejaNews.
--Adam
Mikel Midnight
In article <66c660$kop$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, aste...@students.uiuc.edu
(adam louis stephanides) wrote:
What I would really love to see reposted are the actual episodes that
someone wrote starring the Archie characters.
TICK at Fitchburg State College, Fitchburg, MASS. writes:
>Nite Owl:
>Silk Spectre:
>Comedian: Vyvian
>Ozymandias: Mike
>Dr. Manhattan: Neil
>Rorschach: Rik
>
>No, there's no Nite Owl or Silk Spectre. There are no even remotely
>noble characters in _The Young Ones._
Trevor Barrie at PEINet Inc, Charlottetown, PEI Canada writes:
> Rorschach=Captain Hero (Jughead)
> Nite Owl=Pureheart the Powerful (Archie)
> Ozymandias=Veronica ("the richest girl in Riverdale")
> The Comedian=Evilheart (Reggie)
> Silk Spectre=Super Betty
> Dr. Manhattan=Dilton (alias "Giant Science Guy").
this inspired me to try a few more (who would have been the Charlton
Minutemen btw; Blue Beetle II, Mr. Muscles, Nature Boy, and Son of
Vulcan?):
Rorschach=Crime Smasher
Nite Owl=Jet Jackson
Ozymandias=Ibis the Invincible
The Comedian=Bulletman
Silk Spectre=Taia
Dr. Manhattan=Captain Thunder
Capt. Metropolis=Atomic Man, Eagle Eye G.I. Joe
comments: This was my alternate "Earth-T". I was a bit stuck on whether to
cast Captain Thunder and Ibis this way, or the other way around (both are
immensily powerful, and it's the whim of the writer which one would have
developed to omnipotence by the time of the story; both might credibly have
a complex social agenda and the wherewithal to carry to out). I decided it
is at least imaginable that Rorschach and Nite-Owl might hope to punch out
Ibis before he can cast a spell, whereas faced with Captain Thunder the
attempted confrontation is unviable. Taia is of course Ibis's girlfriend,
who shares his origin, rather than Captain Thunder's, so the Silk Spectre
role would have to be reorganised a bit.
Rorschach=Speed Freak
Nite Owl=Wildcat
Ozymandias=Magic Lantern
The Comedian=Prez
Silk Spectre=Trypto the Acid Dog
Dr. Manhattan=Sunshine Superman
Hollis Mason=Jerry Lewis
comments: I will leave it up to fans of Grant Morrison, Neil Gaimin, and
60's DC comics to figure out the reasoning behind this one ... leave it to
say in this version Prez is not secretly Trypto the Acid Dog's father ;)
Rorschach=The Fact
Nite Owl=Dan O'Mara "Mr. 45"
Ozymandias=Wally Sage
The Comedian=Flex Mentallo
Silk Spectre=Romantic Rick
Dr. Manhattan=Atomic Pile
Hollis Mason=The Zipper
The Fact as Rorschach was pretty inevitable. This one was difficult
because of the lack of any obvious Ozymandias figure; hence I had Wally
Sage write himself into "My Greenest Adventure", thus turning it into an
autobiographical comic. This story would represent Wally Sage's leaving
behind of childhood fantasies (hence his symbolic killing of Flex Mentallo)
and his acceptance of his homo-sexuality (hence Romantic Rick's leaving the
Atomic Pile ... to return and finally consummate his relationship with his
original partner, Mr. 45).
Rorschach=The Blimp
Nite Owl=Yellow Feather
Ozymandias=Merryman
The Comedian=AwkwardMan
Silk Spectre=Dumb Bunny
Capt. Metropolis=The Freedom Brigade
Since there were only five heroes here, Dr. Manhattan had to be dropped out
of the storyline. This makes Dumb Bunny a bit more autonomous, and also
means she, the Blimp, and Yellow Feather go to confront Merryman as a team,
which is appropriate, as the three of them are powerful enough together to
be a threat to Merryman.
Rorschach=Captain Swift
Nite Owl=The Patriot & Lady Liberty
Ozymandias=Princess Power
The Comedian=The Bowman
Silk Spectre=Mermaid
Dr. Manhattan=Mr. Might
Hollis Mason=Yellowjacket
On the other hand here is an "Elseworlds" featuring the above's parents,
the Freedom Brigade. I thought at first the Bowman would make a better
Rorscach but then realised one could not kill Captain Speed (whose power
is super-speed flight) by tossing him out a window ... Mr. Might and
Mermaid being romantically involved make them appropriate as Dr. Manhattan
and Silk Spectre.
Rorschach=Batman
Nite Owl=Batwoman
Ozymandias=Superior Man
The Comedian=WereWolf
Dr. Manhattan=Green Lantern
This is a team of alien heroes who appeared in an issue of the Super
Friends comic; again I hope I haven't forgotten any and have recalled the
names correctly. This casting puts a different angle on Rorschach hanging
around Dan Dreiberg's flat, as it essentially involves this scuzzy guy
hanging out and annoying his ex-girlfriend. Silk Spectre's role isn't
necessary as the planet's Green Lantern could be forced back into action by
the Guardians to clean up the mess he left on his home planet.
