The True Origin of Batman and the Watchmen Legacy

My five-year-old daughter, a big "Tiny Titans" fan, was explaining superhero origins to me today. She told me that Wonder Woman was "a woman. And she has a crown. So she's Wonder Woman."

And then she explained that Batman's first name is "Bat" and his last name is "Bat" and he's a man, so he's "Bat Man." And when I asked about Robin, she said, "well, robins eat bats right? Or, wait, do bats eat robins? They both have wings!"

In unrelated news, I've been thinking about the fallout from "Watchmen" not being a blockbuster, and I'm just totally baffled why any members of the audience would want it to be a blockbuster. Wouldn't it just help usher in that "dark" era of superhero movies that the monstrous success of "The Dark Knight" seemed to make inevitable? Maybe the relative failure of "Watchmen" will dissuade studios from wasting kazillions of dollars on movies where Superman has a mullet and dies. Or where Max Lord guns down Blue Beetle before getting his neck snapped by Wonder Woman.

The "Watchmen" experiment of the R-rated superhero film failed (and when students of mine asked me what I thought of the movie, they always said, "my friends said it's like a porno," so that's what the general public of teens and young adults seems to think of it as), and there won't be any more R-rated super heroes in the cinema anytime soon. Isn't that a good thing?

Zack Snyder's Watchmen Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

Chad Nevett finally had a chance to see the "Watchmen" movie, and we needed to talk about what he thought. Did he like it? Did he want to punch it in its smug blue face? Let's find out...

Chad Nevett: We're a little late to the party, but that's because I didn't see "Watchmen" until this past Tuesday. Why? I dislike crowds in movie theaters and, well, Tuesdays are cheap movie days at the theaters here, which suits the respective budgets of myself and my girlfriend quite nicely. You saw it opening weekend and wrote a "non-review" for your blog where you discussed a few things you liked and disliked, but didn't really get into the nitty gritty of it. So, much like you did to me with "Batman: Battle for the Cowl" last week, I'll bestow the honor of first thoughts upon you and make you wait to hear what I thought of "Watchmen." (Though, if you'd like to guess, go ahead.)

Timothy Callahan: I'm going to guess that you thought it mostly looked nice, but the musical cues were too heavy-handed, and the interpretation of Ozymandias was way off the mark. I'll also guess that you liked Jackie Earl Haley and you thought that most of the perfomances were decent (except Matthew Goode's moustache-twirling funny-accented evil approach and probably Malin Ackerman, because, you know, she's not what you might call a good actor), and you didn't mind the lack of squid. I'll guess that you thought it wasn't very effective as an actual movie, but as a companion to the graphic novel it could have been a lot worse. You'll have to admit that it's better than the motion comic, but it's nowhere in the same league as Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's work on the page.

That's what I'm guessing for you, because that's pretty much how I feel about it, and we're usually in the same ballpark, taste-wise. I don't know if the wigs bothered you as much as they did me, though.

So, how close was I?

CN: Not that close in that I hated it. I really, really did not like it. I walked out of it and my girlfriend, Michelle looked at me, wanting to know what I thought and all I could do was mutter "Godawful." While discussing it over dinner with her, I stumbled across exactly what my problem with the movie is: it seemed like an adaptation of every stupid, lame imitation of "Watchmen" that didn't actually understand "Watchmen." We've seen so many of those in comics and this film was like that. Superficially, it shared plot elements and select lines of dialogue, but all of the small nuances were altered to make them more graphic, more obvious and, really, very dumbed down. I couldn't escape the comic when watching it and, as a result, the film didn't sit right with me.

I'm not the sort of the guy who demands perfectly faithful adaptations, because I'm not dumb enough to think that what works in comics or prose will work in film, so it's not that "Watchmen" deviated it. I didn't mind the switch from the squid to Jon. I did mind that the ending just sort of happened without any real payoff or build-up. I asked Michelle about the ending -- hell, the entire movie's forward momentum -- and she agreed that there just wasn't anything at stake there. While the comic built up to the end, the film just kind of shows up there because that's where it's supposed to go. It went through the motions, providing little to no depth of character or plot.

