Post comics that are better than watchmen

post comics that are better than watchmen

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

Post faggots who are gayer than OP

...

Umm, but that was written by a misognystic rapist ...

So was Watchmen, oh wait, that's the joke ha!

Stop posting. Ironic cancer is cancer.

...

...

...

"Pax > Watchmen" is such a poor meme. It's a oneshot that is self-consciously rushing through a Watchmen pastiche as a means of setting up a fictitious run of comics (as part of the larger Multiversity gimmick). It contains some absolutely majestic storytelling but it's not even attempting to be better than Watchmen, the literal limits of its concept and format restrict it to being a slimmer, shallower and less complete echo of Watchmen.

>Structure of the book lifted right from Memento
>dude time is like an infinity symbol and has no beginning or end lmao
Has Morrison ever had an original thought in his life?

...

>watchman
>good

pick one, reddit

I just finished reading this. Did the hammer mentioned as one of the 7 nonperishable treasures actually show up? I don't remember seeing a hammer besides the one in the "splitting of the atom" scene from proto-camalot

Bulleteer was the hammer.

wasnt she the spear

...

Jesus Fucking Christ, how did this elseworld manage to be so goddamn good?

I don't think there's a single capeshit comic that's as structurally deep and eloquent as something like Watchmen. Moore doesn't waste a single panel of the book and that's really an achievement in terms of structure and pacing that no other capeshit book has yet achieved or will achieve.

Its "depth" is the kind of dept eternal hs-level mentalities think is "deep". Like zack snyder's.
It has many good qualities but certainly not that. You are confusing attempt to be deep with depth.

Explain actual depth and give example.

>Its "depth" is the kind of dept eternal hs-level mentalities think is "deep". Like zack snyder's.

Christ what an embarrassing post

One day I will see a meaningful and analysis-based critique of Watchmen on Sup Forums.

Today isn't that day.

depth in meaning is that which gets down into the bottom of your conscious structures, transcending culture, verbal understand or even time, and appeals to you there directly.

watchmen never quite gets there, but neither do most things, so its not like im shitting on watchmen

and as for an example, if you want to see a story that truly packs depth, also from moore, read his smax mini

>expecting anything analytical on Sup Forums ever
Faggots here who pretend that an artist is shit don't even know about the basic visual language of comics and never even touched a Scott McCloud work or a Neil Crohn's essay. What we have here is psuedo intellectuals pretending to know what they are talking about who routinely get called out for being pretentious shit heads but continue to indulge in their own unironic non intellectual shitposting. They hope that maybe enough people agree with their sentiment so they can create an echo chamber of contrarions and circle jerk each other.

>something that appeals to my subjectivity on a deeper level is depth
Yeah that's a true depth user, well explained.

Fuck, I'm gonna read it again

No, she was the spear you idiot. Or rather, her car was.

are you denying that are parts of our consciousness that are common to all humanity and able to find meaning transcendental meaning in things?

because the opposite is the entire premise of what constitutes modern civilization. all humans being intrinsically equal and all

This has to be bait

DC The New Frontier is hands down a better comic than Watchmen

Nigger when talking about art, first and foremost you look it through an objective lense when actually trying to determine the actual artistic value. You never fall back on "nuh uh all things are subjective" bullshit philosophy. What is the criteria of objectively sound art can definitely be very subjective but the point is to have that criteria and then compare it with other peoples criteria and find universality and dissect the art using it.
If your opinion is that something is great or shit, you need to have a sound opinion about why it is, you'll never be taken seriously if the best argument you can make comes from your subjectivity. Read up on Romanticism and Critical Theory for once and reevaluate your thinking.

Didn't the list go
>1. Merlin/living language
>2. Excalibur
>3. Cauldron of Life
>4. Pegasus
>5. Spear that's never thrown
>6. Father box
>7. Hammer
I'm very confused over what the hammer and Merlin accomplished in the very end, since i couldnt follow what happened to merlin after Zatanna uncorks him and i don't even know if the hammer even showed up. Did Merlin give Zatanna back her spells?