Rorschach=Jack B. Quick/Captain Speed
Nite Owl=Blue Jay
Ozymandias="Iron Man"
The Comedian=Bowman
Silk Spectre=Silver Sorceress
Dr. Manhattan=Wandjina
Hollis Mason="Goliath"
I hope I haven't forgotten any of the Assemblers here. I was a bit stuck
on how to divide up the Rorschach and Comedian roles, but decided Hawkeye
would be the more likely to become a government stooge, and Quicksilver to
become the renegade mutant. Also, since Hawkeye started out as an Iron Man
villain, it lends a certain neatness to "Iron Man"s killing Bowman.
Rorschach=Iron Fist
Nite Owl=Spider-Girl
Ozymandias=Captain Saxonia
The Comedian=The Hulk
Silk Spectre=Peter Parker
Dr. Manhattan=Dr. Strange
This is an Alan Davis "Caliber" one shot. It was not obvious where to cast
the female Dr. Strange but I thought I might as well keep the "Drs."
together. For Nite Owl/Silk Spectre I decided to snag the Betty Brant
Spider-Girl from an issue of _What If_ in which Peter Parker was her
ally/technological designer, and decided he would be a worthwhile member of
the team (albeit noncombatant member, which is why he was absent during the
Keng fight-scene). The other characters then fall into place naturally
enough.
Rorschach=Life Lass
Nite Owl=Gas Girl
Ozymandias=Evolvo Lad
The Comedian=Beast Boy II
Silk Spectre=Shrinking Violet
Dr. Manhattan=Duplicate Boy
Hollis Mason=Arm Fall Off Boy
This is a Legion spin-off comic; again I hope I have recalled the names and
membership of the Heroes of Lallor correctly. I always thought there
should be a Beast Boy 2; is this is too improbable then consider this a
retcon of his death. When he gets killed, Shrinking Violet (who was on
Lallor at the name time to visit her boyfriend, Duplicate Boy) becomes
grudgingly embroiled in Lallorian internal affairs.
Rorschach=Raven
Nite Owl=Dynamo
Ozymandias=UNDERSEA Agents
The Comedian=Weed
Silk Spectre=Kitten
Dr. Manhattan=NoMan
Hollis Mason=Dynamite
Capt. Metropolis=The Chief
Lightning sadly drops out of this picture, because as Kitten's boyfriend he
would have to be cast as Dr. Manhattan and he is not up to the role. Davey
Jones is not charismatic enough to fill the Ozymandias role on his own,
which is why I cast the whole team (comprising him, Skooby, and Professor
Weston). Weed is not of Comedian caliber, but the most likely to continue
on as a govern-ment assassin. Dynamite is the only other hero to wear the
Dynamo belt, which makes him a good option as Len Brown's drinking buddy.
Rorschach=Batgirl
Nite Owl=Robin
Ozymandias=Freddy Forbes
The Comedian=Commisioner Gordan
Silk Spectre=Vicki Vale
Dr. Manhattan=Superman
This is an extrapolation from two obscure DC Earths which cast Superman as
Bruce Wayne with Batman's supporting cast. Freddy Forbes was a television
actor who looked exactly like the Joker; I have expanded his role so that
he becomes a media mogul.
Rorschach=Tin Man
Nite Owl=TinyMan
Ozymandias=Fatman
The Comedian=Super Green Beret
Silk Spectre=Billy Baxton
Dr. Manhattan=Captain Marvel II
Captain Marvel II was published by MF Enterprises; TinyMan was a spinoff
hero within the Captain's own strip and Billy Baxton was his non-powered
sidekick. Super Green Beret, who is obvious as the Comedian, and Fatman
the Human Flying Saucer, were published by Lightning Comics. Tin Man was a
robot who appeared in the Fatman title. I was originally unsure whether
to cast Fatman at all, as he was a humorous hero created by C.C. Beck, and
then I realised that the very qualities which made him ill-suited to the
series made him perfect as Ozymandias: his jollity and lightness of spirit
makes him just right for the charismatic public figure Adrian Veidt had
become, andFatman was rich as well.
Rorschach=Dr. Spektor
Nite Owl=the Owl
Ozymandias=Jeff Micron & the Microbots
The Comedian=Captain Nice
Silk Spectre=Tiger Girl
Dr. Manhattan=Doctor Solar, Man of the Atom
These are the Gold Key heroes -- I suppose this would make a possible
Valient miniseries? They've already ripped-off Dr. Manhattan in their
treatment of Doctor Solar. Dr. Spektor and the Owl seem an incongruous
pairing, the former being a horror host (albeit an in-continuity one, with
a blood link to both Dagar and Traag) and the latter being a Batman ripoff,
but at least they are both night-time characters. Jeff Micron's adventures
actually took place in the future (after a period of cryogenic sleep) so a
bit of tampering is due here.
