I suppose the best way to start this off is with a warning: Every time I see Alan Moore speak, I just get angry. I can't think of a single thing he has ever said that wasn't negative, vaguely egotistical, or at the very least, wasn't entirely self concerned. That's not to say he hasn't, but he's not exactly the kind of person who has painted the picture of himself over the last few decades as being a very nice guy, or an adequate guy for that matter. He's known for being a cynical, bitter and jaded man who is very hard to work with and very demanding and impossible to please in any situation. Because of this reputation I'm not very fond of him, which could cause my entire opinion to be based on the spite I have toward the man, but I'll try my best to not sound like such an ass about it.
That having been said, I would be unable to honestly say anything too terrible about much of his work, and while I wouldn't go so far as to say he's the greatest comics has to offer, despite my own personal issues with the man, his books are still some of my most recommended to those interested in the medium of comics the likes of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Tom Strong, Marvel/Miracle Man, V for Vendetta, Swamp Thing, and of course, Watchmen. And of course, his most famous mark is usually the most recommended one from me, and is certainly my favourite of his works. Again, I wouldn't go so far to call Watchmen the one comic to rule them all, but I wouldn't say calling it the "most celebrated graphic novel" is incorrect. I might even argue that it is.(Depending on the crowd I'm around and their willingness to let me get away with saying Kingdom Come claims that position.) Nonetheless, it's a great example of the medium in almost every aspect the medium is meant to be shown as, and I can't help but respect Watchmen deeply, the way a film buff would respect a film like Metropolis or The Glass Key, classics of cinema that show off the language of film in a way that while is comparatively dated, is still a pointed piece in film history. But, like those films, I've opined for many years that Watchmen is not just merely dated, but irrelevant.
At least, it is irrelevant to the modern conventions of our Superheroes, not just merely in the way we tell stories about them, but how we handle and approach heroes today. They're no longer about the frailty and futility of the idea of being a superhero, no longer about the deconstruction of them down to a point where you can no longer recognize exactly what makes Superman so super. And while I think Watchmen will always have a place in comic books, it shouldn't be more than a historical, cultural, or aesthetic place in comics. Other books like the aforementioned Kingdom Come, New Frontier, All Star Superman, Red Son, Civil War, and so on capture what modern comics are more about: the celebration of those heroes as what they are; not merely just that they're super, but that they can be silly, that they can be fun, that they can be heartwarming, sincere and honest.
Now, I told you all of that because I think it sets the mood right for Before Watchmen, which I think may just be the most controversial thing in comics since the Death of Superman (well, maybe that's a bit of hyperbole.) The majority of opinions are split between those in support of Alan Moore, meaning they wish death by spit, venom, and bile to Before Watchmen, and those in support of DC, saying they have the right to create these new stories, and the places in between. But, in almost all the conversations I see out there on the subject seem to agree that no matter what, even if they like Before Watchmen, it's still morally unethical to have done it. Well, I'm going to say this right now, I don't think it is. I know, shocker, but trust me, I'm going somewhere with this.
If we were to agree that Before Watchmen is morally unethical to create, then I think we'd first have to understand why. The only reason anyone could and are saying that it's unethical, is because of creator rights. Those of you who don't know (and a refresher for those fuzzy on the subject) Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons created Watchmen for DC back in 1986-87. DC made them a deal, that by today's standards is pretty shitty, but back then was something not many people were given. DC would publish the books in issues, then would collect the book into a 'graphic novel' format, and would publish that. When the 'graphic novel' went out of print, Alan and Dave would get the rights to the book. The book has never gone out of print. What this means is that while Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons co-created this work, they never owned the rights to these characters or this story. Regardless of that, the issue of ethics here is still based very largely on the creator rights aspect. Alan Moore has been very vocal about his dislike of this project, much the same of any projects involving his works but not him. And honestly, I'm not in a position to say he can't or shouldn't be. Gibbons on the other hand, has been very neutral towards most of it, and of course, editor Len Wein proves his opinion by writing one of the stories of Before Watchmen.
But if we're going to say that Moore's dislike of it makes doing Before Watchmen unethical, I think we'd then have to say that almost every single Superman story you're aware of, from All Star Superman to the Superman Animated Series is just as unethical, seeing as how the Siegle and Shuster kids have been rather vocal about the rights to Superman for many number of decades. I think you could honestly extrapolate that concept to almost the entirety of Superhero comics. Co-Creator Stan Lee had always thought that Spider Man's main squeeze was Gwen Stacy, not Mary Jane, and was very against the idea of killing her off, and the other Co-Creator left the book after disagreements on the secret identity of the Green Goblin, yet despite Lee's opinions on the Night Gwen Stacy Died, and Ditko's on Norman Osborn being Green Goblin, fans and critics alike accept these stories with both arms and feet. I ask, what exactly is it about Before Watchmen that makes people so quick to decry it as morally unethical where many of those same people avert their eyes from a truly morally unethical action, such is the likes of the creator rights lawsuit behind the scenes of the Walking Dead between Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore? What makes Alan Moore's case so much more compelling to people than Tony Moore's?