Im not going into subjectivity. This is the second post im telling you this and you seem to be unable to grasp the most basic form of written languange:

depth is what is universal for humanity and is never out of fashion, and appeals to a primal part of our consciousness

You first.

What you are saying is very much roundabout way of saying depth comes from one's subjectivism. A fiction or art that may never appeal to my sensibilities, may never invade my consciousness on a deeper level yet it may have enough artistic value that I'll not be able to deny all that it achieves. Your argument completely falls apart there.

>What you are saying is very much roundabout way of saying depth comes from one's subjectivism.

No. You are trying to push that definition on me.

Im telling you depth resides at our commonality as humain beings. Why is it that no matter where you are born, what sex you are, how much you own, etc; modern civilization -and by that i mean western civlization- gives you unalienable rights? Why did certain religions attribute something godly on all their followers, regardless of their place of birth, race, etc? How does that manifest? What does the fuck it mean?

Thats where depth lives

is the difference between a very smart AI and a person

Universal constants of Western Civilization and cultural prevalences has nothing to do with a depth of art. It might shape the way of how someone on a universal level comes to think of art though but if you are too hung up on this idea you are nothing but a relativist fag. Post modern way of thinking has completely ruined you son.

Grant Morrison is less of a writer and more of a Frank Quitely delivery service.

isn't pax supposed to be like watchmen but with the characters they were based on?

>Why is it that no matter where you are born, what sex you are, how much you own, etc; modern civilization -and by that i mean western civlization- gives you unalienable rights?
Because there came a time where the common sense of all ruling parties makes them recognize a Might Makes Right policy might not work in their favor as the gap of global interaction narrows and they inevitably come across someone with a bigger dick.
And suddenly and quite conveniently the diplomacy the commoner asked for but was denied is instated, likely because those in authority recognized should a foreign force arrive they will come straight for the head of those in charge and not the guy in the pub who remains there regardless of the new or old order.

>Why did certain religions attribute something godly on all their followers, regardless of their place of birth, race, etc?
Because that's literally all spirituality is good for.
>How does that manifest?
Something in the brain to help process the insignificance of the individual and indifference of the universe. There was a study shown stimulating an area of the brain induces the sense of a divine presence. There's nothing there but you can make someone feel like Jesus is behind them. This works on most modern humans because natural selection and our history of interaction means we're about all working with the same hardware now.

>What does the fuck it mean?
Humans in an attempt to enforce order on the chaos of reality will engineer religions, politics and inevitably when those fail vie for the seeming rigidity of science to provide a sense of structure and relevance?

>Thats where depth lives
Well actually it's as you said before, the illusion of depth. Really we're just being shallow and relabeling it to salve our ego, because as the kings and commoners have both shown we're scant interested in what does not benefit us.

>is the difference between a very smart AI and a person
A self-absorbed sense of importance?

How come they're all midgets

Technically he never said it was good, in fact if anything he's implying that it's average

Barry Windsor-Smith's Weapon-X

>There was a study shown stimulating an area of the brain induces the sense of a divine presence
For those morbidly curious about
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Yes, yes it can be argued that just because something can be fabricated that does not mean the genuine article does not exist but the point remains if enough people are easily deceived then the common belief isn't really evidence of anything either

of ourse they do. and its not a postmodern argument, its he exact opposite. that you somehow miss it makes me convinced you are only used to arguing with actual postmodernists and those are your canned responses

you dont quite get what im talking about. or maybe you do but like to pretend you dont. either way, i have nothing useful to say to you

Moore's Supreme
Majestic: the Big Chill
Tom Strong
Top 10

>relativist fag calling others post modernist
Pot, kettle, calling and all that.

Not only i didnt call him a postmodernist, but i should actually have.

He is refusing to acknowledge the higher value of modern civilization over past ones implying they are all relative, just to try and "get me". There is no more postmodern argument than that

He might be a post modern or he might not be but he would still be much better than you, a relativist.

Which im not. Im not saying depth is ever relative. Im just saying its reflected better now than it was in he past, just like in 100 years it will be even reflected in culture than it is now.

That you dont know how to unpack that is on you.