Rorschach=Frankenstein
Nite Owl=Dracula
Ozymandias=Brain Boy
The Comedian=Werewolf
Silk Spectre=Fleeta
Dr. Manhattan=Nukla
Minutemen=Martan the Marvel Man, the Owl, Owl Girl, Phantasmo, Supermind's
Son, the Voice
These are the Dell heroes, as opposed to the Charlton. Werewolf seems
more like a Rorschach figure but he was a secret agent, so I had to peg him
as the Comedian. Frankenstein, who had inherited a fortune of sorts, would
probably be better suited as Ozymandias, but I couldn't resist casting
Brain Boy as Å‚the smartest man in the worldË›.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
"She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
(Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
blak...@best.com
__________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
BradW8
>Rorschach=The Blimp
>Nite Owl=Yellow Feather
>Ozymandias=Merryman
>The Comedian=AwkwardMan
>Silk Spectre=Dumb Bunny
>Capt. Metropolis=The Freedom Brigade
>Since there were only five heroes here, Dr. Manhattan had to be dropped outof
the storyline.
Hey, what about Super-Hip?
WinningerR
I think you're all missing the point. The WATCHMEN were clearly intended as
prophetic analogs of the first cast of MTV's REAL WORLD.
Lemming
fsw3yi uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) ghaaowt
>JamPM wrote:
>>Again it was Gibbons' Masterpiece Moore just put the words to the music. And
>>IMO the words were about as good as any Beatles tune(Which means lame over
>>hyped crap.).
>I am not a close follower of Gibbons, but I've seen numerous other books
>he has done. For your theory to be correct, he would have to be putting
>sub-par effort into nearly every other project, because the ones I have
>seen have not been particularly well drawn. Some of his prior stuff was
>just hackwork, but I don't begrudge Gibbons the opportunity to earn a
>decent living.
>I don't disagree with you about the last book's weaknesses, and I have
>pointed out other problems the series has. But I feel certain that
>Moore's writing is motivating this discussion. There have not been many
>comments at all on the art, which was good but nothing mind-blowing.
Ditto. It's comic book art. Which is what the story called for,
true. But it's nothing special.
Watchman was a team effort, I believe. They both sucked at different
times. Except the colorist, who got right into a suckin' groove and
ran with it for the whole series. John Higgins, next time you run
afould of a deadline please don't give the rush pages to your dog.
Hep to your jive,
Lemming
writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
Lemming
fsw3yi winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) ghaaowt
>I think you're all missing the point. The WATCHMEN were clearly intended as
>prophetic analogs of the first cast of MTV's REAL WORLD.
No, don't you remember? Watchmen set the stage for the big
independent boom!
Rorschach Milk
Ozymandias Cheese
Everybody else Everybody else
Ozymandias Hey, Rorschach! Let's set bottles of whiskey on fire
and hurl them at crippled schoolchildren for a better world!
Rorschach Can we drink the whiskey first?
Ozymandias Yes.
And I'm still waiting for those reruns of Ozy and Doc Harriet....
plai...@mindspring.com
> >comments at all on the art, which was good but nothing mind-blowing.
>
> Ditto. It's comic book art. Which is what the story called for,
> true. But it's nothing special.
I must disagree with this. True, the art wasn't great by many of the
standards used to rate comic book art: it wasn't the flashiest, or
most dramatic, or done in the most distinctive style, none of these
things are what makes me look at "Watchmen" and say "Wooooow...".
What does is the brilliance of "Watchmen" as a work of narrative
art, and the skillful use of repeated motiefs and themes.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Andrew Ducker
In article <669r7c$216m$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, JamPM
<ja...@prodgy.net> writes
>And that last issue SUCKED. Had anyone but Moore done that lame ass fake
>alien ending they would have been laughed at.
>IMO the words were about as good as any Beatles tune(Which means lame over
>hyped crap.).
>
>
Which makes you a troll.
Congratulations.
Lemming
ichwib plai...@mindspring.com thuu!
Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
Mars just doesn't work. I can really imagine Dave and Alan sitting
around, burning incense, telling each other how deep they are.
Jason Fliegel
In article <EKvpI...@news2.new-york.net>,
Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
>that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
>was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
>
Yup. He puts the coat hanger alongside the outside of the closet, marks
how deep it is, and does the same thing on the inside. Lo and behold,
it's deeper on the outside than on the inside. From that, Rorschach
surmises that there must be a secret compartment, and the rest is history.
I liked the art, personally. I agree the motifs such as the smiley face
were a bit heavy-handed at times, but I'd be willing to bet that's Moore,
not Gibbons.
What didn't you like about the coloring, by the way?
Oh, and I might as well mention:
Doug Atkinson's The Annotated Watchmen is online at.
http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/jbfliege/watchmen.html
Know it, love it, read it, live it.
Henry Spencer
>>art, and the skillful use of repeated motiefs and themes.