And, yes, it was faithful in the broad strokes, but I noticed that every scene seemed altered for no apparent reason. It may just be nit-picking on my part, sure. One example I gave Michelle is when Rorschach is talking to the prison shrink and talking about the abduction/murder of the little girl. When he kills the man with the cleaver (which didn't bother me) and says that Walter Kovacs died that night, but Rorschach was born or lived or however he phrased it, I couldn't help but wonder why they altered that line from the comic where he says, "It was Kovacs who said 'Mother' then, muffled under latex. It was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again." A small change, and not really an important one, but... why do it? The line from the comic is a hundred times better and illustrates how Rorschach views himself in relation to Kovacs much better than what he said in the film -- and it doesn't take up more screen time. And the film kept on having small little changes that altered meanings of lines in small ways, making them less impactful. Then again, I noticed this stuff because I know the comic.

Michelle liked it more than I did, but we did both hate the acting. Aside from a couple of people who did decent jobs, it was just awful. The funny thing is that Michelle thought that the actors were playing their parts like that because of the comic, that the comic was an exagerated, highly unrealistic piece of work, not a work that tried to place costumed heroes within as realistic a setting/world as possible.

And don't get me started on the violence, whose utter fetishisation by Snyder proves more than anything that, yeah, he really didn't understand "Watchmen" in the same way that all of the hapless imitators in comics didn't understand it.

So, yeah, I didn't like it. If I were reviewing it, I would have given it one star probably. Maybe two if I really tried to get away from my own perspective and try to view it through the eyes of someone new to the material.

TC: Wow. I think you probably need to see it again to understand its complexities, because obviously you didn't get it.

Oh wait, you totally got it.

I agree with all of your criticisms, but I enjoyed the movie more than you did, probably because I really did have such low expectations, ultimately. I had high expectations until about a week before the release, and then my expectations kept dropping and dropping when people I trusted started saying less than positive things about it. And I really don't think the acting is terrible, except for a few really important exceptions, but I do think that Zack Snyder didn't demand anything close to consistency in the performances. (Plus, a lot of the Moore dialogue just does not work when spoken aloud.)

But it is certainly not the graphic novel, not even what you could honestly think of as an adaptation of it. It's a completely new, post-"Mystery Men" cheesy, faux-grand superhero epic without any kind of humanity to it. It's all artifice. I really do think it's a terrible movie, with moments that made me cringe for aesthetic reasons, but I'm kind of fascinated by it and maybe that's why I get some perverse enjoyment out of it. I certainly wouldn't recommend the movie to anyone, but I do want to see what my wife thinks about it. I'm curious.

Let's talk about the fetishized violence a bit. It's obviously a different perspective than we get from the graphic novel, but we really need to distance it from the source material if we're going to have any kind of conversation about it as a film. So is there any merit to the notion that this is "Watchmen" for superhero movies? That is to say: does the fetishized violence comment upon the traditions of supehero action movies, and to portray the violence in a more down-to-earth, "realistic" way would have disconnected it from the movies it was meant to comment upon? Does this movie even work as a gloriously deranged, artificial pastiche of the Hollywood superhero film?

To be continued at GRAPHICONTENT!

I Saw the Watchmen Movie Last Night and Here's a Non-Review Review

I saw it last night. So here's...

A non-review of "Watchmen," by Zack Snyder, in 12 parts:

1. The movie is somehow really close to being excellent and simultaneously very, very far away from quality. That's kind of weird.

2. I thought the casting of Danny Bonaduce as Rorschach was provocative at first, but it turns out that he's the best part of the movie. Yes, this joke is terrible, but I couldn't resist. (I blame it on the wig.)

3. The opening credits sequence is really and truly the best part, and it's pretty great.

4. And the Oscar for "Worst Wigs in a Movie Ever. Seriously, Ever!" goes to..."Watchmen."

5. The deep focus and over-lighting make the movie look a lot like the comic but those wigs are really, really terrible.

6. I need to talk about the wigs some more. Maybe there's an in-story reason for the badness of the wigs. I mean, you'd think Adrian Veidt could afford a better rug and all, but Rorschach's a crazy person so he's off the hook. Sally Jupiter: she's old, and probably crazy as well, so maybe she just likes bad wigs. I don't know. Maybe hanging out with Dr. Manhattan did make all their hair fall out and part of the conspiracy is the let's-not-point-out-how-bad-everyone's-wigs-are thing that's going on in the movie.

