So I just got Watchmen to read

[jamiejame911]

What should I expect it to be being over 20 years old. Chapter one got me into the story thus far...

[CBikle]

It really is the best comic ever written, so far.

[botch]

the greatest comic ever written. just read it dude. the less you know the better.

[vazel]

If you have it just read the damn thing and find out for yourself.

[juggling man]

Expect your brain to be deep fried and serve back to you on a platter.

[The Xenos]

It's one hell of a read. Debatably one of the best comic books ever written. It's a dense story. I need to reread it. There's a lot to miss on the first or even later reads of the book.

[gwor]

Y'know, Watchmen will always be timeless. And better than anything being released these days.

Moore is a freakin' talented dude <g>.

[tigermagee]

Like Infinite Crisis, but better.

[pauwoo]

Don't go into expecting the greatest comic of all time, it's not, it's completely of the time it was written, it's not even Moore's best piece of writing, never mind the best ever.

[Kid Kyoto]

Probably the best English-language comic ever written, worth reading again and again and checking the art for the symbolism.

[Adset]

I came to CBR for the first time in '97 (waaaaay different look to it, btw) and it was hyped just as much then as it is here in this thread. So I read it for the first time after hearing how it was the greatest thing ever written -- pretty lofty expectations. I'd say it came darn close to delivering. "Best ever" is such a crazy term. But I suppose it doesn't matter -- it was damn, damn good. Enjoy

I fear the movie

[crimson red]

Yeah it was overhyped by everyone on the board. I was rather disappointed. Heck I thought Kingdom Come or Dark Knight Returns was even better. But then again, I thought Romeo and Juliet sucked too.

[Alex Smith]

Dark Knight Returns? Man, I think I must have been the only person on the earth who didn't think that story was very good.

Kingdom Come did kick ass though..

As for Watchmen, it really depends on whether or not it's your kind of story. Everyone has different tastes. Personally I love it, and obviously a lot of others on here do as well. Whether or not it's the best comic ever is another story, but it's certainly worth a read.

[Trey]

Stories better than Watchmen:

WE3
Dark Knight Returns
Kraven's Last Hunt
Slavers (Punisher Max)
Weapon X
Earth X
Batman: Year One
New Frontier
Dark Phoenix Saga
100 Bullets

All-star Bats
All-star Superman

[David Walton]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think Watchmen was mostly a technical accomplishment and at that one that's been deterimental to the superhero genre, more costly in the long run than it was worth.

[gwor]

Watchmen is definitely a technical marvel. The planning and detail that went into every single panel is simply amazing.

I can understand folk not liking the story, or claiming not to like it since bashing Alan Moore seems to be 'cool' (shrug). It's a difficult and challenging work, with flawed characters and an untraditional, non-linear presentation of the story.

To be honest, I like simple comics with heroic characters. Watchmen doesn't fit the bill, but it's a really interesting yarn with an excellent and thought provoking twist. The ending is a bummer, but fits in perfectly with the mood of the 11 previous issues.

I can reread Watchmen today, many years after buying the original issues, and still find it engrossing, noticing new details I missed on previous reads; that, for me, is a sign of a classic.

[jesse_custer]

Screw whether it's the best or not. You'll not have another experience like it. It's something you'll cherish for the rest of your life.

[Descartes_Lives]

Just as there are SparkNotes and Cliff's Notes for major literary works, I believe there should be one for Watchmen. There are many themes and examples of symbolism that aren't seen until the second or third (or fourth, depending on your dedication) reading, as others have said.

Des.

[xnef1025]

Watchmen is a horrible superhero comic.... because it isn't a superhero comic. It is a wonderful piece of graphic literature though.

[alabama assassin]

i think myself and others may not like it due to the lack of heroic figures. i went into it with all of the hype and found it to be a taxing read. i just did not find much interest in the characters and parts of it were mildly confusing.

