I can not offer any comment on whether or not Alan Moore’s Watchmen
I can, however, say that as novels, graphic or otherwise, go, it sucks.
Watchmen is a thinly drawn (hah!) paranoid agenda-driven short story, made novel-length by the inclusion of pretty pictures, which, by the way, take the place of the descriptive prose that makes the written novel an art form. There is no character development. The plot is linear, with characters’ stories provided for background, but they neither show changes in any of the characters nor are they remotely interesting as subplots. The story rests on a base of anachronisms, both historical ones (the Soviet Union was already in the throes of an irreversible economic collapse when the book was written) and political ones (nuclear power is mentioned in passing as a major environmental threat). And the whole thing was just beyond boring.
Even when the book got a little interesting in the final two chapters, Moore screwed up his writing. You’re telling me that of the four people in the room in Antarctica in the final chapter, not one of them realizes that the artificial peace is strictly temporary, or at least argues that it is? The smartest man in the world thinks war is over, forever, unless the event that triggers the peace is repeated at unpredictable intervals? If he’s the smartest man in the world, we really are a race of orangutans with safety razors.
I always felt that the TIME book critics added Watchmen to their top 100 novels list as a token entry, as if they felt the need to put one graphic novel on there to head off criticism that they had ignored this burgeoning genre, but reading the book confirmed my suspicions. And really, this was a more deserving entry than Cry the Beloved Country
There is simply no comparison to the thematic and textural depth provided by a traditional novel and the superficial treatment inherent in the graphic form. And, since everyone seems to think that Watchmen is the genre’s peak, I think I can safely ignore graphic novels from here on out.
Keith – while I don’t think that Watchmen is the defining graphic novel (that would go to Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns, in my opinion), it did do a lot to change how comics were intended – changing themes, how they’re written, and the fact that true darkness was finally shown in this format.
I don’t know if you have a bias against graphic novels or comics in general, but some of the best writing currently being done is happening in comics. I realize that you mostly focus on older writings, and that’s okay, but for a true look at contemporary fiction, it cannot fail to include some of the great work being done in comics.
I suspect you’re not a superhero fan, which probably hurts your appreciation of the genre, but there are some great books being written that don’t go there. I would highly recommend you at least check out some of these books, which are collected in trade paperback format: Ex Machina, Y: The Last Man & Fables. None are true superhero books, but are all excellent examples of what comics can do when they’re done really well.
Don’t ignore graphic novels until you’ve read Art Spiegelman’s “Maus.” You can ignore the Time 100 if you want, but don’t ignore the Pulitzers.
And to dismiss an art form based on one example? I don’t like the Mona Lisa, does that mean I can ignore all portraits?
Adam:
Please re-read the first two lines of the post I think he made it pretty clear that he was not professing to be an expert on the genre, much less familiar with anything in the genre beyond this one work.
Or perhaps, you should wait until Keith writes this article with pictures, that way you can skip over trying to figure out the meaning of all the nasty words.
I hate graphic novels as a rule, but “Maus” was definitely an exception.
I think Dan’s parting shot sums up the explosive growth of the graphic ‘literature’ genre, and I believe it goes back to the “Classics Illustrated” comic books of my youth.
These readers don’t want to work, or really think, to garner enjoyment. None of this stuff can touch “The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay”, and none of these readers will touch “The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay”.
Or maybe we’re anachronisms.
I think it’s a little unfair to suggest that people who enjoy graphic novels “don’t want to work, or really think, to garner enjoyment.” I think graphic novels are artwork first, story second. If the creators just wanted to tell a story, they’d write an actual novel. Judging the merits of a graphic novel solely on its story is like judging the merits of a movie without analyzing its use of cinematic techniques.
Is carelessness a failing of reading comprehension? What’s the difference between an a and an e? In this case it’s the difference between the graphic novel Watchmen by Alan Moore, which I have never seen or touched, and the Watchman, a mediocre mystery novel by Ian Rankin. Evidently when Moore set out to create Watchmen he envisioned a “superhero Moby-Dick” and cited Burrough’s use of “repeated symbols that would become laden with meaning” as inspiration. Knowledge of that would have kept me away from this work and now your review cements it: thank you. Personally I would be leery of reading anything by someone who models his look on ZZ Top, but heck, I can’t even keep the letters a and e separate.
I am fine with the exclusion of Brave New World which I think was well surpassed by 1984, not that the two are mutually exclusive (interesting note, though maybe only to me, Huxley was a prep school instructor of Orwell’s). When I was younger I thought Cry, The Beloved Country was a masterpiece, but then my wife read it and didn’t care for it and I don’t have the heart to read it again. Yet there are a dozen titles on the Time list that I have read and still believe Cry… must be better than. The list does include the work of an actual African, Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, it just isn’t worth reading unless you’re desperately bored.