If your argument that depth of art is defined from the social perspective and how it makes one feel and not from the objective qualities it may have, then you are a relativist.
Also this is all a hilarious non argument, you can't actually define how Watchmen lacks depth or how you would actually go about judging anything at all.

Objectively:
>Pax Americana
>Secret Indentity
>Flex Mentallo

There are you go with the actual postmodernist argument. That im talkimg about relative social interpretative relations

This is where your mind seems to be stop, which is a shame because what gives us our value goes beyond a simple social agreement. The the ONLY agreement that matters in the greater scheme of things, and it was not among people, but among our most inner desires and wants. THe same exact thing religions talk about when the get abstractly mystical.

And im telling you Watchmen its a good commentary on the comic industry's state of storytelling, certainly, but it doesnt have the narrative depth to be anything else.

Why not? For starters: because it doesnt transcend the concerns of its medium.

>THe same exact thing religions talk about when the get abstractly mystical.

>but it doesnt have the narrative depth to be anything else.
>For starters: because it doesnt transcend the concerns of its medium.
Did you read it or are you one of those who watched the cliffnotes version that is the movie?

The very subjects you're claiming provide narrative depth are addressed through Adrian Veidt and Jon Osterman, commentary on comics is one thing Watchman does, not the only thing.

>The very subjects you're claiming provide narrative depth are addressed through Adrian Veidt and Jon Oster

An extremely surface level barely worth mentioning. This is precisely what Pax does better

I hate faggots who go "Watchmen is the only good comic you shouldn't read anything else" when Watchmen requires you to be a comic reader to fully grasp and understand what they're doing and why they're doing it.

It's like reading Pride & Prejudice & Zombies without reading Pride & Prejudice itself.

>An extremely surface level barely worth mentioning
My how convenient now that I've brought up a counter argument you've neglected to acknowledge exists until now you're suddenly addressing it at though you always had it in mind but simply did not consider it worth mentioning.
Why I'm sure with how seemingly aware of the surface level nature of the entire matter you are, you can easily cite the cases and explain how they're lacking and where it's done better.

>There are you go with the actual postmodernist argument.
I don't think you know what that word means.
>That im talkimg about relative social interpretative relations
I wasn't even just saying that.
>The the ONLY agreement that matters in the greater scheme of things, and it was not among people, but among our most inner desires and wants.
That's a talk of subjectivist. Do you even have your own philosophy clear? If it is then why are you denying it?
>And im telling you Watchmen its a good commentary on the comic industry's state of storytelling, certainly,
That's not all it is.
>but it doesnt have the narrative depth to be anything else.
Yes because all the various philosophical, intertextual interjections, all the character study and lacanin perspectives, all the social and political commentary, all the things it does unique to this medium have no intrinsic value because faggots keep memeing how Watchmen's biggest achievement is being a deconstructive text and you being a fucking brainlet believe it to be true.
>Why not? For starters: because it doesnt transcend the concerns of its medium.
I don't even know what you fucking mean by that. Any medium's work's primary concern is to be a great text and Watchmen is that.

This.

Watchmen is the "Scary Movie" of comics. You need to understand the genre first.

So you are a Morrisonfag more concerned about how Morrison does it better by downplaying the fuck out of Watchmen by making arguments filled with psuedo intellectualism. Be glad with the fact that people actually thought you were actually trying to say something.

>I don't remember seeing a hammer besides the one in the "splitting of the atom" scene from proto-camalot

That was the Hammer.

Sure i can do that, let me formulate it a bit better.

I never said it had no intrinsic value. All you do is try terms to my argument as if they were mine. Literally that is your only gimmick.

>mention top 10 and smax as positive examples of what watchmen is missing
>crickets
>also mention something by morrison
>HURR DURR MORRISONFAG

the hammer is science in general

>Sure i can do that
Well you believe you can, so I'll humor you.
Though while we're humoring your efforts I'll bring up your own criticisms of something being done on "an extremely surface level" being " barely worth mentioning" means whatever you're formulating had best be very substantial or it will be ironically very self-defeating.

