Alan Moore books. What did you like? What didn't you like?

[dupont2005]

Now, if people were saying Watchmen was solid and enjoyable, I wouldn't have any bone to pick with the statement. When they act like it's the greatest thing to ever happen to comics, that's another matter. It's average work. Even in the context of the time, average. Just put on a pedestal by people who up until that point had read nothing but below average stuff.

 

So you're saying if I randomly pick comics off of a rack in 1987, I can expect half of them to be better than Watchmen?

Maybe not, since the Marvel and DC shared universes would have dominated the racks back then as they do today, and the black and white explosion did produce more mediocre than great. But there was definitely plenty of stuff as good as Watchmen readily available for anyone who was willing to read anything outside that one genre from that one publisher. And plenty more that would have been available in the back issue bins, since of course we weren't as spoiled with the availability of reprint material at that time as we are today. There aren't many comics I would say are "must reads for all comic fans" and I don't know if any comic can be considered the greatest thing to ever be put down on bristol, but just remember that Watchmen was running right when Raw ended, when MAUS was being circulated.

 

I didn't find Watchmen to be particularly better than Killing Joke. I think if you remove the heroes from continuity and hand them over to a writer who isn't all flash and drama, and give him a little freedom from events and crossovers and various editorial mandates, and better comics would result. The fact that so many people strictly read comics hindered by obligations to intellectual property owners and study group conducting executives and fiscal year movie tie ins and so on maybe they're looking at things from a different angle. Watchmen was better than a lot of other super hero comics, sure. I just don't buy into this "deconstruction of the genre" nonsense because there was a little character development.

[Prince Namor]

Keith wrote The Maxx.

 

He plotted it. William Messner-Loebs actually scripted it, though that isn't the point. The primary attraction to the Maxx and most anything that Kieth works on is his art. He's an artist with an individual look that follows him from project to project. If you think his WRITING is the strength of his work, well...

 

Barks wrote most (if not all) his Duck stories. They were writer/artists. Pulling double duty. I was speaking about both comics in context of storytelling, not illustration.

 

How do you compare the work of a writer (only) to that of a writer/artist?

 

And what exactly made it mainstream in 1987?

Umm.... the monstrous distribution arm of the second biggest publisher in comics?

 

Being direct market exclusive, featuring no recognizable characters, and being for mature readers only? It was pretty far from mainstream.

The only things making it mainstream was him being on as writer and DC being publisher. The comic could have just as easily been published at any number of companies at the time. And regardless of what it made people think of comics, that has nothing to do with the contents.

 

Sure it does.

 

Oh and you forgot, it had a 2X higher price point than most mainstream comics at $1.50. Making it's success all that much more notable.

 

As far as contents... yes, it does make a difference. There is a difference in what DC Comics will publish and what Fantagraphics or someone self publishing their own comic will allow to be in it.

 

And I didn't say Barks comics were Visionary. I said they were quality enjoyable comics. And they are released today, internationally, to much acclaim. Selling millions of copies. A much larger audience than Watchmen for sure.

 

Barks has certainly stood the test of time.

 

Watchmen has been in print as a trade paperback since it was released 28 years ago and has sold millions of copies.

 

And since we're talking about "'comics in context of storytelling, not illustration", the story was good enough to have a movie made about it.

 

Now, if people were saying Watchmen was solid and enjoyable, I wouldn't have any bone to pick with the statement. When they act like it's the greatest thing to ever happen to comics, that's another matter. It's average work.

 

You haven't READ it. Half of it, isn't reading the whole story.

 

Even in the context of the time, average. Just put on a pedestal by people who up until that point had read nothing but below average stuff.

 

And at this point, that's what you choose to believe.

 

You see Alan Moore as a Spawn/Youngblood writer and thus you want to reject him because of that, when in reality his best work had absolutely nothing to do with any of his Image work. You've read one issue of his greatest comic run (Swamp Thing), only half of his greatest collected graphic novel (Watchmen) and NONE of his most ground breaking series (Miracleman), yet talk as if you understand his work better than those who've read it.

 

You've made your decision based upon preconceived notions rather than first hand experience, because that's the way you'd prefer to see it. Good luck with that.

