pageok
pageok
pageok
When Will We Watch Watchmen?

20th Century Fox and Warner Brothers have been sparring over the latter's forthcoming release of Watchmen, based on the blockbuster D.C. Comics graphic novel of the same name. Fox alleges that WB violated their copyright by making the film because Fox purchased the story rights back in the 1980s, and is seeking to delay the film's release. News reports here and here.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. We Can Watch "Watchmen" in March:
  2. When Will We Watch Watchmen?
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Ugh. Watchmen is rightly regarded as the Magnum Opus of comic books. We comic book geeks have waited years for this to be adapted to a movie. We want to see how well or poorly the adaptation is. And if we have to wait any longer there will be *Hell to pay." Hell hath no fury like comic book geeks scorned.
12.29.2008 10:10pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
God, if that;s the magnum opus, things are poor for comics indeed. Maybe the buildup was too much but when I was done with Watchmen, all I could thingk was "overrated."
12.29.2008 10:16pm
loki13 (mail):
uhc-

When did you read Watchmen? If you read it recently, without knowing the historical (comics) background of it, it probably would be underwhelming.

It's similar to a person who watches Citizen Kane today. Since everyone has copied the techniques Welles used, most people don't understand what all the fuss is about (sure, it's good and all, but the best EVER???).

Watchmen really ushered in an era of psychological complexity for comic books. That it's progeny copied and surpassed it is more a testament to it than a detriment.
12.29.2008 10:23pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I don't even think it was surpassed. Rather I think UC is simply "talking trash" like the kind of person who would argue "War and Peace" is the most overrated book of all time.

Watchmen will be part of the Western Canon in one hundred years.
12.29.2008 10:32pm
Wayne Jarvis:
Put me in the overrated camp as well. The central problem with Watchmen, IMO, is that the main story is the weakest part of the book. And the ending is silly. I enjoyed it and everything, I just think it is oversold as a crowning achievement in literature.

Now Sandman on the other hand was everything that I wanted and expected Watchmen to be.
12.29.2008 10:34pm
buckeye (mail):
I'm not going to say it was bad, but to put it in the canon of great western literature as so many people seem to want to do is just silly.

Also, the idea that comic books didn't contain psychological complexity before this one, or that any that did afterward somehow got the "idea" from Watchmen isn't really a great argument.

I get into this discussion with people sometimes, and it generally ends up in "you just don't get it man, watchmen was like a total deconstruction of the genre". Except it wasn't.

The watchmen lovers out there will undoubtedly jump all over me, but I'll point out now that it was a great graphic novel that I've read a half dozen times and love, with really good characters, but it wasn't great literature and it wasn't a revolution.
12.29.2008 10:39pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Also, the idea that comic books didn't contain psychological complexity before this one,

I think Moore would disagree with the notion that comics didn't contain psychological complexity before Watchmen. I think he would note he took what already existed in implicit and subtle form and made it more explicit.

Something else I think is special about Moore is how simply brilliantly learned he is. And you'd never know it by looking at him. And by listening to him, on the surface you wouldn't think he was because he doesn't talk like a sophisticated Englishmen, but rather has sort of a low class Birmingham England accent. He sounds like the guys from Black Sabbath (the other ones, not Ozzy who couldn't put two sentences together in an articulate fashion).

Moore's chapter of Rorschach understands Nietzsche's abyss better than most left-wing Nietzsche scholars in the academy. He also "gets" (a thesis provocatively put forward by Allan Bloom, but I doubt the two knew of or read one another -- he made this point around the same time, in fact, in the 1980s that Bloom wrote "The Closing of the American Mind") that psychology itself, like the Rorschach blot test is grounded in German existential thought, arguably Nietzschean philosophy. The psychology of the "self" is a post modern understanding of man. But, laughably so, today's psychologists use ideas that came from the groundless, existential abyss to try to make us feel better! Moore brilliantly laughs this idea down in Watchmen similar to how Bloom did so in The Closing of the American Mind. I blogged about that here.
12.29.2008 10:56pm
Joe Bingham (mail):
The CK analogy is good, I think. I'm something of an aficionado and confess I just recently read Watchmen for the first time. Much better than V for Vendetta, that's for sure...
12.29.2008 11:02pm
JB:
This controversy supports the idea that intellectual property, rather than being a fundamental right, exists because of the benefit it provides to society.