>I never said it had no intrinsic value.
No you said it had no depth which it has but nobody really needs to ask you about depth anyway since all you'll say is it needs to invade my consciousness and throw some stuff about cultural relativism, which are both faux philosophy and your "invade my consciousness" has no academic value. I'll tell you to actually learn about Critical Theory but I've already done that. Good night famalam, you are a grade a troll who's very good at convincing other people.

Ok i said to give me a few mins to gather my thoughts on that, here it is:

There is superb craftmanship involved in the comic, at all levels except at the one where Moore would attempt to resolve the actual problem that his comic proposes; what drives Ozmandias into insane hyper-rationality and Comedian into actual existential depression and nihilism.

This is where both the deconstructionist element of Watchmen AND the more muted constructionist (which does exist) cape elements should meet and produce a solution for the medium. Because in case you hadnt noticed that is what watchmen is about, how to solve the superhero genre. Moore had already had a heavy hand at the most constructionist approaches to the genre at his time at DC and he knew how the genre worked. It is not a flaw or an oversight he purposefully avoided the resolve it. It was meant to be like that. I dont know why, but i dont that if he had done otherwise, maybe Watchman would simply be a lesser comic from a craftmanship perspective or maybe he was pissed at the genre and that his fuck you.

What was that, in specific? The resolution via a lie. That God is indifferent to a lie, is what makes the constructivist side of the story crumble. And while it crumbles is also chips away at the possibility of transcendent depth.

I suspect Moore did it because of craftmanship reasons, and that was what i meant by it not trascending the concerns of its medium (to be a good superhero comic).

I dont care what your community college proffesor told you to like and what to read user. Good luck graduating some day

>constructive
If by constructive you mean reconstruction then you are wrong. A constructive age is not something what you are talking about and it wasn't Moore's work prior to or during Watchmen.
>genre proper begins with
an experimental stage, during which its conventions are isolated and established, a classic stage, in which the conventions reach their “equilibrium” and are mutually
understood by artist and audience, [a stage] of refinement, during which certain
formal and stylistic details embellish the form, and finally a baroque (or “mannerist” or “self-reflexive”) stage, when the form and its embellishments are accented to the point where they themselves become the “substance” or “content” of the work and ending with a reconstructive stage, during which the conventions of the genre are reestablished in ways that incorporate an understanding of the genre’s completed cycle.
This is basics of Genre Theory, pulled from an academic book but you can search it online. Your argument thus is very artificial in intelligence, lacks proper context and is superficial in nature. This is where we enter the self reflexive phase user, where we look at the irony by looking at all your posts and pointing out about the irony being displayed here becomes the actual substance for shitposting.

>You are wrong

Your copypasted paragraph says otherwise.

>Your argument thus is very artificial in intelligence, lacks proper context and is superficial in nature.

Either you misunderstand what you just googled or you are misunderstand me or both. I honestly dont think i can be clearer and that text seems sufficiently articulated for you to get a proper idea.

>This is where we enter the self reflexive phase user, where we look at the irony by looking at all your posts and pointing out about the irony being displayed here becomes the actual substance for shitposting.

The irony i see is that you couldn't even produce an argument when i started talking about the deeper elements of the book

Where to begin.
>that is what watchmen is about, how to solve the superhero genre
First of all, no. Among many other things it's an illustration of what happens when superhero themes exist in a narrative where things can't be "solved" due to the perpetual nature of reality. There is no intent to "solve" the superhero genre through that, just use its elements to flesh out aspects of our world.

People call Watchman a "deconstruction", and I can even see how, but it's less an effort to simply show the flaws and failings of the superhero, and more to show the facts of our world, in that the truth is you cannot naturally fix everything to the peaceful satisfaction of everyone and you cannot conclude anything, ergo the only way you could achieve this is through a falsehood that forces it through fear.
Moore's Brought to light elaborates on this but few have read that or care because it's not about superheroes and instead our world.

There in is the reason people focus on Watchmen being a deconstruction of superheroes, selective blindness. Most come in through interest in superhero fiction and so often many leave believing superheroes were being attacked in the end when they failed to save the day.

1/?