Thank you for the recommendation on The Age of Innocence. I don’t know when if ever I would have gotten around to it, but I am in the middle of it now and enjoying it a great deal.
well i dont have close to the literary background as keith but i know enough to say the watchmen it definitely doesnt suck. i think keith’s opinion comes from two problems i see in his review. 1) he is comparing a graphic novel to an actual novel. part of this is Time Magazine’s fault but you dont say a CD you just listened to sucks because you i just saw a bunch of movies that were way better. different media need completely different approaches to be appreciated 2) he nit picks facts in a work of fantasy. this is something gregg easterbrook is famous for and it is annoying as hell. historical inaccuracies? get over it.
so, yeah, on a list of the top 100 novels i can see saying this has no business being on there, even besides the fact that it isnt a novel and really doesnt have any business being on the list. but how can you say it sucked? i guess if you don’t like drama’s set in space youre not going to like battlestar galactica but that doesnt mean the show sucks.
this is not to mention that keith blatently reveals his biased before he ever picked up the book, as he has always ‘felt’ ie ‘decided’ that it was a token inclusion, ie sucks and is beneath me.
im sorry kieth’s expecations were what they were but i bet if he re read it with the mindset of something like, ‘hey, im going to go check out that new X-men movie’ rather than, ‘lets see how this so called graphic novel medium holds up to the great works of western literature’ then he would be pleasantly suprised.
or, instead of going back to the watchmen, read one of neil gaiman’s novels (real novels, like American Gods), and then read the Sandman collections 1-10.
of course i am wildly biased myself.
As far as nitpicking facts in a work of fantasy, I took Watchmen to be something of a work of protest or at least of political comment, and in that regard, I expect the author to get critical facts straight. The threat of nuclear war with the Soviets was already fading by the time the book was written and published, so writing a book around it with commentary as part of the agenda seems silly to me.
Like Mr. Dynamo, I like graphic novels, quite a bit. I like reading them because I can usually bang through one in a few hours, and they provide a great break from my law school casebooks and some of the other leisure reading I do in my (limited) spare time. For one, I LOVE Ex Machina.
Here’s the thing though, you need to suspend disbelief with graphic novels, the same way you do when you watch a movie like the Matrix, or even Rocky.
Here’s the question I would like to see some of you discuss. Did Moore really err in regard to some critical facts? Sure, they may not be historically accurate, however perhaps he meant to craft his story around something that was familiar, yet tweak it a bit for the purposes of his story. So does that make these the correct facts for Watchmen? Compare this to the movie American Gangster, which was “based” on actual events. Often, if you follow events exactly as they happen, a work will get way too long and experience lulls. I am assuming that the main goal of a movie/graphic novel is to entertain with any kind of social commentary/agenda as a secondary goal.
Keith,
I don’t see the sense in dismissing an entire genre of literature based on one reading of a single example from the genre. Whatever your definition of “literature,” to marginalize the work of dedicated men and women who create graphic novels is boring at best and elitist at worst.
I teach high school English. I specialize in teaching reading and literacy development at the secondary level. I also managed bookstores, both at a large chain (Borders) and for two different well-respected and successful independents. This attitude toward any kind of literature does far more damage than it does good and it’s frustrating to see it coming from someone with whom I share a great deal of common “favorite reads” ground.
Perhaps you’ve looked at this genre, and the larger issue, from this perspective. Perhaps not. But my take is that the millions who have learned to love reading through comic books and graphic novels deserve to have their experience with the genre appreciated and validated, just like anyone who fell in love with books by reading Jane Austen or John Grisham or Sherman Alexie or Nicholas Sparks.
Keith, great job on the site as well as on ESPN. your chats are the best. b/c youre always suggesting great reads to your audience, i feel it only just that we do the same. i second, third, fourth (etc) the suggestions for MAUS (both I and II) by spiegelman (sp?). it may change your mind about graphic novels.
maus i and ii i read a few times each, which i never do. the only other novel i read more than twice was catcher in the rye, and that was only because i thought i missed something the first couple times because everyone loves it, but i detested it each and every time.
american splendor is another recommendation. (movie was very cleverly done as well)
First, as to the facts, Richard Nixon is President in the world of “Watchmen”. It is clearly meant to be a world similar to but not the same as our own. I have always taken it as a comment on the inherent needs to create war, not a comment on a specific conflict (in this case the Cold War). That said, I tend to agree, though not nearly as harshly, with Keith’s criticisms in regards to the comic (and the graphic novel form) as a whole.