Society would benefit by the release of Watchmen, the reproduction of Firefly on some other channel, the issuance of who knows how many shows on DVD that are currently held up in disputes over music licensing...but we can't have those because of IP.
12.29.2008 11:07pm
Howard Gilbert (mail):
In future years, this may be the textbook example of lawyers bringing an action that would prove disastrous to their client no matter how the court case turned out. Technology puts enormous power in consumer hands, and Intellectual Property survives thanks to the good will of basically honest people who believe artists deserve to be compensated for their creations. If Fox scrapes up some ambulance chasing shysters to try and extort money from WB, it will lose that good will and with it the power to protect its IP and its revenue stream from even a weakly organized popular revolt. Rupert Murdoch was not popular to begin with, and this is a fight he should not want and cannot win.
12.29.2008 11:15pm
Guest101:
"When did you read Watchmen? If you read it recently, without knowing the historical (comics) background of it, it probably would be underwhelming."

I just read it a couple of weeks ago, having very little previous background in comics, and thought it was one of the most profound works of fiction I've ever encountered.
12.29.2008 11:21pm
unhyphenatedconservative (mail):
Loki,
I'll admit to not being a fanboy but I do enjoy comics. Like I said, I think the problem was that I had heard so many folks practically orgasming over it that they way oversold it.
12.29.2008 11:55pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
What surprises me about this case is that an outfit like WB, with vast resources and decades of experience, did not do a more careful job of determining whether there were any encumbrances on the rights to the film. You'd think that they would have learned of the history of the property and dealt with it. As far as I can tell, there is no suggestion of misrepresentation on the part of the folks who sold the deal to WB, so it seems that WB didn't do due diligence.
12.29.2008 11:56pm
Cornellian (mail):
I thought Watchmen was a remarkably sharp and agile attack on the comic book genre.
12.30.2008 12:11am
Shawn Levasseur (mail) (www):
Due diligence? Heck, DC Comics is a subsidiary of Time-Warner, they're the original owners of the property. They REALLY ought to know the paper trail of the rights. But movie rights to a story is bound up in contracts that are open to a bit of interpretation. And do note that Fox did nothing to prevent the film from being made by WB, and did not file suit until it was clear from the buzz that the film will be a big ticket next year.

Fox is merely trying to get a cut of the action. That will require the film to hit the theaters for them to profit. Fox probably will not seek an injunction to keep the film from being released. They're not interested in creating their own Watchmen film at this point, just the cash from the one in the pipeline.
12.30.2008 12:30am
Iluvmyself (mail):
Of course, it's all because the juden lost all their money with one of their own, Madoff. Once all the men and women of Palestine are dead, the movie will proceed. Mazzeltov.

Quick: what do Simba and Obama have in common?

One's an African Lion;
The Other a lying African.

ha ha!
12.30.2008 1:11am
Ken Arromdee:
As a comics fan, I'd have to put myself on the side which says that Watchmen is overrated.

1) Moore is an extreme leftist (more of an anarchist) even by European standards, and the series included the standard leftist canards like moral equivalency between the US and the Soviets, patriotism is equivalent to fascism, etc. When Moore says Vietnam was made the 51st state, that doesn't mean that the Vietnamese got to lobby Congress to get government pork sent their way. Heck, the whole iconic watchface is based on the clock used by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists!
2) It did indeed have great influence--but the biggest influences were all the wrong things. Since Watchmen we got two decades of comic books set in a hopeless world where heroism is nonexistent, brutality is everywhere, and villains rape and torture instead of robbing banks. (Moore actually apologized for this much later.) If you're not familiar with comics, go look up Identity Crisis and Civil War.
2a) And as for deconstruction, here's my Usenet .signature:

"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."

3) It's easy for any series whatsoever to gain a following by including a lot of obscure references, vague explanations, plots that depend on some minor detail introduced 6 issues back, and things that only a few readers will notice until someone points them out. But there's a difference between "attracts anal-retentive fans and literary critics looking for something to analyze" and "good".
12.30.2008 1:27am
Obvious (mail):
UC,

I just finished a personal project, listing and elaborating on all the double meanings in words and illustrations Moore packs into Watchmen. It came to about 200 pages. So it does seem like a deeply layered text worthy of the Western canon.