>Either you misunderstand what you just googled
How did I misunderstand that? What you were talking about, Moore's work and Watchmen, they come under self reflective phase. This is where all the subversive, deconstructive and parodic works are. Your argument which relies on a psuedo genre phase you created has no contextual merits in academic form. I really don't need to go over how wrong your argument is, I just need to point out it's wrong from the basis.

...

If your argument relies on tv tropes definition of deconstruction, you are the epitome of an idiot trying too hard to sound impressive. If you actually try to learn about thing or two, you'd realize that the memed terms deconstruction doesn't have the meaning given to it in online forums. Watchmen is not a fucking deconstruction in the proper sense. This is the most misused term of the century I swear.

>it's an illustration of what happens when superhero themes exist in a narrative where things can't be "solved"

Who says they can't be solved?

>There is no intent to "solve"

The whole intent is to solve it. Every superhero story ever story ever where the plot moves forward, where character are made and develop and clash is an attempt to solve it. Every time a story tells you what should a superhero do.

>nd more to show the facts of our world, in that the truth is you cannot naturally fix everything to the peaceful satisfaction of everyone and you cannot conclude anything,

this is THE deconstructionist element. If you cant see that either its you who are slectively blind


It has deconstructionist elements to it and i specifically stated that THAT is not all there is to it, in fact not by far BUT its an important element and ignoring it just because someone mentioned on the internet before you does you no good

Im talking about the opposite of deconstruction and that is exactly what you googled. If you are dismissing it just because im not calling it what you want me to call it, good for you, that your argument is sustained on semantics only make ne care even less for it

>opposite of deconstruction
That's reconstruction, yes. And Moore's work weren't fucking reconstructive until Supreme. You literally have no argument if the workings of genre fiction is beyond you.

He had done it before. Even a bit in brit marvel. So you are assblasted because im not using your textbook terms you learned on your reading circle? Im sorry dude, my field in hard social sciences not humanities, and im talking from an epistemological perspective

God help me, I was attempting to address the myriad misunderstandings and mistakes in your first post only for you to cascade more down. This is is Sisphyean in action, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

>Who says they can't be solved?
US. The omnipotence paradox is a good analogy for the contradiction stemming from All Good, All Powerful and Free Will being in the same place.

The immovable rock would be free will, something God should in theory be forbidden to interfere with by his design of it, and yet if he cannot interfere with something he cannot be omnipotent. Elaborated into a context of morality,God cannot be all good and all powerful if he refuses or is unable to intervene on the free will and actions of evil respectively.

Either way evil persists because there are moral lapses God faces if he hinders the choices of others through force, taking their free will, or evil persists because there is nothing that can be done to stop it. The more time passes the more evident both become, because in real life nothing ends and there are too many people, too many problems.

In real life you cannot virtuously "solve" human nature, not without compromise. Not without the figurative world in a bottle. In fiction, well, you still can't but what you can do is simply ignore the problem. Simply end the story.

Watchmen chose to defy this not to poke holes with superheroes, but to highlight what the pillars of Atlas of our world are made from. Condoned imperfection.

Now I have to address the second piece of THIS post, and go back to the swiss cheese block of your previous one. FUCK. ME.

>He had done it before. Even a bit in brit marvel.
Where? Which work would you describe as reconstruction? And how the fuck does reconstruction come before deconstruction?
>So you are assblasted because im not using your textbook terms you learned on your reading circle?
No I'm annoyed because you don't know the basics of genre theory yet you are criticizing a work for it's metatexual elements. Literally the definition of "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm gonna talk about it anyway."
>Im sorry dude, my field in hard social sciences not humanities, and im talking from an epistemological perspective
But it is wrong even on the most methodical level. And it's not like you are talking in broad terms here and even if you were, you need the context.

>US
wrong. we keep reading because it CAN be solved. not because we already it cant.

>you can ignore the problem
WRONG again. moore doesnt ignore it, he presents it, tells us too look at it, then he walks away.

>condoned imperfection
that i had said before, but definitely not for the same reasons you are now getting there.