The problem with Keith, or anyone unfamiliar with comics, reading “Watchmen” is that it is first and foremost a deconstruction of the superhero stories that have made up 90% plus of the art form. If you don’t read or enjoy superhero stories than you are simply not the audience for “Watchmen”, which is why it’s inclusion on the Time 100 does a disservice to it and the potential reader. “Watchmen” holds a hallowed place among comic geeks because it was one of the first comics to assume that the target audience wasn’t a twelve-year-old boy. This doesn’t mean that it is a great piece of literature, though I understand that it is often held up this way by people who (rightfully) feel slighted by the majority of people that has no interest in their hobby.
That said, just because “Watchmen” was first doesn’t mean it was, or is, the best. Comics for an adult, literate audience have been produced for two decades now, and I would argue that Neil Gaiman’s “Sandman” is among the best pieces of fiction ever written. But then, everybody is going to have their own “generally players that are called gritty actually suck but Darin Erstad is actually pretty good” type argument. I don’t expect Keith to ever read “Sandman”, or “Maus”, or “Preacher”, or anything else with those annoying pictures. I assume Keith has similar feelings towards film, which also uses images to evoke emotional nuance that has to be described in the novel. If he doesn’t I would be interested in if/why he doesn’t consider film to be an inferior art form, if it’s an art form at all.
matt rapisardo raises a great point. watchmen should be considered the pinnacle of the superhero comic, not necessarily of the entire body of work of ‘sequential art’. its to the heroes and tights genre what the good the bad and the ugly is to westerns. watchmen is also more exemplary of you place it in context of comics’ history. maybe i’m extra defensive because i grew up on a lifetime of fanboy age marvel comics, then got around to reading the watchmen in college and adored ever page of it.
also i’ve heard this dismissive argument from prejudice critics regarding the entire medium so many times before. i was forced to read shakespeare’s julius ceaser in middle school and it was boring as hell. should i have then written off all of shakespeare’s plays as a result? or all plays period? maybe that example is stretching it but i feel the point remains.
Ken,
I disagree somewhat. None of us are middle schoolers attempting to grasp the complexities of Shakespeare. And I would go so far as to say that if you were in your 30’s and read Othello and absolutely hated it, then I would not recommend reading any of Shakespeare’s other works.
There is simply too much other great literature out there to spend valuable reading time sifting through a genre when you didnt enjoy its most artful representation.
I also don’t think much merit should be given to either A) the amount of effort that went into creating the art (much artistic effort is wasted on things that flat out suck) or B) the relative number of people that enjoy a particular genre (L. Ron Hubbard tops Times readers’ 100 list) or C) any wonderful societal externalities the artwork may have spurred (the fact that thousands of people may have developed a love of reading through comic books does not mean that I am not going to hate nearly every second of my time spent reading them).
Paul, what you are doing is taking your opinion and creating a value judgment. That is fine in a vacuum, but there are struggling readers out there who are very aware and sensitive to the attitudes of those around them. Enjoying something that you think “flat out sucks” is no less valid for your opinion.
It is the arrogance of lists such as TIME’s, the New York Review of Books, the National Book Award Committee and other similar people/organizations that results in horribly inappropriate reading lists for the children and young adults I work with.
Not everyone is at the same place on the literary ladder. Reading, or more accurately, failure in reading, is connected with self-esteem in a way I never understood before I began studying, training and working in this profession. When a child hears that the books s/he loves “flat out suck” it is a blow to the self-esteem that often discourages the further pursuit of reading as a worthwhile endeavor.
In short, what I ask is that everyone remember that the first step toward the classics is precarious and NEVER starts with the classics. The language we use is powerful and in my line of work it is paramount that I remember that my opinion about any given book, author or genre is not fact. It is merely where I am as a reader.
Like this: James Patterson doesn’t flat out suck. He just doesn’t work for me.
i hear you, paul, i dont mean to suggest that people should either enjoy comics or theyre wrong, my gripes were with the comparisons of comics to novels (they are two different media) and the prejudice keith brought with him to the the reading (not a grave prejudice but an obvious one in my opinion nonetheless.
my point that i was making by concurring with matt r. about (and failed to do a decent job of) was that watchmen is one kind of comic book (graphic novel, whatever). specifically it took the super hero genre which completely dominated the commercial output of the medium, and completely transformed it. but if you want better art (the drawing parts), or characters, or more a more refined politcal commentary, there is a lot more out there to try out. it would be like if i looked at the mona lisa and said, so, this is the best painting in the world? well, im done going to museums!
i realize that comics are never going to be the preferred form of art for everyone, but this type off review is not productive for anyone. but like i said, partly this is time magzine’s fault.
and again, i also realize i am completely biased here.