[Ryan Day]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think Watchmen was ... deterimental to the superhero genre, more costly in the long run than it was worth.

I know what you mean with this, but really you need to blame all the third-rate hacks who thought they could copy Watchmen even though the only thing they understood about the book was "Rorschach is a badass."

It's unfortunate that the major influence of Watchmen has been a slew of generic anti-heroes when you've also got such incredible stuff as Doctor Manhattan; it seems all anyone remembers is the dark side of superheroes when it also produces such an amazing example of what someone could actually do with superpowers.

For that matter, both Dan and Laurie's motivations are fascinating and complex, and Adrian is a great character. For all the darkness in Watchmen, there's also a lot of hope, bravery, and heroism.

[David Walton]

It's unfortunate that the major influence of Watchmen has been a slew of generic anti-heroes when you've also got such incredible stuff as Doctor Manhattan; it seems all anyone remembers is the dark side of superheroes when it also produces such an amazing example of what someone could actually do with superpowers.

While I think that Watchmen is a fantastic piece of literature in and of itself, it's Moore's take on what humans would really do with superpowers that I find deterimental to the superhero genre.


For that matter, both Dan and Laurie's motivations are fascinating and complex, and Adrian is a great character. For all the darkness in Watchmen, there's also a lot of hope, bravery, and heroism.

There's also a lot of nihilism. In fact I think that's what separates it from what I consider to be works that were more beneficial to the genre, "Squadron Supreme" and "Kingdom Come". You look at Moore's next major superhero work, "The Killing Joke," and there's an insanity equivalency between Batman and the Joker that really doesn't work and did further damage to the genre.

[jesse_custer]

Of course it's detrimental to the superhero genre. It breaks genre boundaries. Just like Oldboy is detrimental to the revenge genre, or just like Deadwood is detrimental to the western genre. These works bludgeon romanticism.

However, I'm not sure if I agree Watchmen did more damage than what it's worth. If I can go to Barnes and Noble and pick up a good superhero title like JLA: The Hypothetical Woman on a whim, then I think things are in relatively decent shape. Watchmen may have encouraged some superhero writers to flesh out their characters more while they champion the never-ending message of hope.

But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by "damage to the genre." Maybe clarify if I'm wrong.

[Pól Rua]

I'm with Ryan here.
'Watchmen' did no damage to the superhero genre. The damage was caused by people trying to ape things like 'Watchmen' and 'Dark Knight Returns' and ignoring the substance for the surface.
Aping the surface features of something like 'Watchmen' is easy.
Aping the substance, the real technical mastery of craft isn't... and so it ended up spawning a bunch of half-baked crap that ended up completely misrepresenting it.

I'm still reading comics scripting today that sounds like someone trying to ape Frank Miller's terse, punchy sentence fragment dialogue in 'Dark Knight Returns'. I don't blame Frank Miller for that. I blame incompetent 'writers' who are quite content to mindlessly ape someone else's style without knowing why they used that style in the first place.

[David Walton]

Of course it's detrimental to the superhero genre. It breaks genre boundaries. Just like Oldboy is detrimental to the revenge genre, or just like Deadwood is detrimental to the western genre. These works bludgeon romanticism.

It's all well and good for a work to break genre boundaries, but my main point here would be that the superhero genre is no more obligated to treat Watchmen as a sacred cow than Watchmen is obligated to treat the superhero genre with kid gloves. I think that the influence of superhero comics on Watchmen worked much better than the reverse.

However, I'm not sure if I agree Watchmen did more damage than what it's worth. If I can go to Barnes and Noble and pick up a good superhero title like JLA: The Hypothetical Woman on a whim, then I think things are in relatively decent shape. Watchmen may have encouraged some superhero writers to flesh out their characters more while they champion the never-ending message of hope.

Well I think that Watchmen's influence on the big two comic book universes has leveled off. I was thinking more in terms of immediate fallout.

