He's not wrong, you know.
Watchmen was disowned by Alan.
>The series was created by a British collaboration consisting of writer Alan Moore, artist Dave Gibbons, and colorist John Higgins. Watchmen originated from a story proposal Moore submitted to DC featuring superhero characters that the company had acquired from Charlton Comics.
>>8273507
Alan's only disowning his comic work because he thinks it will weigh down his literary merit in writing books. If anything he's making it worse, he should accept what he's created and move on.
except that it is as pomo as other pomo works
I disagree completely. It's not because it is "encompassing of its culture" that it is good, it is precisely because of its writing. I think the perception of Watchmen changed a lot after the movie came out and then when Before Watchmen came out. As it tried to pay homage to the original story all the time, it ended up stripping Watchmen of its values and replacing the story in people's mind by a something completely opposite of it, based on appearances alone.
While it is undeniable that Watchmen has a "superhero clothing" to it, the story cannot be reduced to it. It's not merely a criticism of comics and superheroes and if taken to be so, it becomes another rendition of it altogether, no more than a parody or any other hero story that poses itself as more serious, or with longer words used.
Watchmen makes full use of its support, it's metaphor and interpretation and the story functions stitching together a multitude of points of view, writing styles, visual cues and it happens at the point of ignorance of each one of the characters. In this way, it makes a wonderful use of its form to deliver content, a content that cannot exist outside this form.
I think discussing whether it should be next to literary works, if it's as good as this or that, etc, that kind of stuff is absolutely banal.
Watchmen is YA Gravity's Rainbow.
From Hell is Alan Moore's most original and interesting work.
>>8273504
Somehow pomo has entered the cultural lexicon to mean "anything unconventional or subversive"
>>8273609
I agree with the last sentence.
![Neil-Gaiman[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JOKXyl1.jpg "Neil-Gaiman[1].jpg")
>>8273559
> it will weigh down his literary merit in writing books
Is he even a good writer? Why do comic writers do this?
>>8273504
the most Dunning-Kruger thing I've read all year, and I browse /lit/.
>>8273650
because they hate themselves or rather that they are comic book writers
It's not a novel, it's not american and the writing sucks so that doesn't sound so great.
Is twitter the great american novel? Lots of ill-informed hype and posturing.
>>8273654
If i write for comics, am i doomed? Are the doors of patrician literature closed for me?
>>8273662
No, as long as you don't tell anyone they will still let you in to the library.
>>8273662
it's more than what the average /lit/ user writes. Be irreverent about literature. There is no "patrician"
>>8273507
And Lot 49 was disowned by Pynchon. Artists are rarely decent judges of their own work.
>>8273639
Watchmen is pomo though
>>8273662
Ta-Nehsi Coates is writing Black Panther right now, so no.
>>8273710
>Ta-Nehsi Coates
Literally who?
>>8273743
you being an idiot doesn't discredit other people anon
>>8273696
in what way is it pomo? and please be thorough in your explanation.
Unless you think pomo is something chronological.
>>8273752
But i don't want to be a one hit wonder. What's the point? The money? I'd rather work doing anything else. If i write it is to leave a mark. Otherwise would be pointless.
>>8273743
one of "those" journo slash writer types writing about struggle and all that. You know, original types like Jewish comedians talking about psychology and their mothers.
>>8273760
Total disregard if not outright contempt for the general "superhero narrative."
>>8273650
Alan's a decent writer, a bit violent in his style for my tastes but he's fully capable of writing literature without any of the influence of his comic work.
Gaiman on the other should have stuck with comics, they were his strength.
>>8273662
Certainly not
>>8273785
I don't mean to offend you but it appears that you have a wikipedian understanding of postmodernism. Do you want to try again?
>>8273801
Are you saying alternative narratives are not postmodern? Or is it that your misplaced egotism doesn't allow you to admit that you're wrong on an Uzbek narrative tapestry?
>>8273836
no I mean under your definition (I'm not quite sure what you've understood postmodernism to be) pomo is anything trope reversal slash subversion. Which is a very wikipedian understanding of postmodernism.
Watchmen could never be postmodern as it in itself became a genre with established tropes.
Besides, you have to have a very shallow understanding of postmodernism to say that the "deconstruction of the hero and its iconography" found in Watchmen is reason enough to label it postmodernist.
Watchmen in and of itself is not postmodernist, but it's (was) on the right track.
>>8273880
>Watchmen could never be postmodern as it in itself became a genre with established tropes.
wut
>>8273690
No it wasn't you retarded memer.
>>8273504
How can it be the great 'murrican novel (a supremely retarded designation, by the way) if it's not even a novel and the author isn't a 'murrican?
>>8274030
This.
>thinking a comic book is equal to a novel
>If I critisize something for "bad writing" surely that will cement a reputation for myself as a tasteful and intellegent individual.
Watchmen is pretty good but I wouldnt call it literature
Fuck that cunt for saying it has "bad writing"
it actually is marketed as one of the greatest novels of all time. at the top of the front cover it says "on Times list of 100 greatest novels of all time"
>>8274389
sorry this is what it says
>>8274014
it wasn't disowned by Pynchon but he did say he didn't like it very much.
>>8274432
he didn't quite say that either. All he said was that he had "forgotten" the "lessons" he had learned writing V. it's a much more ambiguous comment than people around here like to pretend. par for the course.