I believe I addressed C) sufficiently, but to address these directly…
“A) the amount of effort that went into creating the art (much artistic effort is wasted on things that flat out suck)”
The amount of effort does, however, warrant something more than a cursory glance and wholesale dismissal. If you don’t have anything nice to say, why risk doing damage with uninformed words?
“B) the relative number of people that enjoy a particular genre (L. Ron Hubbard tops Times readers’ 100 list)”
This is a strawman. One author on a list does not invalidate any of the others. Besides, this is another value judgment. I know a very successful British Lit student who fell in love with reading via science fiction, including Hubbard’s Battlefield Earth. That was his doorway to literature. So it didn’t suck for him. In fact, it was probably one of his reading landmarks. So what value is there for anyone in saying it sucks?
Inclusive is what I’m shooting for here. Exclusive has been done to death. It bores me.
Todd,
“Enjoying something that you think “flat out sucks” is no less valid for your opinion.”
I absolutely agree with this statement.
I agree with you in the larger scheme of things, but I am operating at a more personal level. All of the societal benefits of all art forms of course have merit, but when approaching the issue from a critical perspective my two primary criteria would be 1) Did I enjoy it and find it entertaining and artful 2) Would I recommend it to you for either its entertainment value or its artistry.
I guess I simply don’t agree that a critic has additional responsibility, but that’s OK.
I think we differ in that if a fan of the written word asked for my informed opition, I wouldn’t recommend a book on the basis of A,B, or C to this particular audience. Rest assured, I would not be taking the same position with a group of adolescents.
Rightly or wrongly, I have made a decision about a particular genre. But ultimately we are talking about my opinion. My saying something sucks in no way invalidates any of the value others may have derived from it. It’s just my opinion. My only duty is to be loyal to my opinion.
I apologize for the disorganized reply.
The real issue here is whether Keith’s views on Watchmen should be taken into account as we weigh the credibility of his top 100 prospects list. I mean, if he’s so wrong on one thing . . .
I keed! I keed!
/Watchmen fanboy
While although I’m strongly entrenched in the Watchmen fandom category, I’ve got to say I completely respect Keith point of view and willingness to post a well thought out review that I’m sure he suspected would meet with much criticism. Whereas Watchmen was a breath of fresh air to the Superman/ Spiderman audience, compared with some of the other fiction he’s reviewed on this site it does pale in depth and development. It’s a different medium and results in a different experience entirely.
My first foray into the non-superhero graphic novel was the Sandman series, and I revisit that world every couple years and enjoy myself thoroughly. I feel bad for Keith that he may never visit the Sandman stories, but then if Keith knew me he would probably feel a hundred fold worse for me not having read a fraction of the great literature he reviews here. It’s all a matter of taste.
But sincerely- thank you for the post Keith and keep the reviews coming. I may not agree with everything, but you’re enhancing my reading list.
Agreed that someone with no background in reading comics (particularly superhero comics) should not begin the pursuit with ‘Watchmen.’ The specific enjoyment that I derived from the reading experience (and what I presume appeals to so many of its fans) is the refreshing approach it takes to the superhero genre. ‘Watchmen’ blew my mind when I was 16, but that was after 10 some-odd years of reading superhero comics.
I would also like to echo the sentiments of some other readers who have suggested Neil Gaiman’s ‘The Sandman’ to Keith or to anyone who has a bias against graphic literature. Obviously much of the pleasure to be had in reading ‘The Sandman’ comes from being able to appreciate the art form. But beyond that, it is a particularly well-written, inventive, engaging piece of Gothic fantasy (again, not everyone’s bag). I’ve suggested it to people who have never read comics (although they were readers to whom I sort of knew the subject matter would appeal), and they have loved it.
I would never call ‘Watchmen’ the definitive graphic novel, and would be disappointed if the entire medium were dismissed by a ‘high-minded’ reader before something like ‘The Sandman’ was given a chance.
Okay, I’m off my soapbox.
Sorry, Ed, I wrote my piece before I saw yours was posted. Didn’t mean to write the exact same thing. Although hopefully it will inspire some people to pick up ‘The Sandman.’ Which is always a good thing.
I’d compare Watchmen more with, say, The Castle of Otranto. It’s very much the first real deconstruction of the superhero genre, paving the way for stuff inside the form like Astro City, Ex Machina, and the like, and outside it like Kavalier and Clay, Soon I Will Be Invincible, and Fortress of Solitude.
As conclusions go, Watchmen’s no less likely than assuming peace will reign in Verona because a couple of teenagers went all emo-kid and offed themselves in a basement. Nit-picking the book on that sort of thing is about as useful as arguing that Gondor didn’t have a sustainable tax base. That’s not what the book is about.
For what it is, it’s a landmark. It hasn’t held up quite as well as some of its champions might like, but then again, you can say that about a lot of seminal works. Far better to enjoy it for what it is, appreciate what it allowed to come to pass, and recognize that critiquing it for insufficient wordcount is just a wee bit silly.
I expected a strong, negative response on this one. I’ve been slammed all day, so I’ll keep the response quick.
One, my criticism is not about wordcount, but about what’s lost when all you have is dialogue. Part of the greatness of any work of literature is in its prose. That’s simply not present here.
Two, the comparison of a graphic novel – seriously, can we just call it a comic book already? – to true novels wasn’t my idea. TIME did it. And they’re not the only ones. And I think in that comparison, the comic book fails miserably.
Three, the movie analogy fails for me. Watching a movie is a visual and auditory experience. Reading a book is an intellectual and often imaginative (?) experience.
And, since everyone seems to think that Watchmen is the genre’s peak, I think I can safely ignore graphic novels from here on out.
Since everyone seems to think Jack Morris is a Hall of Fame pitcher, does that mean we can safely ignore everyone in the Hall of Fame?
Well…probably.
I wouldn’t waste much time suggesting some graphic novels/trade paperbacks (“comics”) that you might enjoy (I think Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is his best work that I’ve read, and it borrows heavily from traditional literature), but I would waste time pointing out that writers switch between styles all the time. Neil Gaiman successfully made the jump from comics to novels, Paul Dini from cartoons to comics, Joss Whedon from movies & TV to comics, Peter David from comics to novels, and so on. There are many qualified people who transition to and from comic books. I’m not even sure if that was an argument or criticism in the original post or in the comments, but I just wrote the paragraph and you just read it, so it has been said.
Second, just because TIME compared novels and comic books doesn’t mean people should. TIME does lots of stupid things. It’s a magazine. It’s like half a step up from People (the magazine). Calvin & Hobbes or Batman should not be compared with traditional literature. They are, in course of fact, in a different medium than novels. It’s true of all mediums of art. While it’s fun to compare movies to books (usually when one is based on the other), everyone knows that the majority of the time, the novel is better. The easiest answer is that novels just offer more depth, more development, and allow the reader to inject his or her own imagination into the work. So while it can be fun at times to compare, it’s not going to be a productive endeavor.
Comic books are a mixture of visuals and words (obviously). They really shouldn’t be compared to novels, but instead appreciated on their own. I can see why a person would not enjoy Watchmen. Even the artwork is, if I’m not mistaken, mostly an endless repetition of 9 panels per page. That can be a little boring. And if you think stupid plots and anachronisms are a problem with Watchmen, than you should really avoid Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns.
Anyway, to fully get the most of a comic book experience, you need a great writer and artist collaboration, or one guy who does both. For example, David Mack’s work on Marvel Comics’ Daredevil, such as the “Parts of a Hole” storyline. To me, that’s the kind of collection that would make reading a comic book an experience worth partaking.
First, a nitpick – part of the greatness of any work of literature is in the language – let’s not forget that the majority of literature, great or otherwise, before around 1700 was in poetry. Nor do I think Shakespeare or Sophocles lose by only having dialogue (when read as well as when performed). Whether or not they usually do, there is no logical reason why a graphic novel/comic book could not have great language. Indeed, a friend of mine did a fascinating graphic novel version of Richard III as his senior thesis.
A lot of people have objected to lumping all graphic novels together because of one example. Even as someone who has never read and has no interest in reading any graphic novel except Maus (which is indeed excellent), I was initially disappointed in this approach, until I realized that I do the same thing. An example: as a junior in high school, we read Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, which I hated (and I loved The Sound and the Fury, which we’d read right before); I found it to be one of the least enjoyable books I’d ever read. From that book, I decided I had no interest in picking up Toni Morrison. People whose opinions I value (e.g. my fiancée and Keith) have praised Beloved extremely highly; I’ve heard it’s much better than the Bluest Eye. But, frankly, there still is no way I’m going to touch Toni Morrison again, and so I understand completely Keith’s point of view – because of his (perfectly valid) approach when reading books, he is not predisposed to liking this genre, so why spend more time on it?
I’d be a bit surprised if every one on this board hasn’t had something of a similar experience with some author or genre; the only difference is that Keith blogged about it.
still dont think the watchmen or comics in general are getting proper treatment from keith but you know what, im over it. people tell me dragonforce isnt a great band, but that doesnt make it so. as they say, no sweat off my sack, bro.
“Graphic novels” are comic books.
When I used to read comics, the defining story line was the Daredevil series (Frank Miller, his first series I believe) with Elektra, Bullseye, and Kingpin. Given the choice between the Affleck/Garner movie and the comic book series (issues 163 through 190, or so, with the climax at 181… can’t remember exactly), the comic book was outstanding (not that it was hard to be better than the movie). Frank Miller was a genius then, and continues to be (Sin City). That comic series was better than any comic book-based movie.
