Thread by @Darren_Mooney

#NowReading

“Watchmen” is rightfully regarded as a classic of the medium and a meticulously structured masterpiece.

However, I’ve always loved Moore’s pitch black sense of humour and grim juxtapositions.

It’s a darkly funny comic book.

(Watchmen #1.)

Interesting throughline to Lindelof’s “Watchmen” remix that I hadn’t considered:

The vigilantes of the “Watchmen” universe also started as cops who decided to wear masks, lending the follow-up some symmetry.

(Watchmen #1.)

For all the book is accused of deconstructing superheroes, “Watchmen” has an obvious and abiding affection for superhero comics.

Here, “Doctor Manhattan’s Buddy” is given a classically alliterative name. Like “Lex Luthor” or “Lois Lane.”

(Watchmen #3.)

Similarly, the fictional history of “Watchmen” is as rooted in the publication history of superhero comics as it is American history.

The rough fifties reflect the decline of the superhero genre, with the HUAC hearings standing in for “Seduction of the Innocent.”

(Watchmen #3.)

The erasure of (both) Silk Spectres’ ethnic backgrounds to make them seem more WASP-ish also feels like a commentary on comic book publishing.

After all, Stan Lee was really Stanley Lieber. Jack Kirby was really Jacob Kurtzberg.

(Watchmen #1.)

For all its myriad flaws, Zack Snyder’s “Watchmen” adaptation managed the feat of translating the fourth issue to screen relatively effectively.

It’s probably the second most formally complex issue in the series, and seemed a nightmare for any adaptation.

(Watchmen #4.)

It is rarely acknowledged just how well Snyder translates “Watchmaker” to screen.

Even as somebody who finds the film deeply flawed - arguably from its inception - it is a breathtaking piece of filmmaking while being incredibly faithful to the source material.

(Watchmen #4.)

Of course, it is also worth noting that this is because “Watchmaker” imports techniques from cinema into its storytelling.

It’s a radical approach for a comic, and relies on the panel dividers for maximum impact, but it’s using cinematic language.

(Watchmen #4.)

Tarkovsky argued that film was “sculpting in time.” Editing is about the compression of time.

For films very similar to the structure of “Watchmaker”, think of “Once Upon a Time in America”, released a few years earlier.

Or the films of Christopher Nolan.

(Watchmen #4.)

There’s an extent to which “Watchmaker” lends itself to a very literal adaptation to screen, as if Moore and Gibbons were storyboarding.

It is an issue that works beautifully, but isn’t as anchored to the medium as “Fearful Symmetry.”

(Watchmen #4.)

And, to be clear, it’s also absolutely a comic that works first and foremost as a comic.

Panels rendered as frozen moments, snapshots that can be arranged and restructured as needed; the reader controlling the pace and direction of their movement through them.

(Watchmen #4.)

As an aside, I’ve always loved the idea that Doctor Manhattan’s impotence was not a result of any grand existential or temporal force, but instead flowed from Jon Osterman’s own indecisiveness.

Even as a god, he’s noncommittal.

(Watchmen #4.)

As with a lot of great works, my read of the characters and themes in “Watchmen” shifted over the years, reflecting its depth.

How much of Doctor Manhattan’s arc is predestination, and how much is just who Jon Osterman is? Does it matter? Is there a difference?

(Watchmen #4.)

When I was a kid, I bought Jon’s arguments that he was simply following the course laid out for him.

However, as an adult, I am less sure. Veidt’s manipulation of him hinges on an immediate emotional response rather than cold reason, and Jon plays into it.

(Watchmen #4.)

This is, of course, great writing.

A character who believes and expresses a vision of themselves that directly contradicts their actions, and the paradox that creates.

(Watchmen #4.)

Of course, this question of power and authority runs through “Watchmen”; who wields it, to what purpose, and how the choice of powerful people not to use their power is itself an expression of that same power.

It all depends on how a person looks at it.

(Watchmen #4.)

