I will watch the Watchmen

Well, I haven’t made a new post in a while.  Not only that, but I’ve been slacking on posting in general.  I used to have a new post every other day, but now it feels like I’m going 1 or 2 weeks without adding something new.  I’m going to try and change that.

Anyways, let’s get back on track:

I’ve never been big into graphic novels.  This isn’t to say that I disliked them at all, I just never took the time to get into them.  Sure, I had some friends who really liked them, and I’d read some of their copies every once in a while, but I never bought any of my own… until now.

For those of you aren’t aware (although I imagine that’s very much a minority these days), Watchmen is a graphic novel by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.  It was published during 1986 and 1987 and has since been put into a single collection.  It is set in an alternate reality in which “costumed heroes” or “masked adventurers” are no longer fictional (although not necessarily common) and with several political events changed (the outcome of the Vietnam War, for example).

*Spoilers Ahead*

What I really love about this book, is that the plot is almost unnecessary.  The story is completely character-driven.  Not only that, but the book is a commentary on comic books as much as it is one itself.  It has a certain sense of self-deprecating humor while retaining a very realistic style in its satire.  There’s even some analysis of the super hero motif presented in the form of a ‘comic book within a comic book.’

This is helped along quite a bit by the various documents which are shown with each chapter.  Straying from the graphic novel style, it gives us a view of the Watchmen world which one might expect from actual literature.  In a certain sense, it becomes almost like metafiction.  The characters almost seem aware that they are playing parts within a graphic novel’s story.

My one gripe with the book is that of the ending.  While it makes perfect sense as an ending to the story, and it is absolutely necessary that it ends that way, I find that the transitions of the characters are ultimately unsatisfying.  This is annoying, for me, as the book is really all about the characters, and the story is the backdrop.

These tools work amazingly well within the bounds of a graphic novel, but how well might they translate to film?

Let’s take a look:

I must say, the trailers look pretty amazing.  However, some of the elements which I think make Watchmen a step above the rest (those literary devices I discussed earlier) are absent.  While I can understand this decision, as they need to market it to a wider, less patient audience, it leaves me a little worried.  Mostly, I’m worried that they’ll have to turn it into an action/super hero movie, and really, there is very little action in the entire series.

I also dislike the fact that they’ve modernized the costumes a bit.  I thought that the more traditional comic book hero appearance of the characters added to the satire.

From what I’ve read on the Wikipedia article for the film, there will be a second DVD which will be released when the movie comes out and will include the Tales of the Black Freighter in animated form as well as a mockumentary which will fill in the space of the backstory.  It’s unfortunate that time restrictions will make the joining of all these parts together an impossibility, but it’s nice to know that they’re at least attempting to stay true to the book as much as possible.

The one thing that really scares me is this quote: “ My Chemical Romance (whose lead singer Gerard Way is a fan of the comic) will cover Dylan’s “Desolation Row” for the closing credits.”

Do we really have to sink that low?

The Fountainhead: An old debate revisited

I just finished reading a book I’d been putting off for years.  Partly because of its exorbitant length, but also because I have a tendency to purposefully neglect books that are commonly espoused as “must-read-classics.”  Yes, I can be that stubborn.

I finally caved in a few months ago, however.

I have a tradition of buying a new book every time I go downtown with my Social Psych students as they work on their experiments for their first assignment.  I went into the bookstore and saw this one cradling the barrier between the Fiction and Philosophy sections.  I thought to myself, “Well, I guess it’s time.”

Anyways, I’m glad to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed this book despite my stubborn anti-snobbism (which is really just being a snob myself).  It was refreshing to read a book that was so rigidly structured and purposeful.  Most of the modern fiction that you’ll read (and I’m guilty of writing in this style myself) feels a little too… natural?  Not to say that this is a bad thing, of course, just that “classic” literature tends to feel like there is more deliberate content in its prose.  If there was ever a novel that felt deliberate, this is the one.

Collectivism versus Individualism

Be prepared to be hit over the head by the end of the novel.  It can get very preachy.  Don’t let that dissuade you, however–the preachiness is very convincing.  If you’re coming into the novel with a background full of socialistic ideals and collectivism (as I was), be warned that this novel will challenge you more than most.  It is a novel that praises rugged individualism like I’ve never encountered in my life.

This debate is one that’s very dear to my heart and invades almost every aspect of my life (for reference, see my post on Punk Rock).

Since I began to consider politics and economics (read: high school and college days) I’ve always leaned towards the left; often-times the extreme left.  This continuum is interwined, I believe, with those of Idealism versus Realism and Subjectivity versus Objectivity.  The more I grow up (ha!) I find that these extremes are never really the answer.

The extreme left in politics isn’t practical and ends up being inefficient, while the extreme right neglects the human element and increases economic disparity.

Idealism can be argued for both sides of the political spectrum with realism existing somewhere in the center.

I find that things are less relative than we’ve always liked to think.  No matter how special and unique we like to think we are, there is an objective world out there (we can get into Skepticism at another time, perhaps).  This allows quality, integrity, and judgment to exist.  This is why it is ridiculous to say, “Well, I like ______ so I think it’s good.”  Goodness is an objective description based upon certain criteria.  Things have infinite forms of “likeability,” but that doesn’t make them “good.”  We cannot discount the effect of perception, however, as it is important to understanding ourselves and those around us.

The Fountainhead, however, is an exercise in extremes.  It will challenge you on all of these aspects.  It promotes extreme Individualism (read: the political right… although this is debatable) to counterract extreme Collectivism (read: the political left).  It promotes extreme Idealism over extreme Realism.  It promotes extreme Objectivity over extreme Subjectivity.  Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is rampant throughout the novel, but there are specific moments where it really does feel like you’re being beaten into submission.  In the best possible way.

Extremism is fun to dabble in.  It’s much more exciting than moderation.  Reality will always try to pull you back to the middle, in my experience.

Anyways, definitely give this novel a shot.  The story itself is a pretty good read .  If nothing else, it’s good to challenge your views in order to find yourself wrong or to strengthen them even further.

Last day in the life of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Ok, so maybe that title is a little morbid and irreverent–but so was he.

Today marks the death of one of Russia’s most important 20th century authors. Much of our knowledge of what life in the Soviet Gulags was like is based upon his literary accounts of his experiences as Soviet political prisoner. Now, I feel a little bit unqualified to comment on his life and work, because I’ve only read One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (and it was required reading in my high school lit class), so I’ll let the New York Times do the talking for me:

Solzhenitsyn, Who Defied Soviets, Dies at 89

or, the BBC:

Obituary: Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Some really good information is to be gotten from these websites, but if you’re feeling a little rebellious you can check out the wikipedia page (so long as you’re not one of my students! Wikipedia is still not allowed to be used as a source, even if I use it).