As for fleshing characters out, that was a process that had already been going on in the superhero universe for quite some time. So another problem--Watchmen is going to end up taking credit for developments that preceded it. So I wouldn't attribute that to Watchmen, though I'd agree that the technical genius of Watchmen had a positive influence on narrative.

But you still have the problem that Watchmen deals with characters whose story was confined to a twelve issue format, so those narrative devices don't always translate as well into continuous commercial properties.

But I could be misinterpreting what you mean by "damage to the genre." Maybe clarify if I'm wrong.

Well let me add something else. I think that Watchmen has been problematic because it's often held by the intellectual community as the gold standard of superhero comics when it really isn't indicative of what superheroes have to offer at all, so it's a misleading label.

I also think it's problematic, not to mention odd, that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman have cast such a long shadow over Broome and Fox and Lee and Kirby as well as guys like Mark Waid, Ed Brubaker, and Geoff Johns (just to name a few). When Gaiman actually wins the greatest comics run of all time on CBR, it seems like a sign that people feel strangely obligated to favor perceived intellectual comics over the pop culture comics they most likely prefer.

I also think the Watchmen sacred cow tends to shortchange the very real intellectual substance of popular culture comics.


Aping the surface features of something like 'Watchmen' is easy...Aping the substance, the real technical mastery of craft isn't... and so it ended up spawning a bunch of half-baked crap that ended up completely misrepresenting it.

Like "The Killing Joke," for instance? I'm being hyperbolic here, but only slightly.

Edit: I should also point out that whether or not writers 'aping' Watchmen is the reason for the damage Watchmen caused to the superhero genre is irrelevant to the question of whether it caused that damage. I'm not personally attacking the existence of Watchmen or suggesting that Moore intentionally set out to undermine superheroes.

My argument is mainly that the superhero genre was better for Watchmen than Watchmen was for the genre.

[Gilda Dent]

Watchmen is certainly on the short list of greatest superhero comics ever written, but best comic period? Nah.

It really is timeless, and has a depth that allows many rereadings with no loss of power.

[Pól Rua]

It's all well and good for a work to break genre boundaries, but my main point here would be that the superhero genre is no more obligated to treat Watchmen as a sacred cow than Watchmen is obligated to treat the superhero genre with kid gloves.
'Watchmen' isn't a sacred cow. It's not unassailable. It has flaws. That said, it's also a really good piece of comics art in terms both of writing and of art.
I certainly don't agree with those folks who say it's the best comic ever. I don't even know that it's the best Superhero comic ever.

I think that the influence of superhero comics on Watchmen worked much better than the reverse.
See now, here we're dealing with something different. I hate to quibble over semantics, but (oh who am I kidding? I love it!) when you talk about "Watchmen being bad for the superhero genre" and "the influence of Watchmen being bad for the superhero genre", you're talking about two separate things.
When you argue that the folks who came afterwards, who ignored the real structural and artistic breakthroughs of stuff like 'Watchmen' and focussed exclusively on rape, murder, violence, 'adult' situations and nihilism, have done damage to superhero comics, then I agree.
If you argue that 'Watchmen' did, then I don't.
It's like blaming alcohol for the actions of a drunk driver. The guy may have killed a guy while he was drunk, but Jim Beam didn't drag his arse behind a wheel and Jack Daniels sure as hell didn't have his foot on the accelerator.

Well I think that Watchmen's influence on the big two comic book universes has leveled off. I was thinking more in terms of immediate fallout.
Really, I look at stuff like 'Identity Crisis' and I see in Brad Meltzer a guy who's desperate to write 'Watchmen'. He's got all the surface elements - a death, a mystery, a secret cabal, masked heroes with skeletons in their closets, rape, heroes with feet of clay, a mistrustful vigilante who's not buying into it and the all-powerful character who 'eliminates' them from the equation.
Unfortunately, as far as actually being a competent storyteller, Meltzer falls apart. His characterization is awful, his mystery is nonsensical, shocking events happen for no real reason, his structure is all over the place. It's a real dog's breakfast.