This is why I think Damon Lindelof will be a good fit for “Watchmen.”

Lindelof is a writer very fascinated by the idea of perspective (“Lost”, “The Leftovers”), just like the comic is.

Think of how often the same events replay from different angles.

(Watchmen #2/4.)

And we go from “Watchmaker” to “Fearful Symmetry.”

Which takes us from “Watchmen would be tough to directly directly adapt, but with the right guy...” to “Watchmen is impossible to adapt to any other medium, but market forces will make it inevitable so strap in.”

(Watchmen #5.)

“Watchmen” is a story uniquely tailored to its medium. It is a comic book. It is designed as a comic. It works as a comic.

Indeed, part of what made it so striking was how unique that level of craftsmanship was in mainstream comics when it was published.

(Watchmen #5.)

To offer one small example, those six striking splash pages that open the final issue are striking because they exist in contrast to the tight, claustrophobic and text-heavy nine-panel grids that drive the comic to that point.

(Watchmen #11/12.)

For those not aware, “Fearful Symmetry” is the issue of “Watchmen” that is... well, symmetrical. (Wordplay!)

Panel layouts mirror one another, individual panels reflect back on each other.

It is a staggering formal accomplishment. One unique to comics.

(Watchmen #5.)

It’s also not one you can obviously replicate as part of a larger film. You could try something similar with a TV episode, but it would be (a.) a lot more difficult and (b.) a lot less obvious.

It’s a gimmick that only really works as a comic issue.

medium.com/@pedrovribeiro…

*sigh*

I can’t believe I have to do this but...

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #1: He’s quick to defend actual (shown on panel) sexual predators against public efforts to hold them to account.

“Moral lapses.” Ugh.

(Watchmen #1.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #2: Prone to commit random acts of violence in public establishments that hurt innocent bystanders because he thinks that it’s all a cover for child pornography rings.

(Watchmen #1.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #3: Pretty happy to brand himself a Nazi, because he’s edgy and hasn’t sold out... man.

(Watchmen #1.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #4: Okay, fine. He doesn’t call Veidt a “cuck” because of his “shallow, liberal affectations.” Bit early for that.

But he does make insinuations about Veidt’s sexuality based on them.

(Watchmen #1.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #5: He’s very concerned about foreigners coming over and taking American jobs.

(Watchmen #2.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #6: Believes that women are evil. Jumps from a woman having lunch with a friend to accusing her of scheming to undermine the country’s defences.

Gamergate got nothing on him.

(Watchmen #5.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #7: Putting on his mask, he sees the world as it is and becomes an Ubermensch. Everyone else is weak and blind.

Think of it as proto-red-pilling.

(Watchmen #5.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #8: REALLY doesn’t like women.

(Watchmen #6.)

It’s hard to argue Rorschach is explicitly a white supremacist because there are so few major black characters in the cast, let alone who he directly interacts with.

But let’s just note he reserves special scorn for the one black man that he does encounter.

(Watchmen #6.)

“Random sub thread on why Rorschach might become an alt-right icon.”

Example #9: Big fan of controversial ageing comedian who has been accused of attempted rape. Finds his material “uncompromising.”

(Watchmen #6.)

I wasn’t joking about the “red pill” rhetoric.

Rorschach is convinced that he is the only person who sees the world as it truly is, in contrast to the weak and soft liberals who believe in things like basic decency.

He believes he has seen behind the curtain.

(Watchmen #6.)

And look, it’s fine to like Rorschach. I think he’s a very well-written character who is very well-constructed.

But if you don’t see Rorschach as somebody the alt-right could latch on to, well...

Anyway, here’s Damon Lindelof on it.

vulture.com/2019/10/watchm…

Anyway, back to regular programming.

There’s a lot to love in the symmetrical structuring of the fifth issue, but I particularly love this juxtaposition.

Breaking some eggs, eh?

(Watchmen #5.)

Oh, also on the “people are surprised Rorschach became an alt-right icon” thread, here’s an example of what goes on at Rorschach’s newspaper of choice.