7. Because the wigs are really bad. And the old age makeup doesn't work at all either.

8. Hollis Mason is cool. There should have been more of him. Note that they didn't go with old age makeup on him, they just cast two completely different actors for the young and old versions and, wow, it actually looks so much better that way.

9. The musican cues are as bad and cheesy as everyone says. At one point, "99 Luftballoons" kicks in, because it's the 80's I guess, and though I am a proponent of two things in movies (the use of "99 Luftballoons" whenever possible -- see "Nights, Boogie" for a great example -- and freeze-frame jumps to close things out -- see "Gordon, Flash" for a great example of that), Snyder throws in the Nena musical gem and then doesn't seem to know what to do with it so it just awkwardly fades out. Poor form, Mr. Snyder. Nena needs nourishment. Though if the movie ended with a freeze frame high-five between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre, it could have redeemed itself.

10. I really like Patrick Wilson.

11. One of the questions people had after seeing early clips from this movie was how well Zack Snyder can direct actors. The answer is pretty clear: he can't do it well at all. It's not that the performances were bad, it's that they were wildly inconsistent, with some actors hamming it up like crazy (like Max Headroom as Moloch -- though, really, what do you expect when you cast Max Headroom in a role?) and some actors playing it kind of straight and somewhat subtle (sort of). Part of the problem was that Alan Moore's dialogue doesn't work that well when spoken aloud, but part of it was that some actors seemed to think they were in "Mystery Men" (Carla Gugino), while others seemed to think they were in "The Big Chill" (Patrick Wilson). Matthew Goode didn't seem to know what movie he was in, but he knew that it was one that involved a lot of stylized movements and an ever-changing accent. His performance doesn't really work well at all.

12. Seeing the movie divorced from its comic book context made two things apparent: (a) there's really no in-story reason for the characters to wear costumes (with the exception of maybe Rorschach, who keeps screaming about his "face"), and while costumes seem perfectly natural in a superhero comic, they seem perfectly silly in a superhero movie, and that's hard to get past; (b) "Watchmen" is really a story about Batman vs. Superman. I never realized it before, because I was always reading it as a book about Charlton analogues, but the movie doesn't have that same context and so the movie becomes about the three aspects of Batman (the obsessed vigilante, Rorschach; the kind-hearted gadgeteer, Nite Owl; and the self-made fighting machine with a gazillion bucks, Ozymandias) in conflict with an ever-distant, alien Superman (Dr. Manhattan, obviously). As a Batman vs. Superman movie, "Watchmen" is pretty cool.

And a bonus #13: I actually liked "Watchmen," even with all of its flaws. It's an imperfect, not-even-close-to-a-masterpiece of artificiality. But I enjoyed it.

The Watchmen Dialogues Redux

This discussion was once-upon-a-time published at Sequart.org, but since that site is still inactive, and a movie by the name of "Watchmen" debuted today, Chad Nevett and I thought it would be cool to post this for everyone who missed it.

So here's Chad and I talking with a former student of mine, web-designer Justin Dickinson, right after he read "Watchmen" for the very first time in the fall of 2008:

Tim Callahan: I know Justin just read the series for the first time over the past week--presumably in trade paperback form, and in sequence. Chad, how did you read it? You mentioned being aware of it as a youngster, but when you did finally read it, did you read it all straight through? Because I had a different experience. I actually jumped on when issue #4 was released, but the shop had issue #2 sitting on the shelf too (I must have been about 15), and so I bought #2 and #4 and read those two first, then continued the rest of the series straight through. I didn't read #1 or #3 until around the time the series ended. But I kind of think that it still works that way. The story takes on a serialized feel about halfway through, but each of the first handful of issues feels compartmentalized. Yeah, there's the through-line of Rorschach's detective mission, but #2 and #4 work kind of on their own, and like much of the series, each small part reflects the larger whole almost completely. I don't really know where I'm going with this except to say that while Watchmen gets--deservedly so--a lot of credit for its intricate structure, it's a structure that somehow still works when it's rearranged a bit. I probably wouldn't have noticed it except I read it out of order, and it still astonished me--and I didn't feel at all confused by the story. Of course, now it's impossible to go back and read any of the individual chapters out of sequence without being aware of the context--since we've read the whole thing, but for me, it started with Sally Jupiter in the nursing home and the funeral for the Comedian. That was how Watchmen began, as far as I was concerned.