There are some scenes in the movies (Spidey stopping the runaway train, Wolverine’s skin being peeled off by Phoenix, etc) that are superb and a comic book can’t compare. Granted.
Anyway, anyone wanting to start reading comics or “graphic novels”, I’d suggest with Miller’s Daredevil.
I’m a burgeoning novelist (no, really, I am) and obviously love well-crafted prose as much as the next reader. Hell, I hope to make a career out of it. However, I equally appreciate smooth dialogue and the unstated scenes that happen between the lines. This, I believe, is what makes comics worthwhile literature. It’s up to our imaginations to fill in the spaces between the panels. It’s up to the dialogue to drive the story. The pretty pictures are the foundation that supports the whole. Watchmen does not suck. It just doesn’t. It contains bigger ideas and more entertainment value than many, many books I’ve read. Murakami, for example, is lauded for his high-minded concepts and deep characterization. But, you know, I can’t help but find him over-indulgent, his writing in need of a little compression. Stephen King said we, as writers, don’t have to show everything that happens in a character’s life, just the interesting parts. I’m as big of a fan of Keith’s work and opinion as anyone, but I think I’ve ultimately concluded that he places more emphasis on a piece of literature’s seeming sophistication than originality or sheer entertainment.
Keith, if I may, I’d like to respond to your three points on behalf of my brother, an aspiring comic book author and illustrator.
First, criticizing a comic book for its lack of prose is like criticizing cubism for its lack of fixed perspective: that’s just not what the style is trying to achieve. It may not suit your taste, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t succeed wildly at what it’s trying to do and that others may find it to be enjoyable or important in its own way.
Secondly, “graphic novel” is a moniker coined because those who wanted to write comic books for a target audience other than twelve year old boys wanted to distance themselves from people’s preconceptions. My brother has no problem talking about working on comic books, but he’d rather the term didn’t come with the baggage it does.
Third, if you approach a comic book as if it’s the same medium as a novel and are expecting the same experience with the same strengths (and weaknesses), you would have every right to be disappointed by a comic book. Just as a movie’s strengths are in the “visual and auditory experience,” the strength of a comic book is not in prose, but in the marriage of the written word to illustration. That’s where the movie analogy succeeds.
Finally, it’s obviously a mistake to include a comic book on a list of 100 great novels, not because one medium is inherently superior to the other, but simply because they aren’t the same medium. I don’t think to many people would dispute that.
I’m as big of a fan of Keith’s work and opinion as anyone, but I think I’ve ultimately concluded that he places more emphasis on a piece of literature’s seeming sophistication than originality or sheer entertainment.
Bullshit.
I’m interested why you list Tender is the Night as a less deserving novel? Not like Fitzgerald, cause when I read it (years ago) I thought it was agruably his best novel? I respect your right to an opinion, but especially because I agree with the rest of the argument re the novel form, etc I am interested in an explanation of your opinion on Tender. I’m not asking about the others mentioned because I agree entirely. Maybe I should reread Tender before I recommend it again? Oh, and thanks for the 100 Prospects breakdown. Great stuff. Only wish Lowrie were higher, but you certainly know more about him than I do. Wishful thinking, but it may just be that I root for the contributors like Dustin P, for example. You said baseball too, right? Thanks again.
I loved Tender is the Night. I’m saying it should have been on the list instead of Watchmen.
One last thought – because really, hell hath no fury like a geek scorned.
Speaking as a working novelist and video game writer here, I think viewing the writing in a graphic novel as “just dialogue” is incorrect. If you’ve ever seen a comic book script, you quickly realize that much of what the writer does is describing and framing the panels. A lot more work goes into those than into the stuff that gets crammed into the word balloons, meaning that what you see on the page besides the words comes in large part from the writing as well. And, of course, those old standbys plot and theme are present (if you’re lucky; if you’re not, you’re probably reading mid-period Hulk stuff) as well.
I’m not saying OMG GRAPHIX NOVELZ IS TEH GREATZ0R here. On the other hand, I think they’re certainly worthwhile reads on their own terms and merits.