As for fleshing characters out, that was a process that had already been going on in the superhero universe for quite some time. So another problem--Watchmen is going to end up taking credit for developments that preceded it. So I wouldn't attribute that to Watchmen, though I'd agree that the technical genius of Watchmen had a positive influence on narrative.
Again. Not the fault of Watchmen. Alan Moore himself states that Rick Veitch's series 'The One' pretty much inspired all of his deconstructionist superhero stuff.
And again, you're talking what people DO with Watchmen, not the work itself.

But you still have the problem that Watchmen deals with characters whose story was confined to a twelve issue format, so those narrative devices don't always translate as well into continuous commercial properties.
How is this a problem?

Well let me add something else. I think that Watchmen has been problematic because it's often held by the intellectual community as the gold standard of superhero comics when it really isn't indicative of what superheroes have to offer at all, so it's a misleading label.
This is the kind of thinking that results in 'Identity Crisis'.
There's an old saying, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't necessarily mean that you SHOULD."
Yes, Watchmen is awesome. It's a phenomenal example of what CAN be done with the superhero genre. But just because it's great once, doesn't mean that everything can be like it.
With Watchmen, Moore and Gibbons did something a bit new, different and exciting with the superhero genre. This is nice.
Unfortunately, some folks think, "Hey, that new, different, exciting thing was GREAT!" and instead of thinking, "I'm gonna do something new, different and exciting!" think, "I'm gonna do something that's new, different and exciting in the SAME way as those guys did!"
There's an inherent paradox there.
You can't get innovation by aping innovation.
Watchmen is the gold standard for what Superhero comics can be. Literate, intelligent, complex, and imaginative with strong characters, finely structured narrative, and evocative art.

I also think it's problematic, not to mention odd, that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman have cast such a long shadow over Broome and Fox and Lee and Kirby as well as guys like Mark Waid, Ed Brubaker, and Geoff Johns (just to name a few). When Gaiman actually wins the greatest comics run of all time on CBR, it seems like a sign that people feel strangely obligated to favor perceived intellectual comics over the pop culture comics they most likely prefer.
The reason for that is because they're good. Alan Moore is a great comics writer. Gaiman I can take or leave, he's good, but he's not nearly as versatile as Moore, or Morrison for that matter.
I think that every generation builds on the one before it. Would there be a Morrison without a Steve Gerber for instance? Would there be a Steve Gerber without a George Herriman? But it's the duty of successive generations to do more than their predecessors, ESPECIALLY artists.
I think the reason people favour Moore over, say, Johns is because Moore's shadow stretches out, while Johns is quite content to sit in the shadow of Broome, Fox and Lee. And seriously, I don't think he writes a quarter as well as any of those guys.
So yeah, you want me to respect Geoff Johns, he's gotta make it worth my while to produce a story that I can't get better elsewhere.
I HONESTLY prefer Alan Moore to Mark Waid.
It's not intellectual vanity. It's because Mark Waid gives me more of what I expect from Mark Waid. It's comforting, sure, and sometimes, that's what I want (loving 'Brave and the Bold', by the way), but it's not challenging. I don't get a thrill from it.
Honestly, Moore and Gaiman get more critical acclaim because they're BETTER WRITERS than Waid or Johns.

I also think the Watchmen sacred cow tends to shortchange the very real intellectual substance of popular culture comics.
I don't give Johns credit for much intellectual substance. He's like the wool mother in the wool mother/wire mother experiment. He offers safety, comfort and familiarity without any real substance. Don't get me wrong, I admire his ability to keep grinding stuff out month after month. It's a hard slog and he's getting it done, but in the end, he's producing second-rate pulp. He's doing it on time, and making money for his employers, therefore he's doing a good job, but it's not ART.