Did you see the many associations with the god Hermes in Rorschach?

Did you notice the Salvador Dali painting, "The Persistence of Memory," on Dr. Manhattan's wall in Chapter IV? Or the fact that Janey Slater's glasses were cracked on the boardwalk by a fat man after they passed a little boy?

Did you see what the letters spell, in Chapter XII, when part of the Institute for Extraspatial Studies is obscured by green blood from the transported creature?

Perhaps I'm completely superficial for having missed all these references and more on the first dozen readings, but it does seem like a very worthy novel.
12.30.2008 1:28am
Melancton Smith:

"In a superhero story, Superman jumps off buildings and flies. In a realistic story, Superman doesn't jump off buildings and can't fly. Deconstruction is writing a story where Superman can't fly but he still jumps off of buildings."


Those must be some darn big flies!
12.30.2008 3:06am
Fidelity (mail) (www):
Wow, all these comic book fans coming out of the VC closet, I had no idea...

Anyways, I loved the Watchmen, and reading about the delay just made me say, "Oh ****!" I can't defend it in the same way some on here already have, I think it's notable that many more comic book movies have come out built upon a much worse idea. So, even if the original material may not be fantastic in some people's eyes, we can still expect a entertaining film.
12.30.2008 3:59am
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):
When Will We Watch Watchmen?
What's that in Latin?
12.30.2008 8:51am
Wayne Jarvis:
Obvious, the encyclopedia contains thousand and thousands of references. That doesn't make it great literature.

As I said above, the problem I have with the Watchmen is that the main story is unintersting and the supposed climax (no spoilers from me) to the main story is silly rather than profound. Moore created an interesting universe with interesting characters that have interesting backstories but then didn't do anything with them. He set an elaborate table and then when it came time for the meal he brings out Hot Pockets (TM). I just can't consider Watchmen one of the greatest works of literature or whatever it is called.
12.30.2008 9:20am
Houston Lawyer:
I am constantly amazed at all of the little subcultures that exist in America. While I've heard the term "graphic novels" used to describe comic books, I had always assumed that those who read them never progressed to books without pictures. Learn something new every day.
12.30.2008 9:49am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
1) Moore is an extreme leftist (more of an anarchist) even by European standards, and the series included the standard leftist canards

The following is something that Frank Miller -- the other biggie from that era -- has in common with Moore. They are both seemingly extreme left (lots and lots of artists; artists are notably bourgeois haters). They hate mainstream Nixon-Reagan-Buckley right. But they sympathize with extreme right. The hero in Watchmen -- Rorschach -- his politics are Ayn Rand meets the John Birch Society.

Miller's Batman/Dark Knight is no lefty, but a Clint Eastwood-Charles Bronson style paleo-conservative who believes corrupt, inefficient government should have no monopoly on force. And Miller's politics have moved right (not unlike Christopher Hitchens') because of the his sympathy for fighting War on Terror/Islamofascism.
12.30.2008 9:50am
Sk (mail):
Is Watchman better than Buffy?

Sk
12.30.2008 10:25am
WinterBreak:

The following is something that Frank Miller -- the other biggie from that era -- has in common with Moore. They are both seemingly extreme left


I'm sorry, Frank Miller is extreme left? This Frank Miller? On what do you base this?
12.30.2008 10:30am
WinterBreak:
Jon Rowe, my bad for posting before reading the last sentence of your post. But still, I've never heard of Frank Miller being referred to as a lefty, and it is increasingly difficult to imagine him being one.
12.30.2008 10:31am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Yes, that's the "new" Frank Miller, like Christopher Hitchens, after going through some transformation.

I don't mind Miller's political transformation (given I'm a libertarian, not a lefty or a righty). The problem though is Miller's new Batman stuff sucks. The Dark Knight Strikes Back was okay. Not as good as the first one (story OR art wise), but still had some clever aspects.

But his new Batman and Robin is horrible.

Most of the stuff Moore has written in the meantime isn't nearly as good as Watchmen (and I don't think we should expect it to be); but it's not that bad.
12.30.2008 10:37am
Sarcastro (www):
I know I never read anything by leftis anarchists. Especially if they contain a character I disagree with.
12.30.2008 10:43am
Cornellian (mail):
I am constantly amazed at all of the little subcultures that exist in America. While I've heard the term "graphic novels" used to describe comic books, I had always assumed that those who read them never progressed to books without pictures. Learn something new every day.