Has it occurred to anyone that despite Keith’s “prejudices” and close-mindedness concerning anything lacking the appropriate degree of sophistication of the novel, this website is named after a comic strip? It’s like listening to soccer fans with their need for affirmation.
i know i just said i was over it but just to clarify on the dialog vs prose issue – watchmen is unique in that moore specifically choose not only to eschew expository panels but also thought balloons as well, something that is extremely rare for comics (especially at the time). moore wanted to remove the ‘authorial voice’ and only presented character dialog and ‘primary source’ documents to clue the readers in.
also, to be a jerk and revisit the anachronistic political commentary gripe, the fact that nixon is still president in the 80’s should make it obvious this it wasnt so supposed to be a critique on contemporary history but a critique on the atmosphere created in moore’s completely fictionalized alternative history. instead of just assuming things in watchmen world have been the same as they are in the real world just also with superheroes as well. moore’s reality diverged from actual history sometime around the turn of the century (or earlier) when superheroes started showing up (in the watchmen universe).
and yes, i did just look up the book up on wiki and yes, im only commenting so much because i too feel the rage of a geek scorned. i’m sure i’ll be sitting the next book review out entirely.
Keith, I was just wondering if you knew anything about ‘American Born Chinese’? It was the first graphic novel ever nominated for the National Book Award back in 2006.
I’ve read ‘Watchmen’ and liked it, but didn’t love it. I actually tend to think the art work is the weakest part of it. It certainly doesn’t stand out in any way. Reminded me of bad early 80s comic book art. Still, I think Moore’s point was more of a deconstruction of the superhero mythos as opposed to a political comment. Anyone read ‘V for Vendetta’?
I won’t be sitting the reviews out or engaging in any such protestations. Despite his opinion on this matter, at least Keith is honest. I truly wish everyone in the world were this upfront. Then maybe I wouldn’t feel so dirty every time I vote for a new (or incumbent) president.
i wont be sitting any future debates out in protest, only because i wouldnt be knowledgeable enough about the topic to form an informed opinion. i meant it as a courtesy. also the prejudices i was assigning to keith i meant as harmless ones. personally i am prejudice against all atlanta braves, before meeting them i hate them as people.
Brian – sorry, not familiar with that one. I don’t know much about graphic novels, and really only read this one because it was on the TIME list.
I’m a Watchmen fanboy, but I’ll throw in with the people noting that it doesn’t have any business on a best-novels list, nor should it be judged by the same criteria as a novel.
Watchmen’s signature accomplishment in my mind is to blow up and examine the genre of superhero comics. To take its assumptions and traditions to their logical extremes in order to get a good look at what, exactly, the genre is saying. Before Watchmen (and Dark Knight), how many people thought about how, in reality, super heroes are technically outlaw vigilantes? How many people thought about what life would be like if we really did have superheroes around (i.e. the whole Dr. Manhattan story and the alternate history he fomented)?
So ultimately — despite the protests of the fanboys — it is simply wrong to say that Watchmen was transcendent in any way. In the end, it’s a comic book about comic books, and if you don’t like comic books (or at the very least aren’t familiar with them) you’re not going to like Watchmen.
‘Watchmen’ is the only graphic novel I’ve read as well. I’m interested in the movie adaptation though and wonder if they’ll update it to fit with current events. I did see ‘V for Vendetta’ and enjoyed it.
One more thing: Is there any hope for my White Sox this year?
I know the discussion is pretty much over, but I felt the need to include my two cents.
As I said when Keith announced that he was reading Watchmen, I loved it. It’s one of my favourite comics I’ve ever read, and despite only being 17, I’ve read tons. That said, Keith’s opinion does not bother me. Because it is simply that, an opinion. Just as I may not enjoy a book he raves about, I’m fine if he doesn’t like one that I have enjoyed.
By the way, as a side note to Richard Dansky. You have an awesomely cool job.
Keith —
The Watchmen is a bit overrated. If you ever decide to dive back into a comic book, try Grant Morrison. He might interest you. Something like Animal Man or The Invisibles.
Eric H. – Thanks 🙂
I think Todd, way up near the top of the page, probably said this better than I’ll be able to, but I’m gonna give it a try anyway.
I’m clearly biased on this, because I love comics, but you’re being an ******* on this subject Keith. I can respect your right to an opinion. If you don’t like the medium of sequential art story-telling, that’s fine. I can respect that. I don’t much care for poetry. But the way that you’re completely dismissing an entire medium, just because you didn’t like one example of it is absurd, and it essentially completely invalidates any criticism you might hope to levy against it.
Shall we go into a few of the more egregious examples of your obvious inborn bias…
“made novel-length by the inclusion of pretty pictures, which, by the way, take the place of the descriptive prose that makes the written novel an art form”
– How dare you dismiss an ENTIRE MEDIUM so completely as to decide that it’s simply not art. Such a statement is basically claiming that you are the end arbiter of what is art. And as a person who clearly loves literature and art you should be ashamed at such a dismissal.
“One, my criticism is not about wordcount, but about what’s lost when all you have is dialogue. Part of the greatness of any work of literature is in its prose. That’s simply not present here.”