Rorschach is a big fan of the racist, anti-Semitic “New Frontiersman.”

(Watchmen #8.)

And here is Alan Moore himself, the writer of “Watchmen”, discussing Rorschach as a character.

He’s probably a bit meaner than he needs to be, but he gets the point across.

And here is Dave Gibbons, the artist on “Watchmen”, discussing Rorschach as a character.

“I put him in the same kind of bag as Hitler or Margaret Thatcher.”

All of which is to say that “Rorschach becomes a fetish object of the alt-right” is an entirely reasonable development.

*sigh*

Rorschach doesn’t want justice for mass murder. He wants to avoid his own implication in it.

He actively urges Jon to kill him, rather than letting him live to expose it.

If Rorschach wanted justice, he’d lie to Veidt until he got back to New York, *then* expose it.

The amount of people who confuse Rorschach’s moral cowardice with strong principles is frustrating.

But probably no more than that the fact that so many fail to see he’s really not a nice guy.

By the way, some snippets from Rorschach’s favourite newspaper, including a proto-allegation of “cultural Marxism” against a liberal opponent and an insistence that the Ku Klux Klan weren’t so bad.

Still can’t see how he’d become a white supremacist icon?

(Watchmen #8.)

Anyway, hopefully we can move past Rorschach to talk about the rest of “Watchmen.”

I’ve always found it interesting that comic book fans latched onto to Rorschach, as Dan Drieberg always struck me as the most relatable protagonist to comic fans.

(Watchmen #7.)

After all, Dan is a socially-awkward gigantic fanboy.

Plus, he also has the kind of disposable income that it takes to be a modern comic book fan.

(Watchmen #7.)

Sure, Dan is embarrassingly nerdy and geeky.

But he is one of the two protagonists who actually seems like a decent human being.

Plus his awkwardness is harmless and his enthusiasm is kinda adorable.

(Watchmen #7.)

It says something very revealing about warped notions of masculinity in comic book fandom that some readers would rather latch on to a raging psychotic misogynist than a character who was impotent in the face of nuclear holocaust.

(Watchmen #7.)

Dan and Laurie also do the one unambiguously (or, at worst, least ambiguously) heroic thing in the entire miniseries when they rescue people from a burning building.

Even the most cynical reading - they’re indulging a fetish - is benign by the book’s standards.

(Watchmen #7.)

By the way, I adore that Dan has a coffee machine in Archie, and plays some soothing music to calm survivors down.

Little reminders that he’s the most human of the protagonists, most aware of little things.

You know, despite being loaded enough to do this.

(Watchmen #7.)

“Watchmen” is about a lot of things, including structuring order from chaos, about patterns and rhythms making small things become something bigger.

The watch is one example, but so is the nine-panel grid, which provides a rigid structure/pace to the story.

(Watchmen #9.)

There’s been a lot of talk over the last week about the erasure of Dave Gibbons as co-creator of “Watchmen”, treating him as a hired hand.

He was intimately involved with the crafting of the book. For example, the iconic nine-panel grid was his idea.

https://twitter.com/davegibbons90/status/856772740510081025

Here is also the right point at which to give a shout-out to colourist John Higgins, who is responsible for so much of the look and feel of the book.

Here’s a great interview with @abrahamjoseph, discussing his impact and legacy.

Well worth a read.

vulture.com/2019/10/watchm…

Anyway, the rigid nine-panel grid is a reliably way of rigidly structuring and pacing the reveal of information for a reader.

This allows for an incredible density of narrative while maintaining storytelling clarity and rhythm.

vice.com/en_us/article/…

One of the few comic book writers to really “get” this is Tom King, who loves the nine-panel grid. (Due to “Watchmen.”)

It’s a mundane example, but here he demonstrates how effectively it can be used for pacing; one panel for each second in a fight.

(Batman #21.)

Indeed, although also an homage to “The Man Who Fell to Earth”, it is notable that Veidt’s process for consuming raw information looks a lot like the familiar comics grid.