[SquareChaos]

You're preaching to the choir with regards to IP restricting character development, but I think it has little to do with Watchmen. I don't think it walks on water, it does have flaws, but I do think it is much, much better than average, at at times it achieved greatness.

 

Did you read Watchmen?

[dupont2005]

Keith wrote The Maxx.

 

He plotted it. William Messner-Loebs actually scripted it, though that isn't the point. The primary attraction to the Maxx and most anything that Kieth works on is his art. He's an artist with an individual look that follows him from project to project. If you think his WRITING is the strength of his work, well...

 

Barks wrote most (if not all) his Duck stories. They were writer/artists. Pulling double duty. I was speaking about both comics in context of storytelling, not illustration.

 

How do you compare the work of a writer (only) to that of a writer/artist?

 

And what exactly made it mainstream in 1987?

Umm.... the monstrous distribution arm of the second biggest publisher in comics?

 

Being direct market exclusive, featuring no recognizable characters, and being for mature readers only? It was pretty far from mainstream.

The only things making it mainstream was him being on as writer and DC being publisher. The comic could have just as easily been published at any number of companies at the time. And regardless of what it made people think of comics, that has nothing to do with the contents.

 

Sure it does.

 

Oh and you forgot, it had a 2X higher price point than most mainstream comics at $1.50. Making it's success all that much more notable.

 

As far as contents... yes, it does make a difference. There is a difference in what DC Comics will publish and what Fantagraphics or someone self publishing their own comic will allow to be in it.

 

And I didn't say Barks comics were Visionary. I said they were quality enjoyable comics. And they are released today, internationally, to much acclaim. Selling millions of copies. A much larger audience than Watchmen for sure.

 

Barks has certainly stood the test of time.

 

Watchmen has been in print as a trade paperback since it was released 28 years ago and has sold millions of copies.

 

And since we're talking about "'comics in context of storytelling, not illustration", the story was good enough to have a movie made about it.

 

Now, if people were saying Watchmen was solid and enjoyable, I wouldn't have any bone to pick with the statement. When they act like it's the greatest thing to ever happen to comics, that's another matter. It's average work.

 

You haven't READ it. Half of it, isn't reading the whole story.

 

Even in the context of the time, average. Just put on a pedestal by people who up until that point had read nothing but below average stuff.

 

And at this point, that's what you choose to believe.

 

You see Alan Moore as a Spawn/Youngblood writer and thus you want to reject him because of that, when in reality his best work had absolutely nothing to do with any of his Image work. You've read one issue of his greatest comic run (Swamp Thing), only half of his greatest collected graphic novel (Watchmen) and NONE of his most ground breaking series (Miracleman), yet talk as if you understand his work better than those who've read it.

 

You've made your decision based upon preconceived notions rather than first hand experience, because that's the way you'd prefer to see it. Good luck with that.

Maximum Carnage was a good enough story to have a movie made out of it.

 

My point with the Maxx was it was my first exposure to slice of life alternative comic drama. It wasn't the first slice of life alternative comic. Just the first time I had seen that sort of comic, and it impacted me. The difference between me and people who think Watchmen is the greatest thing since sliced bread is I can tell why The Maxx impacted me, and how it may not have impacted others who had already been exposed to the genre that The Maxx eventually evolved into. There are plenty of earlier examples. At least a handful of better earlier examples. But The Maxx was my first example.

 

If Watchmen is the first good comic you ever read then sure it's impacted you. It's not the first good comic, the best comic, or even the best comic of the 80's though.

 

I don't want to reject Moore. His work is all found within a genre I find to be drek. I like his comments on the industry, so I went against my better judgement and read some of his offerings from within the genre to see if they'd win me over like I've been promised they would by countless comic fans both online and off.

 

It didn't.

 

But because I didn't buy into the hype there must be some personal grudge I have against Moore, there must be some reason, beyond the comic simply not impressing me, that I don't think it's good. I've actually been accused of not understanding the intricacy of his masterly woven plot in the past when I said I didn't like it.

 

If you have to read a comic to the final page of the 12th issue for it to be good, it isn't good. The first ten pages should hook you, and it should definitely entertain you throughout the two hundred pages that follow. It didn't. Are you really still trying to tell me that Watchmen goes from mundane chore to read to best comic in the history of the universe somewhere between issues 7-12? I seriously doubt it. But that's another thing exclusive to the superhero crowd. Reading a dozen issues of a comic you don't like is normal. If I don't like the first issue, I don't read the second. I wouldn't have read as deep into Watchmen as I had if I were buying the floppies one at a time a month apart.