Like "The Killing Joke," for instance? I'm being hyperbolic here, but only slightly.
I should mention here that Moore himself has decried 'The Killing Joke'. I disagree with him to a point, I still find it a worthy piece of work, but yeah, he DID go the sensation route with the attack on Barbara Gordon which undermined the substance of the work.

Edit: I should also point out that whether or not writers 'aping' Watchmen is the reason for the damage Watchmen caused to the superhero genre is irrelevant to the question of whether it caused that damage.
No it's not. It's the crux of the argument.
A guy drinks a bottle of Jack Daniels, gets in his car and kills a guy.
Who's responsible? The guy or the bottle?
Brad Meltzer reads Watchmen, grinds out a half-arsed imitation that makes me wanna throw it across the room.
Who's responsible? Watchmen or Brad Meltzer?
I'm putting the blame on Brad here.

My argument is mainly that the superhero genre was better for Watchmen than Watchmen was for the genre.
Yes, and painting was better for Michelangelo than Michelangelo was for painting. Cinema was better for Orson Welles than Orson Welles was for cinema. Music was better for Beethoven than Beethoven was for music.
The art is bigger than any one artist. That doesn't stop the artist from being great, and their works being masterpieces.

[botch]

Stories better than Watchmen:

WE3
Dark Knight Returns
Kraven's Last Hunt
Slavers (Punisher Max)
Weapon X
Earth X
Batman: Year One
New Frontier
Dark Phoenix Saga
100 Bullets

All-star Bats
All-star Superman

Pretty damn good list, though all star bats and supes? none of those are better than watchmen though. though most are some of the best ever written. especially The Slavers, probably the best crime story i've ever read/seen/heard in any medium.

[botch]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I think Watchmen was mostly a technical accomplishment and at that one that's been deterimental to the superhero genre, more costly in the long run than it was worth.

Disagree, Watchmen brought in the grim and gritty 90's which in hindsight was i guess a little not good though we live and learn because now we have this decade which has brought the most consistently amazing amount of books there has ever been. The best books since 60's Marvel.

[botch]

Yeah it was overhyped by everyone on the board. I was rather disappointed. Heck I thought Kingdom Come or Dark Knight Returns was even better. But then again, I thought Romeo and Juliet sucked too.

Kingdom Come is better than Watchmen? WTF?

[botch]

While I think that Watchmen is a fantastic piece of literature in and of itself, it's Moore's take on what humans would really do with superpowers that I find deterimental to the superhero genre.




There's also a lot of nihilism. In fact I think that's what separates it from what I consider to be works that were more beneficial to the genre, "Squadron Supreme" and "Kingdom Come". You look at Moore's next major superhero work, "The Killing Joke," and there's an insanity equivalency between Batman and the Joker that really doesn't work and did further damage to the genre.

What's wrong with nihilism?

[botch]

Well let me add something else. I think that Watchmen has been problematic because it's often held by the intellectual community as the gold standard of superhero comics when it really isn't indicative of what superheroes have to offer at all, so it's a misleading label.

I also think it's problematic, not to mention odd, that Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman have cast such a long shadow over Broome and Fox and Lee and Kirby as well as guys like Mark Waid, Ed Brubaker, and Geoff Johns (just to name a few). When Gaiman actually wins the greatest comics run of all time on CBR, it seems like a sign that people feel strangely obligated to favor perceived intellectual comics over the pop culture comics they most likely prefer.


I don't agree with this. first off Watchmen is seen as the gold standard of Comics in general, the medium itself. It's not just 3 or 4 people on this thread proclaiming it the greatest comic ever, but many many people, it's not "ohh have you interviewed 7 billion people" etc, general perception equates this as the greatest comic ever. You don't have to agree with it but that's majority opinion.