You'll also find lots of former D&D players around here who, despite dire predictions from the usual suspects in the 1980s, never grew up to be Satan worshipping criminals. Live and learn.
12.30.2008 11:05am
MCM (mail):
Yes, that's the "new" Frank Miller, like Christopher Hitchens, after going through some transformation.


I'm really curious about this. Where is any evidence that Miller used to be a "lefty"? Keep in mind the original 300 comic was published in 1998, so it seems that many of his opinions pre-dated 2001.
12.30.2008 11:39am
MCM (mail):
They are both seemingly extreme left (lots and lots of artists; artists are notably bourgeois haters). They hate mainstream Nixon-Reagan-Buckley right.


My gut reaction is that you are misinterpreting Miller's alienation from mainstream conservative culture as opposition to conservatism, or support for the radical left.
12.30.2008 11:45am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
MCM,

Read Give Me Liberty, written by Miller and drawn by Dave Gibbons, the same fellow who drew Watchmen. It's quite good and shows Miller's politics before his transformation. His politics were almost exactly the same as Moore's -- radically lefty, but with a soft spot for the anti-statist extreme right (paleoconservatives and libertarians, i.e., rightists with anarchist instincts).

The main villain is a Republican President who, if I remember correctly, followed President Dan Quayle.

Martha Washington Goes to War
, the sequel, has an Atlas Shrugged quality to it.
12.30.2008 11:52am
MCM (mail):
Interesting, I'll have to take a look at it.
12.30.2008 11:56am
Ken Arromdee:
The following is something that Frank Miller -- the other biggie from that era -- has in common with Moore.

I've never seen Miller as extreme left, unlike Moore. As noted by others, being opposed to some elements of the right (Dark Knight showed Reagan as a doddering fool, for instance, and had a corrupt government outlawing most superheroes) doesn't make him a leftist. Even in Dark Knight, Miller seemed to think that Batman was doing good by taking the law into his own hands. Watchmen, meanwhile, showed superheroes as fascists, people who lost touch with humanity, people with delusions of grandeur, or at best ineffectual everymen just playing at superheroing compared to one of the other versions. Moore didn't approve of Rorschach at all, and was dismayed when fans sympathized with him too much.
12.30.2008 12:23pm
Ken Arromdee:
I know I never read anything by leftis anarchists. Especially if they contain a character I disagree with.

Your sarcasm is ludicrous here. I shouldn't have to state it, but I did in fact read Watchmen.
12.30.2008 12:26pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Ken Arromdee I wasn't exactly lampooning you, I just liked the phrase "leftist anarchist."]
12.30.2008 12:28pm
Frater Plotter:
If you think Watchmen is "anarchist", go read Grant Morrison's The Invisibles; it'll make your head explode. It's about terrorism, and the terrorists are the good guys -- it's kind of like V for Vendetta but with the Marquis de Sade, UFOs, voodoo, surrealism, and jokes.

On the other hand, if you read Radley Balko and you liked Illuminatus!, it'll be right up your alley.

(Watchmen is not anarchist at all. It's mourning the demise of gentlemanly liberalism, and the excesses that the Cold War era and the '60s forced upon everyone. Rorschach isn't the good guy at all; the middle-aged and decrepit Nite Owl II is: recapturing some of the combination of decency and romance that made a hero a good thing to be once upon a time when the world was young.)
12.30.2008 1:48pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Frater,

That's an interesting interpretation and I think it might even be Moore's. It's also possible that "Moore didn't approve of Rorschach." However, to many folks -- especially the philosophically minded ones who read the book -- Rorschach comes off as the hero. I'm not going to mention who the main villain is because I DON'T want to ruin it for "the folks." But he turns out to be a mass murderer. AND Night Owl II ends up siding/making peace with him.

That's why many who've read Watchmen conclude Rorschach was the hero.
12.30.2008 2:49pm
Frater Plotter:
Jon:

(I can't keep this entirely free of spoilage ...)

What Rorschach proposed to do at the end of Watchmen would have killed billions in order to avenge the villain's killing of millions. Yes, the villain was a mass murderer, but if Rorschach had been allowed to expose him, it would have started a nuclear war.