 

How do I compare a writer to a writer/artist?

By simply comparing the story and ignoring the illustration. Where in this thread have I commented on illustration? You're the one with the "You can't compare him to Moore! He draws!" argument. I don't think it's valid.

[dupont2005]

Did you read Watchmen?

Half of it.

[SquareChaos]

Did you read Watchmen?

Half of it.

 

I think you should read it all if you're willing to speak so directly about what it is and is not.

 

Also, I would still like to know what books were on the racks around that time that enable you to call it average.

[dupont2005]

Did you read Watchmen?

Half of it.

 

I think you should read it all if you're willing to speak so directly about what it is and is not.

 

Also, I would still like to know what books were on the racks around that time that enable you to call it average.

Love And Rockets, Raw Magazine (featuring MAUS), Cerebus, Usagi Yojimbo, American Splendor, Epic Illustrated, Heavy Metal (Corben, Manara, Moebius), The Carl Barks Library, Omaha The Cat Dancer, Concrete, Dalgoda, Dark Horse Presents, Chester Gould Tracy reprints at Blackthorne, Gladstone was reprinting Barks duck stories at the time, the first Elfquest series was being reprinted at Epic, the second Elfquest series had started, Akira was being printed for the first time stateside at Epic. That's just a few things from memory and a few more I was reminded of going through the Grand Comics Database. I only included things I actually read and things contemporary to Watchmen. Remember though, there would have been back issue bins where $3 could fetch you any number of comics from the past couple decades at a comic shop back then as well.

 

Now, the earliest Usagi stories found in the various funny animal anthologies were rough, but by the time Sakai got his solo series it was fleshed out, and a fantastic comic. Any anthology is going to have some high points and low points, so I skipped some, like Anything Goes, but Epic was a good mag, Heavy Metal were still in their golden years, and Dark Horse Presents had so much fantastic stuff premier in it that it was worth the bad to be there for the good. A few of these things I'll say are flat out better than Watchmen. Others I won't say are better, but will say are as good, and in a genre I find more enjoyable. And this list is by no means complete. And on top of all that, there HAS to be countless great comics from that period that I haven't read.

 

You don't think a hundred page sample is enough to know if a comic is the best thing sequential art had ever and will ever see or not? I can eat half a hamburger and know if I'm going to like the other half. It's not as if the creative team switches halfway through or anything.

[Comicshrine]

When someone asks me "I've never rad a comic wat shall I try?" I always say read Killing Joke first, that will remove any preconceptions of comics you ever had. Then Watchmen IS the greatest comic of all time. So much detail in every panel, so well plotted and I pick up something g new very time I read it, like, I thinks it's issue #5 symmetry, where the panel layouts are the same from the first page and last page, meeting in the middle. Honestly check it out!

[SquareChaos]

Did you read Watchmen?

Half of it.

 

I think you should read it all if you're willing to speak so directly about what it is and is not.

 

Also, I would still like to know what books were on the racks around that time that enable you to call it average.

Love And Rockets, Raw Magazine (featuring MAUS), Cerebus, Usagi Yojimbo, American Splendor, Epic Illustrated, Heavy Metal (Corben, Manara, Moebius), The Carl Barks Library, Omaha The Cat Dancer, Concrete, Dalgoda, Dark Horse Presents, Chester Gould Tracy reprints at Blackthorne, Gladstone was reprinting Barks duck stories at the time, the first Elfquest series was being reprinted at Epic, the second Elfquest series had started, Akira was being printed for the first time stateside at Epic. That's just a few things from memory and a few more I was reminded of going through the Grand Comics Database. I only included things I actually read and things contemporary to Watchmen. Remember though, there would have been back issue bins where $3 could fetch you any number of comics from the past couple decades at a comic shop back then as well.