Chad Nevett: I did read it all through, but, even then, I had an awareness of the story beyond its linear narrative. I knew of images and words from future issues. I even knew the big spoiler regarding Ozymandis thanks to Wizard and its "Most shocking moments" article whose only point seemed to spoil major plot points for those of us who hadn't had a chance to read certain stories because we weren't quite old enough to give them a shot yet. The same thing happened with The Dark Knight Returns, which I'd flipped through since I was a small child, but didn't read until I was older. I kind of wish I'd read Watchmen completely fresh beginning to end, because I don't really know what that's like. However, my first time reading it from beginning to end, I skipped a lot of the extra back matter material, so my second read-through included that, as well, which made it special, too.

TC: I savored the back matter with each issue. And because I wasn't really buying that many comics as a teenager--maybe five or six a week at most--and Watchmen was so clearly a cut above anything else--I really poured over every page and every text supplement. I'm still not convinced that the "Tales of the Black Freighter" sequences add all that much to the narrative--I get the thematic connection, but still. I do like the idea of a raft made up of corpses and the carcass of a shark, though. That's a great image above and beyond its metaphorical resonance. Although I would like to point out that the Hollis Mason memoir must have been the shortest book in history. It seems that the whole thing is excerpted in Watchmen, doesn't it? What was the total--like 15 pages?

Justin Dickinson: I read it straight through. The chapter with Jon on Mars telling his origin was what really hooked me. I stopped the first reading session right when Rorschach was captured. The second bit of reading took longer as I didn't like those chapters as much. As I said before, seeing Rorschach in jail didn't sit right with me. I really didn't get all the way back into it until Dan and Laurie hooked up and brought out Archie for some good old adventurin'. I read from when Veidt was in Antartica straight through to the end after that, couldn't put it down. I feel like the chapters do have some independence and the jumping around in time means reading out of order doesn't ruin the experience—kind of like watching Pulp Fiction on shuffle.

I'm curious to talk about the "Tales of the Black Freighter" sequences (which, I've just read, aren't featured in the movie but will be on the DVD, narrated by Gerald Butler.) How much of that is actually mirroring any actual comic trends or periods? Was the duotone/dot matrix style of those panels supposed to be a comment on Warhol/Lichtenstein pop culture art? Or is that reading WAY into it? Also, I've seen some mention in the production material (on Zack Snyder's blog, which is kind of like DVD extras before the movie) of how the color palate used in the book was very avant garde for the time period due to its use of colors that weren't red/blue/yellow primaries. Was that a big deal? What else did this comic do that we hadn't seen before?

TC: The "joke" of the "Black Freighter" sequence is that pirate comics have become the dominant genre because superheroes are real, so people in that world don't want to read comics about them. The back matter credits real-life artist Joe Orlando with the "Black Freighter" work, which is an inside joke because Orlando was a DC executive--and editor who had risen through the ranks, but was also a fantastic artist who had worked on the classic EC comics, and the Warren magazines like Creepy and Eerie before joining DC editorial. So even though Gibbons actually drew those sequences, the shout-out to Orlando does have a relevance and connects the sequence to the famous horror comics of the 50s and 60s. The benday dots were used to make the comic seem older, and I don't think it relates to pop art at all--it was just a way to visually distinguish the "comic book" world from the "real" world. It's a technique that's been widely used ever since Watchmen, and maybe it was used before that, but I can't think of any prior examples (Chad, can you?). I don't know what version of Watchmen you read, but it has been recolored since the original release. The color palate hasn't changed much--it's just been toned down a bit and some stuff has been cleared up.

Basically, the technology has improved dramatically and I'm sure the original coloring was a bit muddier than planned. But the palate was quite different from other comics of the time. A lot of browns and purples, while most other superhero comics were bright primary colors. Was it a big deal? I don't know. It certainly marked it as a different comic, visually.