>
>that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
>was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
I thought this was obvious on first reading, never mind second or third.
The closet doesn't look as deep on the inside as it does on the outside,
so he measures it, and there is indeed missing space. So he looks for a
way into a hidden compartment, and finds it.
>And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
>Mars just doesn't work...
One does get the feeling that in certain cases they were just looking
for ways to repeat a given visual theme One More Time.
--
If NT is the answer, you didn't | Henry Spencer
understand the question. -- Peter Blake | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Mikel Midnight
In article <EKvsvL.KwE%spen...@zoo.toronto.edu>, Henry Spencer
<he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:
> In article <EKvpI...@news2.new-york.net>,
> Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
>
> >And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
> >Mars just doesn't work...
>
> One does get the feeling that in certain cases they were just looking
> for ways to repeat a given visual theme One More Time.
That's probably the case, but there *really is* a giant smiley face on Mars.
WinningerR
>>>I must disagree with this. True, the art wasn't great by many of the
standards used to rate comic book art: it wasn't the flashiest, or
most dramatic, or done in the most distinctive style, none of these
things are what makes me look at "Watchmen" and say "Wooooow...".<<<
I'd even disagree with that. Actually, I think WATCHMEN's art was great by many
of the standards used to rate comic book art. Most of the book relied upon
Gibbons' ability to capture subtle facial expressions and emotions. Few of
today's active pencillers could have come close to pulling it off.
Gibbons is one of the few pencillers still active who clearly learned to draw
*from life* as opposed to today's penchant of learning to draw from old comic
books.
Lemming
fsw3yi uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) ghaaowt
>plai...@mindspring.com wrote:
>At least as much Moore's doing as Gibbons'. It is common knowledge that
>Moore pushes his artists and usually gets very good work out of them.
>So it is not surprising that Watchmen is illustrated in a competent
>manner. It is far from brilliant, in my opinion.
The only time I've seen Moore with really good art was Big Numbers,
and Sienkiewicz is not a man who needs pushing. At least not that
kind.
>One of the more noticeable defects is that Gibbons tends to make faces
>excessively plastic and cartoony, which seems out of place in Watchmen's
>realistic setting. Scenes such as the Big Figure's attempted assault on
>Rorschach were really lacking. I think Gibbons has a very poor feel for
>the human form, and many character poses look rather like the awkward
>Ozymandias dolls. Manhatten's smiles make him look like a complete
>idiot when they shouldn't. Etc.
I would point more to the absolute lack of drama through the series.
I've learned to live without composition. But in a field founded by
Kirby and Ditko you'd better have a damn good reason to have dull,
static images.
So we can get way, way too analytical, here are the panels I like from
the series:
Issue 2, cover
Issue 2, Page 6, panel 7
Issue 2, Page 20, panel 7
Issue 7, text pages 2 and 3
Issue 8, Page 2, panel 7
Issue 8, Text page 3
Issue 10, Page 25, panel 1
Issue 11, Page 28, second tier -- the only time in the series that
damn blood splotch was justified
Note those tend to be panels with a limited palette, so Higgings
couldn't bring in that ugly-chocolate brown that he loved so much. I
tend to like the art better if I can see it.
The rest of the series bores and annoys in turns, especially the
coloring. Must the world be in orange, green, and brown? Even the
faces? Any time you lock a story into a grid it loses energy. but the
fistfight between Ozy, Rorscach, and Dreiberg might as well have been
a statue garden. The inkblotch effect for Dr. Manhattan's intrinsic
field subtractions looks even stupider than Dr. Manhattan does
normally (was a side effect of his powers the transformation of his
privates into horseshoes? For god's sake, draw it or don't draw it).
Storytelling....competence, yes. There are only a few crucial moments
where I am confused. Neither are there triumphs, and let's face it,
he wasn't given anything very difficult to draw.
Design? Ho hum. Slap some zepplins on it and call it the future.
Ozy's arboreum wasn't quite up to Moebius standards, was it? The rest
of the series is one-point perspectives of doors and buildings. Cue
the alien creature in Chapter 12 to see the single most boring end of
the world, ever. In lime and avacodo, no less.
>The art doesn't lack a distinctive style--it is quite distinctive I
>think--instead it lacks a fully realized style.
It is very, very solid, sturdy, lifeless superheroics. It has the
same quality of vision I would expect from Peter Parker's automatic
timer.
>To a degree this
>contributes to the book's coldness, so some might actually see this as
>an advantage (or at least an intentional effect).
Which is rationalization. I don't think anyone would have complained
if, say, Mignola had done Watchmen. Too dynamic! Too imaginative!
Too action packed and fun filled! Where is the cold sterility that we
want in literature?
>I think a more
>capable artist could have done much more with the material, and Gibbons
>comes nowhere near the appeal of run-of-the-mill work from Curt Swan or
>Carmine Infantino (not too high a standard if you're going to insist on
>calling him brilliant).
Ditto. Watchmen turned me off to Gibbons forever, so I can't say I'm
very familiar with his other work. Is he always like this?