 

Now, the earliest Usagi stories found in the various funny animal anthologies were rough, but by the time Sakai got his solo series it was fleshed out, and a fantastic comic. Any anthology is going to have some high points and low points, so I skipped some, like Anything Goes, but Epic was a good mag, Heavy Metal were still in their golden years, and Dark Horse Presents had so much fantastic stuff premier in it that it was worth the bad to be there for the good. A few of these things I'll say are flat out better than Watchmen. Others I won't say are better, but will say are as good, and in a genre I find more enjoyable. And this list is by no means complete. And on top of all that, there HAS to be countless great comics from that period that I haven't read.

 

You don't think a hundred page sample is enough to know if a comic is the best thing sequential art had ever and will ever see or not? I can eat half a hamburger and know if I'm going to like the other half. It's not as if the creative team switches halfway through or anything.

 

I never said it was the best thing sequential art ever produced - that may have been someone else you were going back and forth with as there were a few of us along the way.

 

I said that Watchmen isn't average - you state it is average. To some point, all of this is subjective, but from a number of conversations I've had with you in the past, I think you simply have an incredibly strong indie bias. There is nothing really wrong with that, it just makes it impossible to have a real conversation on this topic since you're so sure in your beliefs already.

 

I guess the last suggestion I'd make... try reading the entire series. It isn't exactly a huge time investment. Try to pay attention to how tightly executed it is... often, that is something one can't fully judge until the end has been reached. Finally - and you shouldn't have a problem here! - don't go into it with such ridiculous expectations, just enjoy it for what it is. If you still feel it is 'average', or worse, so be it, but at least then you'll have given it a shot with an open mind.

 

As an aside, I've read a lot of the items you list that you claim makes it, at best, an average book - while giving much of those works props (Usagi, American Splendor, Concrete, etc) I must still respectfully disagree with your sentiment.

 

[james1miller]

I read The Courtyard today and it was pretty good. Then it goes into Neonomicon and that's pretty good so far.

[jools&jim]

 

RE: Watchmen. I bought it as it was being released back when I was in college.

 

Reading it in serial format was...challenging: it was sometimes hard to follow without going back and reading the previous issue again. I also seem to remember that a few of the monthly installments were delayed, which didn't help.

 

With the glaring exception of that hokey ending, I generally remember enjoying it.

 

But even back then, the accolades were a bit much to take: the way the story was told was extremely innovative, as was the (then novel) deconstruction of super-heroics in general. But the actual story itself? Not so much.

 

I re-read it in TPB format a few years ago, and found that it had aged badly...or maybe I had. Either is possible.

 

[SquareChaos]

I also reread it a few years ago - there are areas I find spotty (I may be one of the few that felt the movie's ending was stronger than the graphic novels), but as a whole I find it exceptionally well executed. I think I said so earlier, but the 4th issue is one of my all time favorite single issues.

[Ken Aldred]

The ending lets it down. It wouldn't have worked, nor would Veidt's strategy in the film version.

[SquareChaos]

The ending lets it down. It wouldn't have worked, nor would Veidt's strategy in the film version.

 

The 'common enemy' concept? It works every day, but not typically on a worldwide scale.

[Ken Aldred]

The ending lets it down. It wouldn't have worked, nor would Veidt's strategy in the film version.

 

The 'common enemy' concept? It works every day, but not typically on a worldwide scale.

 

Not on a worldwide scale, and it would require periodic reinforcement to keep everyone herded together.

[SquareChaos]

As I've gotten older, I've found the concept of the ending more and more believable, but I'm not entirely sure what that says about me. I don't think it is cynical, I think I've just seen how easily people can be convinced of something that they fear.

[dupont2005]

Did you read Watchmen?

Half of it.

 

I think you should read it all if you're willing to speak so directly about what it is and is not.

 

Also, I would still like to know what books were on the racks around that time that enable you to call it average.

Love And Rockets, Raw Magazine (featuring MAUS), Cerebus, Usagi Yojimbo, American Splendor, Epic Illustrated, Heavy Metal (Corben, Manara, Moebius), The Carl Barks Library, Omaha The Cat Dancer, Concrete, Dalgoda, Dark Horse Presents, Chester Gould Tracy reprints at Blackthorne, Gladstone was reprinting Barks duck stories at the time, the first Elfquest series was being reprinted at Epic, the second Elfquest series had started, Akira was being printed for the first time stateside at Epic. That's just a few things from memory and a few more I was reminded of going through the Grand Comics Database. I only included things I actually read and things contemporary to Watchmen. Remember though, there would have been back issue bins where $3 could fetch you any number of comics from the past couple decades at a comic shop back then as well.