Watchmen also drew attention to techniques that it didn't necessarily pioneer, but once it came out to such acclaim, others copied. Like the lack of thought balloons. Thought balloons are pretty much extinct now, and that's largely because of Watchmen. The use of Rorschach's journal--with the different font and everything--as the narration; that was copied by plenty of comics too. The inclusion of the back matter was certainly influential--with plenty of comics adding "journal excerpts" or fake letters in the back, none with as much quality as the stuff we find in Watchmen. Also, just the lack of action. That was pretty revolutionary. Look at how few action sequences there are in the twelve issues. It was published at a time in comic book history when every comic climaxed in a fight scene, and Watchmen totally avoids that kind of artificially-imposed structure. What am I forgetting, Chad?

CN: Like you said, I can think of plenty of examples of books that used these ideas--like how Westerns are the dominant genre for comics in Automatic Kafka. If I recall correctly (and I could be wrong since I haven't read it), but the lack of thought balloons may have come from The Adventures of Luther Arkwright, which Bryan Talbot started before Watchmen, took a hiatus and then completed after Watchmen. I've heard it described as highly influential in its experimentation and, for some reason, think I read that it didn't use thought balloons either. Of course, I could be wrong.

(Oh, and now that it's mentioned, I skipped over the pirate narrative the first time I read Watchmen, too. Another little surprise/addition for my second reading.)

And not only does Watchmen have little action, the action is does have is swift and brutal, done in a more realistic fashion than most superhero comics. Look at how quickly Veidt takes out his "assassin" or Rorschach and Nite-Owl... they're not typical action sequences in any way. Moore and Gibbons try to portray those sequences as realistic as possible, which is quite different from what was going on at the time.

That raises the idea of realism in the book. How realistic do you guys find it?

JD: I just read a really great article In Defense of Superhero comics which talked about Romanticism vs. Realism in a way that was really clear and understandable—made me feel like I was in English class in 11th grade again. Referencing that, I find Watchmen to be a realistic portrayal of a romantically imagined alternate world. It obviously still has elements of romanticism—there are certain leaps of faith you just have to go with and not get bogged down in whether or not it's real—but if you can accept the world Watchmen has built, then the characters all act realistically within it. There are some ideas that are obviously impossible, like Jon, but there are others that make sense (I'm thinking of Veidt's flood of information as a tool to predict the future.) In fact, that last bit brings up something I noticed about the book that I'm sure has been covered already: it's affect and resonance now vs. when it was written. Even now, any major disaster in NYC echoes of 9/11 which really just means that when this was written, that sequence was probably less imaginable than it is today. Also, the book was pre-Internet but much of Veidt's approach to technology and culture had a kind of clairvoyance to the flood of information each of us experience today.

In terms of character motivation, I think the book really excels in realism. I found all of the characters very well thought out and believable. They all acted with believable motive and rarely, if ever, did I feel a character's actions were merely to enhance the plot. I appreciated this as I feel that extra time was taken to ensure this realism and characterization (I'm thinking right now about the chapter regarding owls and Dan's essay on them. I've never found owls so cool as when he was expressing his love for them. It really made his alter-ego more authentic and understandable and less goofy.)

TC: Watchmen is certainly high Romanticism in content, but Justin's right--the style tends to portray that romantically imagined world in a more realistic way. It's still not Realism, in the literary sense, but while the conventions of the superhero narrative rely on simplistic morality, Watchmen allows for shading. (Although each character in the book still has a relatively simplistic moral sense, if you get right down to it--but the cumulative effect is one that doesn't offer simple moral solutions.) Watchmen also lingers on the humanity of the characters instead of their outward exploits, which is a trait of Realism, even if the trappings and cues are still taken from fantasy. If Romanticism and Realism is a spectrum, then Watchmen is still on the Romantic side, but leaning closer to Realism than every other superhero comic of its era--it's certainly farther toward Realism--at least in style and emphasis--than Dark Knight Returns, which is about as Romantic as you can get.

CN: Pretty much. It certainly is a Romance since its genre is inherently Romantic. Well, and the super-powered guy who can teleport people to Mars and alter the molecular structure of matter... that's a pretty big tip-off. Also, the lack of any clear comedic and tragic trajectory in the overall narrative. But, on a character-by-character level, you can probably make the argument that the story is filled with comedies and tragedies. Rorschach is a tragic figure, brought down by his own rigid morality, while Dan and Laurie are more comedic, finding some happiness in the end with each other. But what of Adrian and Jon?