WinningerR
>>>Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
was doing to that closet? Measuring it?<<<
Yes -- measuring it. That's how he figured out it had a false back. He was
looking for secret compartments.
Andrew Ducker
>Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
>that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
>was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
Yes. he measured the inside. He measured the outside. There was a
difference. therefore, it had a secret compartment. (which he then
opened)
Andrew Ducker
In article <EKwEs...@news2.new-york.net>, Lemming
<lemm...@cybernex.net> writes
>fsw3yi uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) ghaaowt
>
>>plai...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
>>At least as much Moore's doing as Gibbons'. It is common knowledge that
>>Moore pushes his artists and usually gets very good work out of them.
>>So it is not surprising that Watchmen is illustrated in a competent
>>manner. It is far from brilliant, in my opinion.
>
>The only time I've seen Moore with really good art was Big Numbers,
>and Sienkiewicz is not a man who needs pushing. At least not that
>kind.
Moore with good art: Halo Jones, V for Vendetta. Oh, and I loved the
artwork on Dr&Quinch too.
Lemming
fsw3yi Andrew Ducker <and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk> ghaaowt
>In article <EKvpI...@news2.new-york.net>, Lemming
><lemm...@cybernex.net> writes
>>Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
>>that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
>>was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
>Yes. he measured the inside. He measured the outside. There was a
>difference. therefore, it had a secret compartment. (which he then
>opened)
Yes, I noticed the secret compartment. I believe it had some stuff in
it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
storytelling still sucked.
Kevin J. Maroney
lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) wrote:
>And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
>Mars just doesn't work.
It is, however, factual. Gibbons came across the smiley-face crater
when researching the art for issue 9, and Moore incorporated it into
the story.
And there are a *lot* of injury-to-the-smiley-face images in the book
that aren't obvious.
Mark Schlesinger
In article <349080ad...@news.crossover.com>,
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
>lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) wrote:
>
>>And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
>>Mars just doesn't work.
>
>It is, however, factual. Gibbons came across the smiley-face crater
>when researching the art for issue 9, and Moore incorporated it into
>the story.
>
>And there are a *lot* of injury-to-the-smiley-face images in the book
>that aren't obvious.
>
first few chapters.
Mark
--
Mark Schlesinger When criminals in this world appear
schl...@primenet.com And break the laws that they should fear
Typical Boring Sig And frighten all who see and hear
The cry goes up both far and near for Underdog
WinningerR
>Yes, I noticed the secret compartment. I believe it had some stuff in
>it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
>storytelling still sucked.
I dunno. I think you just didn't "get it."
The contents of the closet clearly pertained to the story. Rorschach's looking
for answers as to who might have rubbed out the Comedian; he's looking for
clues as to whom the Comedian may have pissed off recently, what he's been up
to, etc. A logical step is to thoroughly search C's penthouse -- especially the
"secret" areas the cops must have missed.
It was good storytelling because it was a dramatic "show don't tell" method of
revealing to the reader that the dead man was a flashy superhero.
Daydreams
Mikel Midnight wrote:
>
> In article <EKvsvL.KwE%spen...@zoo.toronto.edu>, Henry Spencer
> <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
> > Lemming <lemm...@cybernex.net> wrote:
> >
> > >And the repetition....no, no, no. I'm sorry, but that smiley face on
> >
> > One does get the feeling that in certain cases they were just looking
> > for ways to repeat a given visual theme One More Time.
>
> That's probably the case, but there *really is* a giant smiley face on Mars.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> "She always had a terrific sense of humor" Mikel Midnight
> (Valerie Solonas, as described by her mother)
> blak...@best.com
> __________________________________________________http://www.best.com/~blaklion
Yep..it's true. In fact, the hardcover edition of Watchmen includes a
NASA photograph of it. Much creepier looking than the so-called face.
Shuddering at the thought of aliens wishing us to "have a nice day",
Dave Haddy
Daydreams Comics
http://www.avalon.net/~daydream
Lemming
fsw3yi winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) ghaaowt
>>Yes, I noticed the secret compartment. I believe it had some stuff in
>>it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
>>storytelling still sucked.
>I dunno. I think you just didn't "get it."
>The contents of the closet clearly pertained to the story. Rorschach's looking
>for answers as to who might have rubbed out the Comedian; he's looking for
>clues as to whom the Comedian may have pissed off recently, what he's been up
>to, etc. A logical step is to thoroughly search C's penthouse -- especially the
>"secret" areas the cops must have missed.
Do you think the cops might have missed the SARCASM in the apartment?
Do you think there might have been any there? Let's all get some coat
hangars and check! When we're done we can shove them up our butts and
have a party!
>It was good storytelling because it was a dramatic "show don't tell" method of
>revealing to the reader that the dead man was a flashy superhero.
It was -bad- storytelling because it did not convey the actions
intended or advance the story. Panels 4 through 6 could have been
deleted with no ill effect to the comic whatsoever, other than Moore
would need to come up with another three panels to round out the page.