And the Ed Brubaker and Geoff Johns? Both guys haven't done something that has hit as hard as Watchmen yet, but it's not like these guys aren't respected. They're probably the two most loved comics writers today. Everyone who reads their stuff gives it praise. Just give it a bit of time. They get the respect they deserve, they just need more people to know them.

[Gilda Dent]

I don't agree with this. first off Watchmen is seen as the gold standard of Comics in general, the medium itself. It's not just 3 or 4 people on this thread proclaiming it the greatest comic ever, but many many people, it's not "ohh have you interviewed 7 billion people" etc, general perception equates this as the greatest comic ever. You don't have to agree with it but that's majority opinion.

I don't think that's the case. Maus, Peanuts, Calvin and Hobbes, Krazy Kat, any of these is likely is going to have a better case for the best example of comics as a medium. I could probably put a little effort into it and come up with a short list of a few more.

[David Walton]

See now, here we're dealing with something different. I hate to quibble over semantics, but (oh who am I kidding? I love it!) when you talk about "Watchmen being bad for the superhero genre" and "the influence of Watchmen being bad for the superhero genre", you're talking about two separate things.

You can only separate Watchmen's existence from its influence at a philosophical, but never a practical, level.

When you argue that the folks who came afterwards, who ignored the real structural and artistic breakthroughs of stuff like 'Watchmen' and focussed exclusively on rape, murder, violence, 'adult' situations and nihilism, have done damage to superhero comics, then I agree.
If you argue that 'Watchmen' did, then I don't.
It's like blaming alcohol for the actions of a drunk driver. The guy may have killed a guy while he was drunk, but Jim Beam didn't drag his arse behind a wheel and Jack Daniels sure as hell didn't have his foot on the accelerator.

Intent is meaningless so long as we stick with the question of whether or not Watchmen did damage to superhero comics. So to stick with your analogy if I were to suggest that a drunk driver killed someone, I could say 'under the influence' without it being an indictment on the existence of said alcohol. It's a causal relationship that has little to do with culpability. And you could look at alcohol in general and say it's useful for someone who drinks responsibly and destructive for someone who doesn't without making a judgment about whether alcohol should be available. I think Watchmen was harmful to the superhero genre but beneficial to the medium itself.


Really, I look at stuff like 'Identity Crisis' and I see in Brad Meltzer a guy who's desperate to write 'Watchmen'. He's got all the surface elements - a death, a mystery, a secret cabal, masked heroes with skeletons in their closets, rape, heroes with feet of clay, a mistrustful vigilante who's not buying into it and the all-powerful character who 'eliminates' them from the equation.
Unfortunately, as far as actually being a competent storyteller, Meltzer falls apart. His characterization is awful, his mystery is nonsensical, shocking events happen for no real reason, his structure is all over the place. It's a real dog's breakfast.

I'm less concerned with IC and more with the association Moore makes between superheroes and fascism.

Again. Not the fault of Watchmen. Alan Moore himself states that Rick Veitch's series 'The One' pretty much inspired all of his deconstructionist superhero stuff.

I don't know that Alan Moore was directly influenced by O'Neil's early work, but I'd suggest that you can trace the discomfort with superheroes and the fascism analogy to his Green Lantern/Green Arrow.

Watchmen is the gold standard for what Superhero comics can be. Literate, intelligent, complex, and imaginative with strong characters, finely structured narrative, and evocative art.

I'd take issue with the superhero comics classification. It's not a superhero comic.

I think that every generation builds on the one before it. Would there be a Morrison without a Steve Gerber for instance? Would there be a Steve Gerber without a George Herriman? But it's the duty of successive generations to do more than their predecessors, ESPECIALLY artists.

I think that's chronological elitism. While I think that all artists should strive for perfection, I think that an artist's main concern is to do good work and that doing "more" than the greats is a carrot on a stick. I think writers can bring different things to the table, but I doubt one could do 'more' than Shakespeare--though I wouldn't suggest they try for less, if that makes sense.