TC: Ozymandias is an inherently tragic figure, isn't he? His downfall is implicit in the conclusion even though he achieved his goals, right? Maybe not. Maybe he's beyond tragedy because he's just the villain. He's Iago at the end of Othello, victorious but at what cost? And Dr. Manhattan is above tragedy or comedy. It's like asking if a mountain is tragic or comic.

CN: Wait... I thought Adrian was the hero... He did save the world, albeit through some very "supervillainy" tactics. I'd agree that he's a tragic character, because he'll never be sure if the ends really do justify the means.

As for Jon... is he really above tragedy or comedy? As Dr. Manhattan he is, but what if you take his whole life into account, including before his accident when he was human? How he turns out at the end, so cold and detached, willing to completely write off Earth... what does that say about his life and character?

TC: He might be a tragic figure if the emphasis was on his pre-atomic life. But we spend more time with him while he's Dr. Manhattan, when he seems beyond human judgments. But, then again, he lives in all times simultaneously, so he is constantly in a state of tragedy, isn't he? I'd buy that. In a recent interview Zack Snyder said he refused to change the ending of the movie--refused to turn it into a "Hollywood ending"--because he wanted to spark these kinds of debates about morality and tragedy. I'm glad to hear that, because even though I expect the film to be something quite different than the graphic novel, I think some of the key questions and themes can carry over, along with the visuals.

Final Crisis Hardcover vs. Watchmen Movie Sequels

1. While it's great that DC has decided to make a logical "Final Crisis" Hardcover with "Superman Beyond" and all, what you may not realize is that DC hardcovers involving the addition of 3D glasses, well, they suck. Big time. Check out the "Superman: Last Son" hardcover from last year. The cardboard with the 3D pop-out glasses is glued into the center of the binding. Glued. You can't remove it the way you can remove the 3D glasses holder from a regular comic.

So you're stuck with three choices: leave the glasses in the cardboard, and have a really annoying giant piece of cardboard in the middle of your hardcover, making it literally hard to read because the pages flip open to the middle constantly. Or, you can pop out the 3D glasses, leaving a hideous piece of cardboard-sans-glasses that still has the same problems but now looks worse. Or, you can take a razor and slice out as much of the cardboard as you can, leaving a hacked apart slice of cardboard in the center of your book.

It's a lose-lose-lose situation, and unless DC changes the way they include the 3D glasses with "Final Crisis," the problem will be just as bad with that hardcover. So if you are one of those people who think you convinced DC to add "Superman Beyond" to the hardcover, then you should fight for a better way to include the 3D glasses as well. Otherwise, you'll just end up with a really crappy collected edition. Why are people not complaining about this?

2. I haven't seen the "Watchmen" movie, but I've heard good things from people whose opinions I don't necessarily respect, and terrible things from people whose opinions I generally do respect. And a lot of thoughts in between. So I won't go into the movie with high expectations.

BUT, I don't understand the backlash against a possible "Watchmen" sequel or prequel. Yes, I would assume such a sequel or prequel would be terrible. Yes, it would miss the entire point of the comic. But when people compare the "Watchmen" comic to some great work of literature and then say, "How ridiculous a 'Macbeth' sequel would be! How could you make a sequel to 'Moby Dick'?" Well, that's just silly. I would LOVE to see a "Macbeth" sequel. I would love to see "Ishmael's Revenge!" I think they would be glorious misguided failures, but at least they would be more interesting than, oh, pretty much anything that's playing at the theaters now.

So bring on "Watchmen: The Minutemen," bring on "Watchmen: Nite Owl's Lament." They will probably be terrible, but so what? It doesn't make Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons's comic any less wonderful.

When Words Collide: Following Watchmen

Really, this week's "When Words Collide" probably isn't geared for you. If you're a regular reader of this blog, you are smart enough to know all about any possible recommendations I might make about what you should suggest to your friends after they've read "Watchmen."

BUT, it might be a chance for you to tell me how wrong I am.

People love doing that, right?