(Watchmen #10.)

Again, this ties back into how much “Watchmen” is tied to the formal language of comic books.

Even the standard comic book panel structure becomes a metaphor humanity’s apophenia, the desire to build order from chaos.

Which makes any adaptation tricky.

(Watchmen #9.)

Veidt’s directions to his marketing staff speak to an under-discussed aspect of “Watchmen.”

The sense that by 1986, in the real world, the Cold War was winding down and there was a simmering existential crisis about what that meant.

The looming “End of History.”

(Watchmen #10)

In the comic, Veidt builds a status quo that would soon become a reality in the real world.

A future in which the easy binaries of the Cold War collapsed, and America stood triumphant as all of its enemies lay vanquished.

What then?

(Watchmen #5.)

And, again, this ties back into the comic’s exploration of the human effort to determine order from chaos.

The Cold War was an ordering principle, providing a rigidly defined boundary and a stark oppositional force.

Remove that ordering principle and what next?

(Watchmen #11.)

It’s notable that here, watching television to capture a glimpse of the future, Veidt puts his fingers on a host of nineties anxieties.

Worries about the era of “limitless personal choice”, the emergence of “an era of the conceivable made concrete.”

(Watchmen #11.)

It’s notable that Veidt effectively bypasses the existential uncertainty of the Unipolar Moment in the nineties by essentially tricking the public into an unending existential conflict.

In a sense, Veidt jumps from the Cold War to the War on Terror.

(Watchmen #11.)

I alluded to this in my rewatch of Snyder’s film, but the comic is so incredibly prescient that when it’s climax was brought to the silver screen two decades later, it read as an allegory for events fourteen years after the comic.

https://twitter.com/darren_mooney/status/1185339866223185920

Incidentally, Moore and Gibbons make it very clear that Veidt is still only human despite his efforts to elevate himself.

It’s clear that being beaten by the Comedian left a scar, and he nurses a major grudge despite his holier-than-thou attitude.

(Watchmen #11.)

The criticism of Rorschach’s reactionary politics has obviously been a focal point of discussion this last week, but it’s worth noting Veidt is a criticism of the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The well-meaning knows-best-for-everyone liberal.

(Watchmen #11.)

Veidt reminds me a lot of the portrayal of the Pierces in “Succession.”

They have “right on” political beliefs that make them logically more palatable than their reactionary counterparts.

But they are ultimately just another expression of the same we-know-best philosophy.

To a certain extent, the HBO series teases this idea that this sort of neo-liberalism can be almost as dangerous as the reactionary beliefs it opposes.

It’s no coincidence that one of his servants offers Veidt “a horseshoe.” Perhaps alluding you the political theory.

After all, it’s worth noting that Moore’s politics are avowedly anarchist. He is wary of any over-arching political structure that pretends to know best for those under it, even Veidt’s “let me save the world” plot.

I mean, look at “V for Vendetta.”

(V for Vendetta #1.)

We get caught up on the formal cleverness of “Taoes if the Black Freighter”, but it serves an important purpose once it becomes clear it’s about Veidt.

It strips out any ambiguity in how Moore or Gibbons view Veidt’s plot. It’s not necessary, it’s monstrous.

(Watchmen #11.)

After all, this is the central point of “Watchmen.”

That people should not be invested with that sort of power, that they should not see themselves as above the ordinary people.

When you do that, no matter your motivations, you become monstrous.

(Watchmen #11.)

By the way, in case you didn’t get that Ozymandius is the protagonist from “Tales of the Black Freighter”...

(Watchmen #12.)

You could probably also make an argument that typing to the collision of Silver and Bronze Age aesthetics in “Watchmen”, the series is ultimately about the collapse of Kennedy era idealism to Nixonian cynicism.

(Watchmen #11.)

Anyway, in conclusion, “Watchmen” is still pretty great.

And a great gateway into comics if you’ve been wanting to get into the medium.

(Watchmen #12.)