-I can’t really explain how childish I think this remark is. You’re basically saying “What I like is good. Therefore this, not being something I like, it is not good.” Comic books (or graphic novels as you’re so loathe to call them) are a collaborative effort between many artists. To claim that, with a comic book, because the story is not entirely told with words that it therefore cannot be “great” is pathetic. As I said, it’s a collaborative effort, you can’t simply ignore that the story is told with a combination of words and pictures. If you dismiss the story telling potential of the pictures you miss the whole damn point I think.
“Two, the comparison of a graphic novel – seriously, can we just call it a comic book already? – to true novels wasn’t my idea. TIME did it. And they’re not the only ones. And I think in that comparison, the comic book fails miserably.”
-If you want to make an argument that maybe a graphic novel shouldn’t be on a list of “great novels” because they’re different art forms… I can buy that. I think I probably agree with you. But you betray your bias by using “comic book” as an epithet. “It’s a ‘comic book’, it’s not a ‘true’ novel.” Would you like some wine and cheese to go along with your hypocritical arrogance?
When you stick to actual criticisms of this particular example of comic books, I agree with you. I myself don’t particularly like Watchmen. I think lots of Alan Moore’s work kind of devolves into self-indulgency, which is a trait of writing that I don’t have a great deal of patience with. But I really do recommend you try at least a couple of other books before you completely write off the medium. Understanding that you go for the more literary types of stories, I echo someone’s previous suggestion of Maus I&II. It’s an absolutely brilliant story of a mans recounting of the time his father spent in Nazi controlled Poland, and subsequent time in a concentration camp. I would also recommend Will Eisner’s “Contract with God” trilogy, which is a telling of one mans viewpoint of how a particular neighborhood in NYC changes throughout the decades.
I’ll close with this; I personally thought that “Brave New World” was boring, predictable, and melodramatic. I think it so pales in comparison to 1984, which is certainly in the same dystopian genre, that it would be absurd to include it on the same list. Does that mean that “Brave New World” isn’t any good? That it “sucks”? No, that would be stupid of me to think that. I just didn’t like it very much. Art is subjective, and it’s hurtful to a medium, it’s fans, certainly it’s creators, and it SHOULD be hurtful to you to be so bigoted as to completely dismiss it because you didn’t like one example of it.
Keith, I think you are absolutely correct in saying that Watchmen shouldn’t be on a top 100 novels list, but only because it is a different medium. Honestly, it’d be like they put a movie on the list just for the heck of it. It’s a different medium, so I can understand your disapproval when you are expecting prose.
However, your analysis seems so condescending. You basically say, “This is considered the best? Well, it must represent all other comics.” Jeez, so that means if someone doesn’t like Citizen Kane, they should forsake the entire movie medium?
In one of your earlier responses you said that you didn’t understand people comparing movies to books because one is a visual experience and the other not. One would think that comicbooks have a visual element that sets it apart from prose (not above, but apart). It seems that you can’t separate the two because novels and comicbooks are both printed on paper. They’re simply different.
If you were interested, I could give you a good list of other stuff to check out and I’d put even money that you’d at least like one from the list because it would be comprised of many different writer’s stories.
Again, I doubt people take issue with your dislike of Watchmen as much as the condescending dismissal of the entire medium. Just imagine many of the academic types who would dismiss your entire profession by saying, “Ooooh, big man hit little ball with stick after scratching balls! Me write it now!” And they’d be wrong to do so.
Are graphic novels really described by some as a genre? Weird, as exactly what makes them a genre?
They seem obviously more of a format than a genre, which is why it strikes me as odd that you’d dismiss them because you disliked one. To me that’s like dismissing DVDs, because the first one you tried was Dumb & Dumber.
I’m not overly surprised that TIME, who is owned by Time Warner, who owns the rights to Watchmen which is soon to be a feature film was listed. Yet really Watchmen is really known more for its significance in the superhero genre of comics. As one of the first stories to take a mature, though mostly that means sex and bloody violence, take on superheroes. Storywise it doesn’t really stand up to the test of time.
If you are ever inclined to take another look at the graphic novel format. Ones I would recommend to you ,and these have nothing to do with the superhero genre, are:
Safe Area Gorazde (hardcover)
Joe Sacco Sacco spent five months in Bosnia in 1996, immersing himself in the human side of life during wartime, researching stories that are rarely found in conventional news coverage, emerging with this astonishing first-person account.
Breakfast After Noon – Andi Watson’s GN tells the story of the British couple Rob Grafton and Louise Bright who are in love and engaged to be married. When they unexpectedly find themselves unemployed, marriage plans are derailed and they are forced to rethink the direction of their lives.
Among many others…