Nite Owl did not concede that the villain's actions were right -- just that, having been accomplished, they could not be avenged in the way Rorschach wanted without causing an even worse villainy. And both Nite Owl and Doc Manhattan realized that, and chose the lesser of two evils.

That's the Cold War for you: at some point you have to either tolerate the other guy's evil, or be willing to destroy the world to stop him.

The villain's brand of utilitarianism is one in which it is right to destroy a city in order to save the world. That's evil. Rorschach's brand of moral absolutism is one in which it is right to destroy the world in order to avenge a wrong; he says as much on the very first page. That's even more evil.

And the wimpy liberal (Nite Owl) and Almighty God (Doc Manhattan) side with the utilitarian against the absolutist.
12.30.2008 4:15pm
Ken Arromdee:
I didn't say that Watchmen is anarchist, I said that Moore is anarchist. It isn't all that hard to verify that since there are plenty of interviews on Google. For instance this is the first link I get.

As for Moore not approving of Rorschach, try this. "Rorschach has got this fierce, morally-driven kind of psychotic view that is…something you could imagine people believing. Certain people. I might even believe some of those things myself on a particularly bad morning."

Yes, to a lot of people, Rorschach does come across as the hero. With any character at more than a certain level of complexity who doesn't go around killing random babies, there will always be some sympathetic aspects. Moore didn't want him to be, though.
12.30.2008 4:28pm
CJColucci:
As I understand it, Fox claimedthat it had rights that WB needed to buy (and presumably could have bought at some price) to distribute the film. Maybe so, but it was open and notorious that WB was producing the film, and Fox didn't sue until the film was in the can. (Do they actually use film these days, and does it still go into a can?) Seems to me that Fox may be entitled to some money, but that it shouldn't get equitable relief preventing distribution of the film this late in the game.
12.30.2008 5:35pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Someone should get Julian Sanchez into these threads who knows as much about comics (and Watchmen) but more about philosophy than I do.

Frater, your analysis is pregnant with a disputed moral premise. It is not a matter of settled moral consensus that the ends justify the means. In fact it's a classic matter of dispute.

I don't even know the official name of the moral dilemma, but I'm sure professional philosophers have one. But a variant of it might be: If I kill innocent Bill, innocent Fred and innocent Carl don't get run over by the train. If If I merely do nothing (don't kill Bill), Fred and Carl DO get run over by the train.

It's one thing to argue inaction that results in the death of innocents that would not have occurred absent that inaction is immoral. It's entirely another to argue you can murder innocents for the greater good, to save more lives.

Moore's graphic novel well presents that moral dilemma. And the conclusion regarding who the real hero is depends on which moral arguments one finds more convincing.
12.30.2008 5:35pm
Guest101:
It's a moral dilemma not unlike that faced by Leto Atredies II at the end of Children of Dune and in God Emperor of Dune: do the ends justify the means when the survival of humanity is at stake? Personally I ended up sympatizing with Ozymandias.
12.30.2008 6:48pm
Thales (mail) (www):
Jon Rowe, the label is the "trolley problem" after an essay by Phillipa Foot. It's a moral conundrum rather than a dilemma (the latter term is often mistakenly used).

I found Watchmen to be outstanding, though I agree that the surprise climax was a bit of a contrivance. I would be surprised if a film version got it right, though Lord of the Rings greatly exceeded my expectations in this realm.

Also, I don't agree that Nietzsche or early psychotherapeutic thought is "existentialist" (and Allan Bloom's and other Straussians' views of Nietzsche and everything else are suspect) though Freud definitely owed and acknowledged his huge debt to Nietzsche (and Plato).
12.30.2008 7:39pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Thales,

Thanks. I realize that Straussian views are disputed.

"[T]hough Freud definitely owed and acknowledged his huge debt to Nietzsche...."

Perhaps my use of the term "existentialist" was unwarranted. I was referring to the groundless nihilism of Nietzsche. If Freud does indeed in some way trace back to Nietzsche, would it be fair to say that German psychology of whom Freud is the father, is grounded in Nietzschean nihilism?

One thing that surprised me about Moore's take on Nietzsche and German based psychology (i.e., the Rorschach "blot test") was how closely it paralleled Allan Bloom's understanding of Nietzsche and modern psychology.