>Now I have to address the second piece of THIS post, and go back to the swiss cheese block of your previous one. FUCK. ME

Feel free to. Ill just keep telling you why you are wrong.


Are you getting confused by your own terminology of choice? Moore's epistemological constructionist tendencies are apparent even on his earliest works.

>No I'm annoyed because you don't know the basics of genre theory yet you are criticizing a work for it's metatexual elements. Literally the definition of "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm gonna talk about it anyway."

Jeez i wonder, who is more lost. Me? Attempting to discuss something using basic philosophical vocabulary. or you? who cant discuss anything unless someone uses the very specific vocabulary you are familiar with already.

>But it is wrong even on the most methodical level
way not say anything user

Reminder

That's true.

You are why OP keeps doing these threads.

>Moore's epistemological constructionist tendencies are apparent even on his earliest works.
No dumbass, that's just Moore telling a more polished capeshit.
>[a stage] of refinement, during which certain formal and stylistic details embellish the form
This is Moore's intent there. If you look at something like Saga of Swamp Thing, it begins with applying a realistic lens to Swamp Thing with "The Anatomy Lesson" which is self reflective work, then comes all the horror stories which is just refined work. After he literally kills the black and white narrative in metaphorical sense on panel, his work again turns into self reflective fiction. See the problem here with your lack of understanding of how genre fiction work?
>Jeez i wonder, who is more lost. Me? Attempting to discuss something using basic philosophical vocabulary. or you? who cant discuss anything unless someone uses the very specific vocabulary you are familiar with already.
Fucking you, jesus. My problem isn't that you're not using the actual vocabulary, just that your interpretation of the whole thing is wrong to begin with. Either you mean to say reconstruction when you use your made up term "construction," so your interpretation is wrong because first comes deconstruction then reconstruction, or you want to say refinement of the craft which is everything Moore did by default or self reflective fiction which Moore started as soon as he started working on Capeshit but primarily with Miracleman which he perfected when he wrote Watchmen.

Alright OP.

>someone screencapped a post of mine
MA GET THE CAMERA

>Watchmen pastiche

>we keep reading because it CAN be solved
Dear god, you're delusional. It all makes sense now.

We keep reading because it's escapism. Because it's easier to look away than look at everything around us.

>moore doesnt ignore it, he presents it, tells us too look at it, then he walks away.
I never said he ignored it, I said other fictional writers choose to because they conform to conventional storytelling where you must wrap everything up, where there must be a good or bad end instead of the ambiguity of the unending. I specifically said Watchmen chose not to do this because one of its cruxes is not just a sole focus on superhero fiction, or its supposed deconstruction most assume, but illustrating the unchanging nature of the real world against any material that truly reflects it.

>that i had said before, but definitely not for the same reasons you are now getting there.
What is this compulsion to disagree with me then confirm what I said?

Confirming that you're off your rocker I think I'm about done humoring you, you've still yet to present a compelling case where the elements of Watchmen have been done as well, if not better, and as concise.

>No dumbass, that's just Moore telling a more polished capeshit.

Moore cant CHOSE to tell a more refined capeshit or not, that is just how what he does LOOKS LIKE. Attempt to define refined, and try to separate it from his epistemological constructionist, and you see that its the exact same thing

>realistic lens to Swamp Thing
THIS is what you got wrong. He doesnt make it MORE realistic, he tries to make it more real than our reality. He is embedding something transcendental on it. Or at least that was he tried to do.

> See the problem here with your lack of understanding of how genre fiction work?

I think your problem is that your supposed understanding of fiction is too shallow and constricted.

>Either you mean to say reconstruction when you use your made up term "construction," so your interpretation is wrong because first comes deconstruction then reconstruction, or you want to say refinement of the craft which is everything Moore did by default or self reflective fiction which Moore started as soon as he started working on Capeshit but primarily with Miracleman which he perfected when he wrote Watchmen.

Ive explicitly stated the context of what i meant by constructionist, but you are unable to take it at face value unless you can jam into one of your familiar categories. Do it, i dont care. So far ive provided a central thesis of my critique already way way back and your only reply to it have been semantic games and extremely shallow tangents about swamp thing.