Maybe he could have interspersed the search with a Burger King ad and
little captions from Rorschach's journal that said:
"I'm searching the apartment MY WAY."
"What a great closet. Plump and tender, just the way I like it."
"Boy, I hope when I look in this secret compartment here there's no
all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, or
a sesame seed bun!"
"Hey, this guy must be the Comedian! Thank you drive through!"
Lemming
fsw3yi uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) ghaaowt
>Lemming wrote:
>>The only time I've seen Moore with really good art was Big Numbers,
>>and Sienkiewicz is not a man who needs pushing. At least not that
>>kind.
>Doesn't Swamp Thing qualify? Other times the art isn't exactly great,
>but the artist seems to do much better than usual under Moore's
>direction.
I am looking at Berni Wrightson's Frankenstein and page ten of
Essential Vertigo Swamp Thing #1. You know the page, the one where
everyone's noses seem to be made entirely of motion lines. At the
moment, the answer to your question is 'no.'
As for the person who suggested V for Vendetta, I must assume that
that was a very funny joke in their native language and I missed
something in the translation.
>>I would point more to the absolute lack of drama through the series.
>>I've learned to live without composition. But in a field founded by
>>Kirby and Ditko you'd better have a damn good reason to have dull,
>>static images.
>There are points of drama. Rorschach's capture is one. But even that
>lacked dynamic art.
Exactly. Watchmen is Moore. Gibbons put it on the page with as
little interference as possible.
>Quite. Or try issue 8, page 16, panel 1 for a scene that is supposed to
>look very dramatic but is instead laughable.
Ooh, I missed that one. Thanks. And it's right in the middle of that
toilet sequence, too! That's a favorite of mine. The pretentious
writing, dull art, and monotone coloring all come together in one
chapter to remind us that yes, this is just a comic book.
Let's trade! -I- like Chapter 9, page 3. Panel 7 is a special
favorite. I'm sure the same inappropriate thoughts have come to all
of us.
Ramhog
> Jason Fliegel wrote in article ...
> >Wait! I've got it! Lets map the Watchmen characters to the Charlton
> >characters DC purchased in the 1980s. Nite Owl could be Captain Atom,
> >Ozymandias could be Nightshade, Silk Specter could be Thunderbolt,
> >Rorschach could be the Peacemaker, and that kid who works at the New
> >Frontiersman could be the Question. Oh yeah, and Doctor Manhatten could
> >be Spider-Man.
>
> LOL. I still say the book is only classic because Gibbons' art carried
> Moore's ass.
>
> And that last issue SUCKED. Had anyone but Moore done that lame ass fake
> alien ending they would have been laughed at.
> Again it was Gibbons' Masterpiece Moore just put the words to the music. And
> IMO the words were about as good as any Beatles tune(Which means lame over
> hyped crap.).
>
>
> Yes I just dissed Moore and the Beatles in the same sentence.
>
> Jam
> dr.zues don't rhyme baby
Kid, you've got MOXIE!
--
Thanks in advance for your help, R.
"What is `a dog with a hairlip', Alex?"
-Robert Loggia on Celebrity Jeopardy
WinningerR
>>>Do you think the cops might have missed the SARCASM in the apartment?
Do you think there might have been any there? Let's all get some coat
hangars and check! When we're done we can shove them up our butts and
have a party!<<<
???
(Is that non-pretentious writing and/or good storytelling?)
>>>It was -bad- storytelling because it did not convey the actions
intended or advance the story. Panels 4 through 6 could have been
deleted with no ill effect to the comic whatsoever, other than Moore
would need to come up with another three panels to round out the page.
Maybe he could have interspersed the search with a Burger King ad and
little captions from Rorschach's journal that said:<<<
There's this little thing called pacing. If you cut those panels, it looks like
Rorschach b-lined right for the secret passage. This way, we see him stumble
around a bit and *discover* the passage. Changes the feel of the scene and
prevents the reader from getting the idea that R. knew exactly where the
passage was located all the time. Basic stuff, really.
damontegration
> >>Funny, I just reread it this morning, and those are the two things
> >>that bothered me the most. Does anyone know what the hell Rorschach
> >>was doing to that closet? Measuring it?
>
> >Yes. he measured the inside. He measured the outside. There was a
> >difference. therefore, it had a secret compartment. (which he then
> >opened)
>
> it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
> storytelling still sucked.
not.
phooey on yoouey.
--
"A lot of people misunderstand talk radio, especially me."
-Rush Limbaugh
IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S DONE!IT'S
DONE! IT'S DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!
damontegration
Lemming wrote:
> >It was good storytelling because it was a dramatic "show don't tell" method of
> >revealing to the reader that the dead man was a flashy superhero.
>
> It was -bad- storytelling because it did not convey the actions
> intended or advance the story. Panels 4 through 6 could have been
> deleted with no ill effect to the comic whatsoever, other than Moore
> would need to come up with another three panels to round out the page.