I think the reason people favour Moore over, say, Johns is because Moore's shadow stretches out, while Johns is quite content to sit in the shadow of Broome, Fox and Lee. And seriously, I don't think he writes a quarter as well as any of those guys.

I don't think Johns is in anybody's shadow, he just has the good sense to build on what's come before. And just to be clear Watchmen isn't comparable in this respect because it's an isolated maxiseries. What makes a great standalone graphic novel would make a very poor continuation of a serial character. Johns writes the superhero as superhero.

So yeah, you want me to respect Geoff Johns, he's gotta make it worth my while to produce a story that I can't get better elsewhere.

I think Johns' work on Green Lantern would fit that bill.

I don't give Johns credit for much intellectual substance. He's like the wool mother in the wool mother/wire mother experiment. He offers safety, comfort and familiarity without any real substance. Don't get me wrong, I admire his ability to keep grinding stuff out month after month. It's a hard slog and he's getting it done, but in the end, he's producing second-rate pulp. He's doing it on time, and making money for his employers, therefore he's doing a good job, but it's not ART.

I don't know what to say here except, oh, I don't know...it IS art.


I should mention here that Moore himself has decried 'The Killing Joke'. I disagree with him to a point, I still find it a worthy piece of work, but yeah, he DID go the sensation route with the attack on Barbara Gordon which undermined the substance of the work.

I don't have a problem with the sensationalism. It's the insanity meataphor that's problematic.

[David Walton]

What's wrong with nihilism?

As a philosophy? It's wrong.

In literature?

I don't think that nihilism detracts from the literary merit of a work, but I don't think it's particuarly well suited for the superhero genre either. And to reiterate I don't think Watchmen is a superhero work but it did impact the superhero genre.

[Winghead]

Read Astro City..a much more obscure but equally impressive collection of stories by Kurt Busiek. While I did enjoy Watchmen, and Sandman is impressive at times, I find this series to be better than anything by Moore, Gaiman, Miller or Morrison. To each their own but definitely check it out.

[johanskull]

Watchmen actually brought about "outside the indusrty" respect to the comic book/graphic novel format, which, in turn, brought in the attention of say, Publisher's Weekly and the literary community and helped diversify the marketplace, since it was viewed as literature and not just a comic book.

Then the 1990's came...

But to this day, Watchmen is an evergreen title, meaning it stays in print and continues to stay on the charts. And sometimes, it is the only [superhero] graphic novel someone from the outside might read.

It has survived the terrible 90's and 2000's, and it has stayed on the charts without having a movie based on it, either. The movie is forthcoming, and cannot do the novel justice. I could be wrong about that, but so far, Hollywood hasn't given me much hope in regards to adapting Alan Moore's writing to the screen.

Regardless, if you enjoy it or not, Watchmen is here to stay.

I enjoyed it, myself. Not as much as New Frontier, but they were totally different experiences and subject matter.As others have said, technically, Watchmen is literature, while New Frontier just gives me hope that comics can still be... fun while engaging and thought-provoking.

-- Jeff

[K'Nort]

Just as there are SparkNotes and Cliff's Notes for major literary works, I believe there should be one for Watchmen. There are many themes and examples of symbolism that aren't seen until the second or third (or fourth, depending on your dedication) reading, as others have said.

Des.

There are some good online annotation sites out there, which accomplish the same thing. And for a second reading, they're well worth reading. There are just too many things in there for you to catch them all on your own, especially when simultaneously watching the plot unfold for the first time.

[StumboTheGiant]

Watchmen is a great read that stands up to time (just reread it couple weeks ago). Art doesnt stand up so well. But I would disagree that it is best comic ever.

[Abrojo]

i liked it, but i didnt find it groundbreaking. Of course thats a given since by now we have read stuff that was spawned from it. But i am sure that for the time i was AAA awesome, but for me, nowadays its just *good*.

Thats the reason i liked Dark Knight returns more, doesnt age.