I think we could even extrapolate further than that and say that Watchmen itself is morally unethical. One part of the story I didn't cover earlier was that Moore and Gibbons didn't quite create these characters in the sense that many people think of. In 1985 DC acquired the Charlton Comics characters, which were a bunch of silver age heroes, the majority of which were created or updated by Steve Ditko. Meanwhile, Alan Moore, hot off of his run on Marvel/Miracle-Man, thought he could do the same treatment to a bunch of other superheroes, originally thinking the Archie Comics superheroes, but eventually deciding on doing the Charlton Comics characters. In this way you can draw direct lines between Blue Beetle and Nite Owl, Peter Cannon - Thunderbolt and Ozymandias, Peacemaker and the Comedian, Captain Atom and Doctor Manhattan, and The Question and Rorschach; that last one being the 'quintessential Steve Ditko character' based also on Steve Ditko's other very Ayn Randian character Mr A. If Steve was vocal about much of anything, I'd think we'd hear more about his dislike of Rorschach than what hearsay we do know. Now like I said, that's extrapolation, not the strongest claim, and I'm certain that's not too convincing of many of you out there, but I think the principle still stands. If you'd like though, let me pose this to you: What about if Mick Anglo's claim that he never gave Warrior the rights to Marvelman were true? What do you think Jules Vern, Bram Stoker, and Robert Louis Stevenson would think of the League of Extraordinary Gentleman? You think they'd see the League as being a work that stands on its own?
The point I'm vaguely and very slowly working towards, is that art, in all it's forms, in all mediums, is made by some pretty awful people, and while I'd never tell you how you should feel, sometimes it's just better to not let who a person is ruin your enjoyment of their art. Chinatown does not become any worse a film after you know what Roman Polanski has been accused of, and by that same nature, Holy Terror is not made any better when you learn more about Frank Miller's political views. Still I get it though, some people can't watch Mel Gibson films anymore after all the things he's done, and I'm practically unable to watch Hitchcock and Kubrick films for the same reason, but ultimately art is not changed just because you know more about the person who made it. Their art may not have been made because of their flaws, but their flaws are a part of what lead to their art. Moore's cynicism is likely why he was adamant in deconstructing the hero as much as he did. It might change your view of that art, but it shouldn't cloud your judgement. A lot of things in art are morally unethical, and sometimes you do just have to learn to look past it.
This however is, at least to me, not one of those times. For all the reasons above, I'd rather them not be used to describe the whole of comic books as morally unethical. Obviously, I'd rather they be the examples to prove that the idea that Before Watchmen is morally unethical is just silly. DC had the rights to the story since the creation of the book and has waited until now to create prequels/sequels, and they didn't just throw it to who ever is just popular right now, they decided to have it go to the industries best, to creators like Darwyn Cooke, Amanda Conner, Brian Azzerello, and they even extended their olive branch to Alan Moore despite three decades worth of horrible, spiteful, and just plain mean spirited dialogue from Alan, even if some of it was deserved, but certainly when a lot of it wasn't. Now, I won't be so blind to think that they're not making these just to get some extra dough. Why else would you do something like this unless you wanted to cash in on the most celebrated graphic novel of all time? But they're doing it with class and respect, a kind of respect Alan Moore, in my eyes, hasn't earned.
So, here comes the ultimate question though; "Are they any good?" My answer to that is an emphatic "Yes!", and not just because Darwyn Cooke is my favourite comic book writer and my favourite comic book artist, and that Brian Azzerello is another of my favourite comic book writers, and that Amanda Conner is my second favourite comic book artist. Well, actually, it is, but not just because of their involvement. Now, all the books haven't even had their #1s out yet, only 3 have hit the shelves so far which makes it way too early to call, but right now, from what I'm seeing out of Minutemen, Silk Spectre, and Comedian, I'm actually enjoying Before Watchmen more than Watchmen itself. Now, there's the opinion in this article that'll be the base breaker.
Like I said before, Watchmen reflected the age of the 80s, and where comics were going, and created a gritty deconstruction of the hero, marred in cynicism and bitterness, but that's not the superheroes of today are about. The heroes who are celebrated for their silliness, and for their penchant for fun, and most of all, for their sincerity. I think it really just comes down to Alan Moore. He's not the kind of guy who has an open heart, and even in Tom Strong, America's Finest Science Hero, we only get glimpses of a real, true-felt sincerity. Darwyn Cooke on the other hand knows sincerity, and in Minutemen and Silk Spectre he shows it. Same goes for Brian Azzerello. And both of them know their way around irredeemable grit, just check out Brian Azzerello's Joker and Darwyn Cooke's adaptation of Richard Stark's Parker.It's that they can breath even the shallowest breath of true, honest to goodness sincerity, that's what comics are about these days. It's what makes me think that Before Watchmen isn't just some cash in, but that it could just the same be a work that stands on it's own with the integrity of a great comic, because dammit, I can already tell it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment