For us Europeans, it is easy to understand the depth of
American superheroes. Are a product that we appreciate and consume, but as a mere object of entertainment. For Americans, however, are something more: it is their mythology. Yes, we have the Iliad, the Odyssey, centuries and centuries of literature, a wealth of images, situations, hypertrophic archetypes that enrich our collective imagination, not them, there are just two or three centuries, their history more former concerns the conquest of the West, the Pilgrims, David Crockett and little else. Where to lay the much beloved "traditional values"? Which assets to draw images, metaphors, examples? From the European tradition, of course, but the American otherness, of which they boast so much and on which, willingly or unwillingly, they build their image, it's needed, at least since the years of great depression, new gods and new heroes, new models and new basis on which to shape the American dream. And most of the superhero embodies the myth of selfmade-man, justice do-it-yourself race to the daughter of
west, the overwhelming desire to emerge as a single personality in society?
Not surprisingly, after just sixty years, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Flash (and so on and so forth) are entered in the collective right to good for us Europeans (who now live in the reflection mode U.S. - ironic fate, eh?) for Americans are the foundations of popular culture, language, morality, are a real mythology, in fact.
And as for all languages \u200b\u200bwith a high degree of formality, even the superhero is "affected" by a rhetoric often annoying. Whether the rhetoric of the hero without stain, to Superman, or that of the masked vigilante and dark, Batman-style, no matter, the mythological character results in a stylized font and topoi and tends to have a handle marked (for us Europeans even cloying).
It is no coincidence that it is precisely an Englishman, Alan Moore
to reshuffle the cards on the table: the author of
Watchmen, what is considered by many the masterpiece of the comics
"American" in any of his works show the indulgent standards of the superhero genre. Indeed, precisely in Watchmen (released between 1985 and 1986 in 12 numbers) Moore by a reversal of the traditional characters of the heroes in tights: superheroes - which are never called by that name, and is already a signal - do not have powers neither ambitions nor powers comparable to those of a Superman or a Batman or a Spiderman, they are ordinary men and women who for one reason or another, will wear a costume and they managed to justice personnel. There are, in Watchmen, the good and evil, there are only different opinions, well regarded by the author to make judgments about (if you really want to get an idea of \u200b\u200bthe position of Moore, better turn in "V for Vendetta" His other masterpiece). Everything is set up as a reflection on the power and authority: to what extent the concept makes sense to constituted authority? Where does the responsibility of the state where it starts and that of the vigilante? Heroism is reason enough to give himself the power to impose their own righteousness, or is just the prelude to fascism? And in the case, it would be so wrong?
These issues are treated with a depth never seen in comics (If not in Miller, "The Dark Knight Returns" is no coincidence the same year), can not always be understood by our European, American policies because the categories are quite different from ours; Moore knows this, and often plays the ambiguity in speaking of American fascism, communism and democracy.
addition to being a political analysis, Watchmen is the representation of many small figures, each profoundly human (with the exception, which will be discussed later, Dr. Manhattan), with their dreams, their past, their moral and their hopes, is a discourse on the madness of crowds and mass society, always on the verge of become a herd, is a meditation on the limits of science and its great potential and is a reflection on the gods, the transcendent, embodied in the character of Dr. Manhattan, the only equipped with superpowers, who lives in the world but beyond it who knows the reality beyond the illusions of time and sensitive, in short, the plans are numerous and all of the speech dealt with depth and originality. You could almost say that Moore uses a superhero universe just to have a very specific frame of reference, a setting that allows him, in mythological-symbolic terms, to address a broad spectrum of different problems, drawing on the popular of contemporary mythologies, the fact that American comics.
From a literary point of view, Watchmen excels in the masterly handling of narrative material and timing of the story, always measured to perfection and never heavy or frantic, the action is almost non-existent, and where there is functional to the general discourse and the story unfolds over several time levels, supported by a good system of
flashbacks and digressions, dialogues seek to avoid the rhetoric, although a few small concessions "epic" is present.
Gibbons, pencils, sports a nice feature but not altogether original character design is nice and charming, but not it is an innovator like Miller, for example. The size of the cut Gibbons is a director and highly detailed: there are many iconic and symbolic references throughout the work, like representations of clocks, pyramids, smile, and never free, always anchored to the story, but at the same time carry a specificity just symbolic, and to some extent transcendent.
So, if you love American comics, you can not read Watchmen. If you hate them, take a good revenge on them, reading Watchmen. If you are indifferent, read Watchmen and change your mind. If not attended many kind (like me) and just want to read a great work, read Watchmen. There are no excuses!
PS I'll spare you this time my collection of websites instead of pedantry and leave you only the banal
link to the wikipedia page
... Too many things to say!