> Maybe he could have interspersed the search with a Burger King ad and
> little captions from Rorschach's journal that said:
>
> "I'm searching the apartment MY WAY."
> "What a great closet. Plump and tender, just the way I like it."
> "Boy, I hope when I look in this secret compartment here there's no
> all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, or
> a sesame seed bun!"
> "Hey, this guy must be the Comedian! Thank you drive through!"
okay, i'll answer this one seriously...
pacing.
okay, i'll even explain it.....
i was talking with brandon bletcher about what advantages/disadvantages
comics have vis a vis other mediums , and one i forgot to
mention is that comics
are the best at varying pacing.
i think watchmen is a really good example of this;
moore can expand or condense a scene as he
feels fit to 'advance' the story's
tone and mood.
i really dug a lot of the rorschach scenes because
many of the them were silent, and
very slow and methodically paced,
as if to match the character.
Lemming
gj4 lemm...@cybernex.net (Lemming) ippitippit:
>The only time I've seen Moore with really good art was Big Numbers,
>and Sienkiewicz is not a man who needs pushing. At least not that
>kind.
And Brian Bolland. How could I forget Killing Joke?
Back to the argument in progress...
Andrew Ducker
In article <19971209222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, WinningerR
<winni...@aol.com> writes
>>Yes, I noticed the secret compartment. I believe it had some stuff in
>>it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
>>storytelling still sucked.
>
>
>The contents of the closet clearly pertained to the story. Rorschach's looking
>for answers as to who might have rubbed out the Comedian; he's looking for
>clues as to whom the Comedian may have pissed off recently, what he's been up
>to, etc. A logical step is to thoroughly search C's penthouse -- especially the
>"secret" areas the cops must have missed.
Wrong. As he explains the Night-Owl later, he's doing a routine
investigation into the death of the Comedian's cover identity when he
discovers that the dead guy 'is' the comedian.
Andrew Ducker
In article <EKyA7...@news2.new-york.net>, Lemming
<lemm...@cybernex.net> writes
>>>and Sienkiewicz is not a man who needs pushing. At least not that
>>>kind.
>
>>but the artist seems to do much better than usual under Moore's
>>direction.
>
>I am looking at Berni Wrightson's Frankenstein and page ten of
>Essential Vertigo Swamp Thing #1. You know the page, the one where
>everyone's noses seem to be made entirely of motion lines. At the
>moment, the answer to your question is 'no.'
However John Totlebein's artwork was truly wonderful.
>As for the person who suggested V for Vendetta, I must assume that
>that was a very funny joke in their native language and I missed
>something in the translation.
Nope. I'm a fan of that particular style I'm afraid.
I also like Frank Miller's art on Ronin and a whole variety of of other
unusual stuff.
Kevin J. Maroney
schl...@primenet.com (Mark Schlesinger) wrote:
>>And there are a *lot* of injury-to-the-smiley-face images in the book
>>that aren't obvious.
>>
> Don't forget the 5 minutes to midnight clock motif throughout the
>first few chapters.
They're the same emblem.
lordj...@geocities.com
Lemming wrote:
> fsw3yi winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) ghaaowt
>
> >The contents of the closet clearly pertained to the story. Rorschach's looking
> >for answers as to who might have rubbed out the Comedian; he's looking for
> >clues as to whom the Comedian may have pissed off recently, what he's been up
> >to, etc. A logical step is to thoroughly search C's penthouse -- especially the
> >"secret" areas the cops must have missed.
Actualy, this is not quite correct. Rorschach didn't know it was the Comedian that
had been killed UNTIL HE SEARCHED THE CLOSET!
> Do you think the cops might have missed the SARCASM in the apartment?
> Do you think there might have been any there? Let's all get some coat
> hangars and check! When we're done we can shove them up our butts and
> have a party!
Is there a point to this?
> >It was good storytelling because it was a dramatic "show don't tell" method of
> >revealing to the reader that the dead man was a flashy superhero.
>
> It was -bad- storytelling because it did not convey the actions
> intended or advance the story. Panels 4 through 6 could have been
> deleted with no ill effect to the comic whatsoever, other than Moore
> would need to come up with another three panels to round out the page.
It was BRILLIANT storytelling because Moore and Gibbons (mostly Moore, I'd guess, he
writes pretty detailed panel-by-panel scripts) determined the PACE of the story
using those panels. Sorry it was too slow for you. Considering this is the very
beginning of the story, if it was as bad as you say my guess is that a lot of people
would have been turned off right away, not even bothering to buy the first issue
after having flipped this far in the store, much less any others, and the whole
thing would have been cancelled by issue 6.
How many printings has "Watchmen" gone through now? How much critical acclaim has it
won from inside and outside the comics community? Do you really believe you're
smarter than the rest of us or are you just playing devil's advocate, slamming it
precisely because everybody else thinks it's good so you can be hip and cool and
iconoclastic?
--
J. Stephen Bolhafner (Steve)
lordj...@geocities.com
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/9923/
"Now here, you see, it takes all the running
you can do, to keep in the same place. If you
want to get somewhere else, you must run at
least twice as fast as that!"
- Lewis Carroll
adam louis stephanides
blak...@best.com#nospam (Mikel Midnight) writes:
[Lots of good stuff snipped]
Nite-Owl = Charlie Brown
Slik Spectre = Violet
Rorschach = Snoopy
Comedian = Lucy
Dr. Manhattan = Schroeder
Ozymandias = Linus
Dr. Manhattan = John
Ozymandias = Paul
Rorschach = George
Nite-Owl = Rngo
Silk Spectre = Yoko
Comedian = ?
--Adam
Brandon Blatcher
>fsw3yi winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) ghaaowt
>
>>>Yes, I noticed the secret compartment. I believe it had some stuff in
>>>it, maybe even stuff that pertained to the story. But the
>>>storytelling still sucked.
>
>>I dunno. I think you just didn't "get it."
>
>>The contents of the closet clearly pertained to the story. Rorschach's looking
>>for answers as to who might have rubbed out the Comedian; he's looking for
>>clues as to whom the Comedian may have pissed off recently, what he's been up
>>to, etc. A logical step is to thoroughly search C's penthouse --
especially the
>>"secret" areas the cops must have missed.
Actually Rorshach was just doing a routine murder investigation. He had no
idea Blake was the Comedian.
>Do you think the cops might have missed the SARCASM in the apartment?
>Do you think there might have been any there? Let's all get some coat
>hangars and check! When we're done we can shove them up our butts and
>have a party!
Um, uh.....what's your point?
>>It was good storytelling because it was a dramatic "show don't tell" method of
>>revealing to the reader that the dead man was a flashy superhero.
>
>It was -bad- storytelling because it did not convey the actions
>intended or advance the story. Panels 4 through 6 could have been
>deleted with no ill effect to the comic whatsoever, other than Moore
>would need to come up with another three panels to round out the page.
Huh? Rorshachs searches the apartment, figures out there's a space
difference between the outside and inside of the closet, investigates
further, finds out the routine murder case isn't quite so routine, and
begins formulating his "mask killer" idea. It most certainly conveyed the
actions intended and advanced the story.
Had Rorshach not searched the apartment, he never would have found out who
the Comedian was, that he had been killed, and he never would have
contacted the other heros.
>Maybe he could have interspersed the search with a Burger King ad and
>little captions from Rorschach's journal that said:
>"I'm searching the apartment MY WAY."
>"What a great closet. Plump and tender, just the way I like it."
>"Boy, I hope when I look in this secret compartment here there's no
>all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, or
>a sesame seed bun!"
>"Hey, this guy must be the Comedian! Thank you drive through!"
I'm sure this makes sense to somebody
>Hep to your jive,
Pot. kettle. black.
>Lemming
>writing portfolio and odd opinions at:
>http://www2.cybernex.net/~lemming7/
Brandon
explainer of actions
-----------------------------------------------------
delete the spamblock to send email
musta blown a fuse or something, it was so dark in my mind
she came up to me with the sweetest face and she was holding a light of
some kind
and I still think of you as my boyfriend, I don't think this is the end of
the world
maybe you should follow my example and go meet yourself a really nice girl
-Ani DiFranco "Light of Some Kind"
Brandon Blatcher
>fsw3yi uec...@cris.com (B. P. Uecker) ghaaowt
>
>>Lemming wrote:
>
>As for the person who suggested V for Vendetta, I must assume that
>that was a very funny joke in their native language and I missed
>something in the translation.
Okay, what's wrong with V for Vendetta?
>>>I would point more to the absolute lack of drama through the series.
>>>I've learned to live without composition. But in a field founded by
>>>Kirby and Ditko you'd better have a damn good reason to have dull,
>>>static images.
>
>>There are points of drama. Rorschach's capture is one. But even that
>>lacked dynamic art.
True, but did it need it?
>
>Exactly. Watchmen is Moore. Gibbons put it on the page with as
>little interference as possible.
>
>
>>Quite. Or try issue 8, page 16, panel 1 for a scene that is supposed to
>>look very dramatic but is instead laughable.
I don't think its laughable, but I do think it could have been more dramatic
>Ooh, I missed that one. Thanks. And it's right in the middle of that
>toilet sequence, too! That's a favorite of mine. The pretentious
>writing, dull art, and monotone coloring all come together in one
>chapter to remind us that yes, this is just a comic book.
I disagree on the writing and art. The coloring was awful at times. It may
be just a comic book but its a darn good one.
>
>Let's trade! -I- like Chapter 9, page 3. Panel 7 is a special
>favorite. I'm sure the same inappropriate thoughts have come to all
>of us.
Nope. Took me second to realize what you were talking about. I assume
you're looking at the panel from a sexual viewpoint?If so, you must have
really enjoyed the next page which has Laurie spitting something out and
wiping her mouth.
Kids these days
Brandon
teenager