 

Now, the earliest Usagi stories found in the various funny animal anthologies were rough, but by the time Sakai got his solo series it was fleshed out, and a fantastic comic. Any anthology is going to have some high points and low points, so I skipped some, like Anything Goes, but Epic was a good mag, Heavy Metal were still in their golden years, and Dark Horse Presents had so much fantastic stuff premier in it that it was worth the bad to be there for the good. A few of these things I'll say are flat out better than Watchmen. Others I won't say are better, but will say are as good, and in a genre I find more enjoyable. And this list is by no means complete. And on top of all that, there HAS to be countless great comics from that period that I haven't read.

 

You don't think a hundred page sample is enough to know if a comic is the best thing sequential art had ever and will ever see or not? I can eat half a hamburger and know if I'm going to like the other half. It's not as if the creative team switches halfway through or anything.

 

I never said it was the best thing sequential art ever produced - that may have been someone else you were going back and forth with as there were a few of us along the way.

 

I said that Watchmen isn't average - you state it is average. To some point, all of this is subjective, but from a number of conversations I've had with you in the past, I think you simply have an incredibly strong indie bias. There is nothing really wrong with that, it just makes it impossible to have a real conversation on this topic since you're so sure in your beliefs already.

 

I guess the last suggestion I'd make... try reading the entire series. It isn't exactly a huge time investment. Try to pay attention to how tightly executed it is... often, that is something one can't fully judge until the end has been reached. Finally - and you shouldn't have a problem here! - don't go into it with such ridiculous expectations, just enjoy it for what it is. If you still feel it is 'average', or worse, so be it, but at least then you'll have given it a shot with an open mind.

 

As an aside, I've read a lot of the items you list that you claim makes it, at best, an average book - while giving much of those works props (Usagi, American Splendor, Concrete, etc) I must still respectfully disagree with your sentiment.

As far as Watchmen being the greatest comic ever made, No, it wasn't you that said it, but it has been said in this thread. It's also what had been said to me by MANY people before I eventually gave in and tried it. So it's pretty impossible to go into that without some expectations. I am not a fan of the genre, you're right. I was promised a mind blowing experience that no comic fan should miss. That's not what I found. If they had simply said it's a good superhero story that stands on it's own I'd still have said thanks but no thanks. I was instead promised it was THE superhero comic that I couldn't help but to love. I don't need to read the final half to know that isn't going to be the case.

 

This isn't the only one that has underwhelmed me either. Just the only one that was promised to be the end-all of comics.

[Prince Namor]

RE: Watchmen.

With the glaring exception of that hokey ending....

 

 

What did you think was hokey about it?

 

 

 

 

[Prince Namor]

As I've gotten older, I've found the concept of the ending more and more believable, but I'm not entirely sure what that says about me. I don't think it is cynical, I think I've just seen how easily people can be convinced of something that they fear.

 

I always took it as a comment on politicians - people with no real powers dressing up as if they do, controlling things behind the scenes and deciding what's best for everyone, while staging events that are used to manipulate the opinion of the masses.

 

Who oversees those making the decisions that decide the fate of the world?

[Bird]

Okay, no one will give Wildstorm Special featuring Majestic any love but me. Fine.

 

Try try again.

 

Tomorrow Stories with Greyshirt. Now Greyshirt and Splash Brannigan were not installments that kept me running to the comic shop, that was Jack B. Quick with art by Kevin Nowlan. Brilliant stuff - funny, smart, clever, witty, and just plain punny at times. But the Greyshirt story that can be read front to back, back to front, top to bottom, bottom to top - basically anyway a reader could approach the work - and still tell a complete and coherent story. That is a fun fun read and you get very different reactions to the material based on the way you choose to read it. That is the type of thing Alan Moore can do on a regular basis - take the basic core elements of a comic book and approach them in a new way that lets the reader experience the comic in a new way.

 

Wow. that really came off as hard core Moore loving. But the guy is one of the best we have in my opinion, and it is a shame he won't do more comics work.

 

Haven't read From Hell, but may give Jerusalem a try when he finishes it.