>We keep reading because it's escapism. Because it's easier to look away than look at everything around us.

What do you want to escape from, retard? What do you want NOT to look? What are you avoiding? FUCKING CHAOS. What can't be solved.

So are you going to avoid the unsolvable it by reading about the unsolvable? Are you fucking illiterate? Are you unable to process the most elemental meaning in capeshit?

>I never said he ignored it,
you did. and you denied its deconstructionist side. are you backing out now?

>Confirming that you're off your rocker I think I'm about done humoring you, you've still yet to present a compelling case where the elements of Watchmen have been done as well, if not better, and as concise.

Fuck off then. Want an example that solves THE superhero better? Top10, or the prequel or the spinoff. Each of those is a lesser work of fiction than Watchmen, but they drive home the inner, most meaningful and mythical part of them better than Watchmen

>better than watchmen

>an example that solves THE superhero better?
How lost are you?! We weren't discussing solving the superhero, we just went over that Watchmen isn't about solving the superhero!

>most meaningful and mythical part of them
The mythical?! Watchmen isn't about the fucking mythical, Watchmen is framed around discussing the immutable nature of the mundane against any external influence from the abnormal.
This isn't fucking Promethea!
Where even the fuck is your sense of context right now?! What standard of evaluation have you been coming from?

The fucking mythical?! You're not suffering from delusion, you're suffering from flat out dementia.

Damn just read it and I loved it
I was totally expecting this to go edgy grimdark but it stayed somewhat hopeful throughout. I'm gonna buy this thing

>Moore cant CHOSE to tell a more refined capeshit or not, that is just how what he does LOOKS LIKE.
Sure he can choose to just like he chose to deconstruct Superheros, just like he chose to say enough of that rubbish, what one does can always have intent. He sure does lack the ability of how dumbasses interpret his work's intentions.
>Attempt to define refined, and try to separate it from his epistemological constructionist, and you see that its the exact same thing
Refined work is what it exactly sounds like, a refinement of the craft. Something like his horror work on Swamp Thing stays within the conventions of the genre, pre established. There's no metatexual lense there. As opposed to his pure reconstruction text Supreme which is refined by default but also has a metatexual lense to it. There's lot of intertextual play there with homages, there's lots of reestablishing the conventions he deconstructed. The message of reconstructive work is that these conventions are fine as they are and we celebrate them. These messages are always overt in reconstruction works. Look at Flex, Kingdom Come, Marvel's, JLA, All Star Superman, they are celebratory fiction. Refined fiction lacks a lot of these nuances. See this is where your lack of understanding of genre theory leads you, surely you understand that by now.
1/2

>I think your problem is that your supposed understanding of fiction is too shallow and constricted.
>Ive explicitly stated the context of what i meant by constructionist, but you are unable to take it at face value unless you can jam into one of your familiar categories. Do it, i dont care. So far ive provided a central thesis of my critique already way way back and your only reply to it have been semantic games and extremely shallow tangents about swamp thing.
Hey I'll take shallow that has value over something I make up that has no academic value. Maybe user here is going to redefine genre theory and critical theory with the degree of hard social science. Then hopefully I can actually tell you how wrong you are with your interpretation of Watchmen because then the semantics used to form your argument will have a foundation.

>we just went over that Watchmen isn't about solving the superhero

i never agreed and you certainly didnt try to convince me.

> Watchmen isn't about the fucking mythical

And here are correct (if partially) BECAUSE that is how the ending negatively impact the meaning of the story, and its depth. By forgoing its mythical element near the end and siding right back into its medium spec

>This isn't fucking Promethea!
every fucking story IS when you peel past the surface

Here is what you are missing: why do we celebrate them? -the conventions you speak about-

And, ignoring that you attempted to define "refine" as "refinement", what is the proper definition of refinement?

Ill tell you. We celebrate them because they are manifestation of our collective intellect that we can all agree to enjoy and believe.

What is refinement? The manifestation of our intellect towards something we all agree to enjoy and believe.

See something in common?

>It's an Invincible Ignorance Fallacy episode