Watchmen Ending ***spoilers***

[Rigel]

I think that fantasy fans and comic book fans have always felt like they need to justify their fanaticism, because they can see the epic nature of their favored genre, but this genre is still scorned by "serious" literature elites.

I think many fans feel the need to justify their fanaticism because the object of their affection is legitimately immature, superficial, and absurd. Not all comic books are like this, of course, but the vast majority seem to be.

Just as I don't consider myself a fan of fantasy novels, yet I love SRD, I'm not a comic book reader, yet I loved reading Watchmen.

[Zarathustra]

I think many fans feel the need to justify their fanaticism because the object of their affection is legitimately immature, superficial, and absurd.

Good one. I don't think it's strictly true--at least not for myself and my favorites--but I'm sure the people who like examples that I'd consider childish would say the same thing about their favorites.

I'm not a comic fan. The only one I ever read was G.I.Joe back in the 80s. But I am a diehard fantasy fan. While there are childish/superficial examples, I don't read them, so I don't really have this impression of the genre.

Not all comic books are like this, of course, but the vast majority seem to be.

You might be right; I'll have to take your word for it since I don't read them. But I'd suggest that this is an inevitable result of people "dressing up in costumes to fight crime," and no "realistic portrayal" of this can change the fact that's it's pretty silly, even when the portrayal is self-conscious of that silliness. But I could be talking out of my ass, since I haven't read Watchmen.

Watchmen, however, is not an attempt to justify the superhero genre by making it "gritty" and "realistic". It's a criticism and deconstruction of the genre for the very flaws you point out.

Which is why I said, "But in the process, they end up undermining the genres they purportedly defend by accepting the judgements of the "haters" and trying to explain away or even join in the ridicule of the standard genre tropes . . . it ends up being an example of that same "elitist" condemnation to which it is a response."

I don't know for sure if that's the case. But apologists attempts at justifying a genre rub me the wrong way. As SRD says in his essay EPIC FANTASY IN THE MODERN WORLD, historically speaking, epics were always fantasies. Magic and monsters have always been the best metaphors for the highest and lowest aspects of the human condition. There's nothing inherent to the genre which requires an apologist defense. (Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan might need a defense, but imo they're indefensible. )

[Cagliostro]

It never struck me as a "defense" of the comic book hero genre as much as taking it in a new direction.

[I'm Murrin]

I'm not sure how that's a valid response to what I said, Malik. I was pointing out that Watchmen isn't a failed attempt to defend or justify the genre, it's a deliberate criticism of the genre. You respond by repeating that attempts to defend or justify the genre fail. Said response takes as its starting point the assumption that Watchmen is an attempt to defend the genre... and that's where we would start arguing in circles if I continued.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not sure how that's a valid response to what I said, Malik. I was pointing out that Watchmen isn't a failed attempt to defend or justify the genre, it's a deliberate criticism of the genre. You respond by repeating that attempts to defend or justify the genre fail. Said response takes as its starting point the assumption that Watchmen is an attempt to defend the genre... and that's where we would start arguing in circles if I continued.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I thought you were arguing that it wasn't a justification by making it "gritty" and "realistic" rather than not a justification at all.

However, I'm puzzled by a genre work that is criticizing its own genre. Wouldn't it be criticizing itself, too, if that were the case? If it's not criticizing itself, then wouldn't it implicitly be putting itself forward as "how to do this genre right"? And wouldn't that be a de facto defense of the genre? Or is merely illustrating the absurd by being absurd? Are we talking parody?

This entire line of discussion started with Rigel's, " ... it's the most realistic portrayal of what might actually happen if people started dressing up in costumes to fight crime." Perhaps I misunderstood his point, too. I took it to mean that it was intentionally realistic in order to correct the perceived faults of unrealistic examples of superhero stories. If it's not an attempt to "do it right," then I can see your point of it being purely critical, and not a defense. But then I'm back to not seeing the appeal of this story. Why read a comic which exists to show you how bad comics are?

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding your (and Rigel's) points.

[Cagliostro]

I don't think we are talking parody.

I just looked up a few things about the intent, and here's the best I could come up with from the Wiki page on the Watchmen:

Moore used the story as a means to reflect contemporary anxieties and to critique the superhero concept.
....With Watchmen, Alan Moore's intention was to create four or five "radically opposing ways" to perceive the world and to give readers of the story the privilege of determining which one was most morally comprehensible. Moore did not believe in the notion of "[cramming] regurgitated morals" down the readers' throats and instead sought to show heroes in an ambivalent light. Moore said, "What we wanted to do was show all of these people, warts and all. Show that even the worst of them had something going for them, and even the best of them had their flaws."
...The initial premise for the series was to examine what superheroes would be like "in a credible, real world". As the story became more complex, Moore said Watchmen became about "power and about the idea of the superman manifest within society."[35] The title of the series refers to the question "Who watches the watchmen?", although Moore said in a 1986 interview with Amazing Heroes he did not know where that sentence originated.[36] After reading the interview, author Harlan Ellison informed Moore that the sentence is a translation of the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", posed by the Roman satirist Juvenal. Moore commented in 1987, "In the context of Watchmen, that fits. 'They're watching out for us, who's watching out for them?'"[3] The writer stated in the introduction to the Graphitti hardcover of Watchmen that while writing the series he was able to purge himself of his nostalgia for superheroes, and instead he found an interest in real human beings.[1]
Bradford Wright described Watchmen as "Moore's obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular."[17] Putting the story in a contemporary sociological context, Wright wrote that the characters of Watchmen were Moore's "admonition to those who trusted in 'heroes' and leaders to guard the world's fate." He added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process".[37] Moore specifically stated in 1986 that he was writing Watchmen to be "not anti-Americanism, [but] anti-Reaganism," specifically believing that "at the moment a certain part of Reagan's America isn't scared. They think they're invulnerable."[3] While Moore wanted to write about "power politics" and the "worrying" times he lived in, he stated the reason that the story was set in an alternate reality was because he was worried that readers would "switch off" if he attacked a leader they admired.[4] Moore stated in 1986 that he "was consciously trying to do something that would make people feel uneasy."

So, I think "criticizing" the genre isn't quite right. It seems more that he was deconstructing it.

[Zarathustra]

Very interesting, Cag.

I thought it was obvious that he was criticizing Reagan. Alternate reality didn't fool me for a second.

I wonder what he thinks about the 80s, now? The situation of 1986 sure looked different by the time 1990 rolled around. I wonder if he could write a similar story about "Obama-ism."

As for an obituary for heroes and heroism . . . it seems to miss the point that heroes are supposed to be symbols for the potential for heroism within each of us. I never looked at hero stories as a means to escape my responsibility, but rather inspiration to rise up to the challenge myself.

I think it's a good point not to trust our leaders too much, and not to expect them to fix our lives. But I never looked at a President as a hero anyway. I always viewed him as the CEO of the government, not the leader of the country, and certainly not my leader. This is an interesting lesson, but directing it at Reagan masks how much more it's appropriate criticism for the other side of the political aisle. Big Government has become the modern day superhero in much of our society. The political philosophy of "Reagan-ism" was much more about personal responsibility than the competing political philosophy.

I sense a thread split coming . . . .

[wayfriend]

I have come to see The Watchmen as a demonstration of superheroes depicted in the Ironic Mode, as defined by Frye.

[stonemaybe]

Two thirds in, the newspaper's review says 'absolutely stunning to look at, but flawed.'

I say 'give me flawed'