Metal Reviews

Finally finished Watchmen. Very disappointed.

And started Hannibal Rising. So far, better than the film...

disappointed in watchmen? why?

'Cause it's crap?

Because he didn't pay the proper amount of attention nor did he engange the necessary amount of brain cells to understand it sounds more like it!

Ok, why was it so great? Please tell me.

Because it took our childhood dreams of having superpowers and turned them on their heads.

And did so in a harrowing, extremely well written manner. Hell, the tales of the Black Freighter are in themselves a masterpiece.



I know exactly what you mean. I remember when I first read Aristophanes, and was expecting something similar to Shakespeare's comedies (ie: Not funny). Then the first scene I read had shit jokes. Damn good times (and of course, there's some more clever satire mixed in there as well). Aristophanes was the man.

I liked the first part, and the pirate substory, especially when you realise how it ties it. But

and there's a spoiler here

the moment you realise that it's Ozymandias - the lefty - who's responsible for it all, and - although up until then it's been fairly realistic - we're asked, completely seriously, to believe that his BIG EVUL plan is to genetically engineer a psychic giant squid and then teleport it into New York so it somehow goes off and kills millions of people...! I just laughed. And the characters were all too thin. And the upcoming film will be complete shit. And any time people ask you to take comics seriously, little warning bells start to go off...

The point was that Ozymandias' plan was not a "big evil plan." The plan may be kind of over the top, but there was no villain in Watchmen; its not about good and evil, but about whether the ends justifies the means. Rorschach disagrees; but the reader is never told by Moore whether one side is right or not. You classifying Ozymandias' plan as "the BIG EVUL one" kind of suggests that you weren't reading closely at all.

As for the characters- I found them to be very well developed, in particular Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. But to each his own.



This is utterly silly. Clearly, people, including literary critics, think that you can take comics seriously. Is Mauz not a harrowing Holocaust story because they had the gall to draw pictures? More specifically, why should Watchmen be taken less seriously because there are a mixture of pictures and words? Lots of people seem to think that Watchmen is worth taking seriously- including the Hugo awards, Time Magasine (which listed Watchmen as one of the 100 most important novels of the last century). If you didn't like it, you didn't like it, but to say that an entire medium of art can't be meaningful is such bullshit, and reminds me of all those lovely folk who say that metal can't be taken seriously as music because its just noise.

Just started Fight Club.
Great movie, and the book is pretty good so far, as well.

How is genetically engineering a psychic squid to kill millions not a 'big evil plan'? It's almost a parody of one! I agree that the good/evil lines were blurred more than usual, but only on the surface - there was still a definite straightforward group that you could identify with - Nite Owl and wossname, even with Rorschach - and one that you didn't - Ozymandias' proto-fascist utopian ideals. The whole point is surely that you don't need to be told who to root for? I doubt many would have been in favour of Ozymandias' plan...



Just because something won an award and had people hyping it doesn't mean you have to take it seriously. Art is not always serious, and is enhanced sometimes by not being serious -> Banksy. I found Maus more of a dumbed-down, gimmicky story than something that could appropriately describe the horror of the holocaust. Was it a brave attempt? Sure. Doesn't mean it works. Personally, I couldn't give a shit what Time magazine thinks - it's nice that they're going out of their way to include different mediums, but there's no way in HELL that Watchmen was one of the most important novels of the last century.

And ridiculing art is part of what it's all about. It would be like Dimmu Borgir making a concept album about the Gulf War, complete with ridiculous music videos! Generally, I don't like to generalise, but some things are silly clearly from the start, and comics are one of them. I do enjoy some, by the way, most particularly Constantine and From Hell, but that doesn't mean I take them seriously, especially the latter in the later sections.

Recently read:

Twain - Letters from the Earth
Marlowe - Dr Faustus
Hubben - Survey of Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Kafka
Julian - Against the Galileans

Okay, I'll agree that the plan in itself is pretty silly. Still, its a much more morally complex situation than you're giving it credit for. Though the reader (or at least me) feels sympathy for Rorschach and finds it sad when he dies, by no means is Ozymandias' choice the wrong one; its the old moral philosophy dilemma of whether you push a fat person in front of a train if it'll save the lives of ten people. In this case, three million have to die to save humanity. The fact that people have been discussing this problem for hundreds of years does suggest some moral complexity.




I agree that Time magasine does not validate my opinion; but then this is a dumb as shit argument we can have about anything. George RR Martin's not good because no fantasy can be taken seriously. Metal's not real music because its just noise and can't be taken seriously. Cartoons are inherently silly and any attempt to tackle serious issues in them is doomed to failure. No offense Zad, but all this is douchebaggery, as is any generalization about an entire medium of art or genre. Many believe you can discuss Watchmen seriously, as FTR points out, it takes "our childhood dreams of having superpowers and turned them on their head", applying psychological realism to the concept of heroism and actually pulling it off, according to thousands of readers. Similarly, many consider Neil Gaiman's Sandman comics to be better than his prose novels; is this opinion automatically silly because one has pictures and the other doesn't? Huzzah for generalized elitism.

I'll agree that it all comes down to personal choice, but I personally didn't find the moral complexities that profound. Wow, giving the moral high ground to a psychotic murderer, that's original! The plot was good as far as it went, I must admit, excluding the psychic squid nonsense, and I liked that the captain atom-y figure ultimately didn't give a shit what happened to humanity. I didn't feel the sense of impending nuclear doom that much, either, only what the characters here and there said, and considering the world was bracing itself for that since the damn things were invented...

And ultimately I just find comics too associated with childhood/teenage years, anti-drug adverts and councilling numbers, free lollipop giveaways and the like, to take them seriously! I'm happy for everyone that can, and it's good as I said that they're pushing the boundaries a little, but there's no way it compares with (deep breath) PROPER art. Y'know, Picasso to Pollock, Monet to Matisse, Rothco to Rembrandt. Maybe that's because I've been socially conditioned towards that Opinion, but that's it.

The greak sir Arthur C. Clarke finally departed for his personal rendezvous with Rama. I won't say RIP, I will just say thank you A. C Clarke and bon voyage!

The subtext within Star Maker pretty much reflects my entire view on the metaphysical nature of the universe. Both these books are very hard work to read, but are very much worth the effort.

Read the Communist Manifesto and the Eighteenth Brummaire of Napoleon Bonaparte, both by Marx, on the plane today. Starting to read Brothers Karamazov again tomorrow.

finished The Two Towers. now reading Hamlet for my english class

The Hedge Knight - George RR Martin

This is one brilliant short story!!!

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell--Susanna Clarke

Supposedly the greatest work of fantasy since Tolkien...I'm about 80 pages in and it's really good so far. Really interesting take on magic as something that 19th century gentlemen do.