Of course I didn't get this until about my 5th reading of Watchmen, after I had read "The Closing of the American Mind."

I first read Watchmen when I was 13. And about every 5 years, I reread the whole series. It wasn't until around my 5th reading around age 30 that I fully understood all of the philosophical, scientific and literary allusions.
12.30.2008 8:23pm
Ken Arromdee:
One thing people often miss about Watchmen is that the climax didn't show that Veidt's plan was going to work. The scene near the end with the New Frontiersman heavily suggests that Rorschach's journal could be found and used to expose the plan.
12.30.2008 10:58pm
Guest101:
"One thing people often miss about Watchmen is that the climax didn't show that Veidt's plan was going to work. The scene near the end with the New Frontiersman heavily suggests that Rorschach's journal could be found and used to expose the plan."

I'm not sure how that could happen. At the time he left for the Antarctic Rorschach had no idea what Veidt was up to; even if the journal was found and published it would be quite a stretch for anyone to conclude that Veidt had anything to do with the giant exploding squid, even assuming, of course, that anyone took yet another conspiracy theory published in the New Frontiersman seriously.

The only thing that bothered me about the ending was the sudden introduction of psychic abilities. Up to that point the only person with any legitimate superhuman powers was Dr. Manhattan, yet Veidt talks casually about the existence of psychics and, obviously, that was a key factor in the success of his plan. Seems like it could have been better worked into the plot at an earlier point, or Moore could have found a way to avoid using it.
12.31.2008 2:32am
Ken Arromdee:
*Another* thing people forget is that outside of the literary field, Alan Moore is a total flake. He's a believer in magic and the occult and it's pretty safe to say that he believes psychic powers exist. That's why a series which otherwise has only one fantastic element is written as though they're real.
12.31.2008 2:50am
Ken Arromdee:
Alan Moore interview where he spouts nonsense, including the typical New Age misinterpretation of quantum mechanics and a misunderstanding of James Randi.

Randi's response
12.31.2008 3:03am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Ken,

The Moore/Randi thing is an interesting tidbit. But I don't see how it's relevant to anything. Moore's religious beliefs probably aren't that much more unbelievable than Mormonism (of which Orson Scott Card, a pretty good Sci Fi writer is a devout one) or traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs either.

God love the skeptics like Randi who debunk superstition. But I don't see that many of them writing good novels. If Randi tried to write one, I'd bet it would suck.
12.31.2008 10:32am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Let me further elaborate something that skeptically minded folks might like hearing but is still probably true. And I myself am fairly skeptically minded and would consider much if not all of Moore's personal religious beliefs as "nonsense." (Indeed, I'm going to be guest-blogging on the largest skeptic blogging network next week).

Actually believing in fantasy probably helps creative minds like Alan Moore to get into his fantasy world mind and make those characters "come alive." How much of the great religiously motivated art of the Western Canon do you think could have been done if the artists themselves were atheists?

The hard nosed "truth" does not always set us free. It is not always good. And sometimes it dispels much like telling a little kid the *truth* that Santa doesn't exist dispels.

For more on Moore and his religious beliefs, check out this clip.
12.31.2008 10:49am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
Sorry. This should have read:

Let me further elaborate something that skeptically minded folks NOT might like hearing but is still probably true.
12.31.2008 10:50am
Gues101:
I don't know, Jon; it's hard to see how belief in the paranormal makes one a better fiction writer. True enough that many great writers over the ages have been believers of some sort, but I'm inclined to think that's more the result of the fact that believers have greatly outnumbered nonbelievers throughout history, and continue to do so, rather than any correlation between belief in the paranormal and storytelling ability. In any event I have no intention of lying to my children (when I have them) about the existence of Santa Claus; I rather doubt that will excessively stunt their imaginative development.
12.31.2008 12:19pm
Ken Arromdee:
Moore's religious beliefs become relevant when they affect his work; my point is that they probably did. The reason why he added a second fantastic element to a story that otherwise had only one was that he didn't think of that element as fantastic. (Though to be fair, he didn't officially become a wizard until post-Watchmen.)
12.31.2008 4:06pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I think Moore's understanding of the occult and magic as seen in Promethean is outstanding even though as a skeptic I regard magic as pure fantasy along Star Wars lines.
12.31.2008 8:46pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.