So take a look at my suggestions for "Following Watchmen," consider what prospective readers I target, and come back here and tell me everything I should have included. Tell me everything I was an idiot for mentioning.

Let's debate these suggestions, and have a massive verbal throw-down.

Because I have been hearing worse and worse reports about the quality of the "Watchmen" movie, so if you leave lots of contentious comments, at least I'll have something to look forward to this weekend.

Watchmen on the Shelves, But...

I stopped in Barnes and Noble for a couple of minutes today, and although they had an entire table covered with sleek new copies of Watchmen -- a table near the front of the store -- they didn't have a single copy of the book anywhere near their graphic novel section.

No Watchmen on the shelf. No Watchmen on an endcap. No indication that the store sold Watchmen. Other than the giant pile of Watchmen in a completely different section of the store. True, it's a section that you might have passed on the way into the store, but maybe not. I only noticed it because I walked over to get a coffee.

So, does that mean that Watchmen has transcended its status as merely a graphic novel, and now it's treated as just another book? Or are the merchandisers at this particular Barnes and Noble just a bunch of idiots? Or both? (Neither?)

When Words Collide: Role-Playing Rorschach

My fascination with the days when Watchmen wasn't quite WATCHMEN!!! continues with a close look at the genesis of the mid-80s Watchmen RPG books from Mayfair Games. I mentioned the gaming stuff a bit last month, but I was able to get in contact with the two writers of those classis RPG modules -- adventures produced with direct collaboration from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons -- and talk with them about how the books came into being.

Back in those days, Ray Winninger and Daniel Greenberg had to fight to get an untested property like Watchmen into the hands of gamers, and both of them have some interesting things to say about Moore's early plans for the Watchmen universe (which wasn't as hermetically sealed as it later became).

So check out the new "When Words Collide" column, entitled "Role-Playing Rorschach," and then bounce on over to my CBR forum to talk about it!

Watchmen Part II Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

The Splash Page is a little late this week, but if you're interested in the second, and final, part of our discussion with Justin Dickinson about Watchmen, it's now posted for your reading pleasure.

Chad and I have plenty to say about the book, and Justin brought some insight and a fresh perspective as a new reader. It's good stuff, and it's probably the last you'll ever hear about Watchmen from anyone on the internet. I can't imagine anyone talking about it at all over the next year or so, can you?

So, enjoy it while it lasts -- a rare discussion of an obscure little graphic novel: Watchmen, now available on the internet's hottest arena for smarty-pants chit-chat: The Splash Page.

Or, as always, click away: HERE.

Watchmen Hits THE SPLASH PAGE

Yes, I'm in Watchmen mode, but who isn't? Everyone's thinking about this thing these days. So when I found out that one of my former students--one who has never really read comics--finally read Watchmen last week, well I had to take advantage of that.

So Chad Nevett and I invited him to The Splash Page, where we could taunt him about his foolish ignorance about comic book tropes and traditions and school him in the ways of Alan Moore.

But Justin Dickinson held his own against the geek onslaught, and offered a fresh perspective on a graphic novel that is so ingrained in us that we can barely remember life before Watchmen.

Join us as we discuss morality and superheroics and everything in between in the newest installment of Alan Moore's favorite internet chat-piece: The Splash Page.

Or, as always, click. HERE.

When Words Collide: The Ballad of Captain Metropolis

The second weekly edition of "When Words Collide" is now live at CBR. It's supposed to be titled "The Ballad of Captain Metropolis," but it ran without a title. (Not that you'll have any doubt regarding the subject of the column, once you begin reading.)

And as Chad Nevett has already e-mailed me: I neglected to mention that Nelson Gardner was responsible for the formation of the Minutemen. It was, of course, his letter to Sally Jupiter (or her agent, rather), that led to the beginning of the team. I left that part out on purpose, because frankly I got tired of listing all the reasons why Captain Metropolis was so essential to Watchmen. I think there's more than enough evidence without that fact being included, and I wanted to move on to the more interesting topic: the Watchmen role-playing game. I may even have an interview with Daniel Greenberg and Ray Winninger coming up -- so keep you eye out for that. But, for now, enjoy my tribute to the sad and misguided Captain, and since I don't yet have a CBR forum, tell me how wrong I am in the comments here.