Week 2 Review Groups

Week 2 Review Groups

-Comics that I believe strongly enough in to purchase for someone else

Batman & Robin (It's still amazing to me how half of the Bat-family books are so good while the rest are often not even worth a second read... I don't want to pick a favorite between this, Snyder/ Capullo Batman and J.H. Williams III/ Blackman/ sometimes Reeder Batwoman, so I'll just say that if you like Bat-family stuff, buy these three books. Tomasi/ Gleason/ Gray are killing it when it comes to developing the Bruce/ Damian relationship. Also, the art is enhanced by the writing, which is a huge deal. Plus, these covers... Tim Callahan has a article that's a really good read about this book that I'll respond to in my review of the story arc and IT TOTALLY DEALS WITH COVERS: http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=36689)

Batwoman (This is a rad book. A totally rad book. I'm sure people have issues with the art layout and density, but you know what? I like it when the art is methodical and forces me to slow down my reading of the book. Not that it forces a re-read [I tend to think that's a artistic flaw], but that it slows the pace of the book. Plus, with exception a few bizarre dialogue tone changes that happen within a scene, this one sustains and develops its characters beautifully. Really solid writing and great art makes for a great comic experience)

Frankenstein Agent of S.H.A.D.E. (I have an unhealthy love for Jeff Lemire's work... this sounds so silly, but I have yet to have a complaint about Frankenstein unless it's that there's too much S.H.A.D.E. and not enough Frank. That's not really a good complaint. And I waffle daily on whether or not I think it's accurate. I think it's a pretty fair debate between Scott Snyder and Jeff Lemire to see who is the better writer at DC right now, but no one else is even competing with them in this category. Both are putting out 3 top notch books a month. I'm so SO SO sad that he's leaving Frank soon, so I expect Matt Kindt to knock it out of the park)

-Comics I think are good, but either too generic or too boring or too flawed to do more than recommend

Deathstroke (The book does what it intends to do: set up Deathstroke as the dude when it comes to killing other dudes. It's fun and it does fun stuff. It has a very 90s feel to it)

Green Lantern (Sad sack Hal and Johns' Sintestro. Some rocky pacing in the first book, but it gets better. And, honestly, I almost don't want to see Hal untethered from Thaal anytime soon. Not the best of the [sadly overall weak] Lantern books, not a "must buy", but I'm grooving on it)

Demon Knights (It's Dungeons & Dragons with DC Characters. It has yet to move beyond what feels like a very fun Friday evening gaming session. The drops of character development in the book have done enough over the arc to make it feel like an actual collection of individuals, though it's taken [I think] a few too many panels to accomplish all of it's goals. When the pacing for the entire arc is lagging enough, it feels like watching a video where the actors and dialogue are slightly out of sync. Could be super irritating for some, but it doesn't drive me up the wall. But if the pacing and character development don't improve in the second story arc, I'll be moving this book to a lower tier)

-Comics I wouldn't mind letting you read at my place

Batgirl (It is just so dadgum frustrating that Simone, who has done Barbara Gordon/ Oracle so well in the past, is writing this Barbara Gordon/ Batgirl so poorly. I have a ridiculous amount of respect for some of her previous writing, but it feels like both this book and her work on Firestorm are almost not worth my time. Toss in a bunch of one note tertiary characters, plot developments that are just there to be more plot, and perhaps my least favorite new villain in The New 52 [and definitely my least favorite villain with this many panel appearances], and you have a book that misses the mark on enough targets to where I just don't like it. Which is rough because of how much I expected to like this book. Not a let down, more of a "How did this happen?")

Grifter (This book should've been money in the bank. Huge fan of Grifter from Image as well as Wildstorm. A perfectly translatable character to the DC Universe. And then they went and mucked it all up by making it, "Guy with a mask fights aliens that destroy superhumans in combat. Boring, out of sync with the rest of the universe, and a possible title ruining first arc. But it's Grifter, so I don't hate it, you know? This isn't Cole Cash, this is some new character they call Cole Cash who has the same bandanna covering his face)

Resurrection Man (Boy, I loved this comic in the 90s. It was a bunch of well executed [sorry] big concepts. Now? It feels hodgepodge, far too arbitrarily random, and completely uneasy with itself. Lanning and Abnett crushed on the old Vertigo series. Now with this half-hearted Heaven and Hell stuff, it feels like it wants to be a big story but has no idea how to do it and doesn't have much reason. I'm enjoying the series because I missed Mitch and I want to give Lanning and Abnett enough of a chance to get back to the old concept that was so great. I'm worried it's just going to muddle around in this substanceless quasi-religious quagmire until being cancelled in the 3rd or 4th wave of The New 52. I feel like I should make some pun about "resurrecting" the character or concept here, but it'll be subpar. I'd rather come up with a good one when I'm reviewing the story arc)

Suicide Squad (It's just... meh. You know? It could be cool [though killing off one dude per mission/ issue is pretty formulaic], but everyone feels... bland. What makes Harley different from the other sexpot females beyond some flavor salting up her dialogue? How is Deadshot written much different from how Batman would be written if he were in the same position? It feels like an Image team comic from back when that was a negative connotation. The concept alone is driving this book, and it won't get any better until the concept exists as the framework around which someone can wrap some solid storytelling and more dimensional characters. Also, reducing Amanda Waller in both size and character depth has infuriated me to no end. One of DC's best characters of the 2000s was ruined in a single panel reveal. Then someone defiled the corpse with her awful, awful dialogue. I thought the intent of the relaunch was to fix what was broken or stagnant, not to lipo the size and personality of stuff that was working)

Superboy (This book is fine on it's own and fine in conjunction with Teen Titans. If you're a fan of the Titans [as I am] and Kon-El [less so], you won't hate picking up this book every month. That doesn't mean you'll like it. Everything about this book is average)

-Comics I wish I hadn't purchased and won't let you read even if we're bored at my place and you want to read them

Legion Lost (This book is straight up bad. Terrible pacing, terribly written dialogue, old plot ideas with nothing new added to them, bad to incomprehensible art, just... ugh. But still not as bad as Mister Terrific or Green Arrow)

Mister Terrific (While JT Krul's run on Green Arrow was the worst of The New 52, Mr. Terrific was maybe a half step behind. Avoid this book at every cost. It is awful. Really, really awful)

Week 1 Review Groups

-Comics that I believe strongly enough in to purchase for someone else

Animal Man (one of the best books in the market, period. If I were allowed on $20 on comics per month [pre-tax, of course], I would absolutely still be buying this book)

Swamp Thing (one of the best books in the market, period. Second verse [as Animal Man, which does not rhyme with Swamp Thing], same as the first. Snyder and Lemire are crushing it for DC)

O.M.A.C. (a personal favorite, I was SO SAD to learn it's gone after issue 8... PICK UP THIS GRAPHIC NOVEL BRING BACK O.M.A.C. IT'S THE BEST HULK COMIC IN YEARS!!!!! I will love this comic a ton when I get to the full review)

-Comics I think are good, but either too generic or too boring or too flawed to do more than recommend

Action Comics (started out great, then dovetail'd weirdly after the first story arc, and issue 6's Steel back up was better than the main book... hm. Grant Morrison is one of the best in the business when he's on, but his "off" makes me feel like I'm wasting my time. This is the first time I've waffled on a book of his... it's good. It was great. It's now "okay." I'm worried it will end up "fine." I've heard some complaints about Rags Morales' artwork, but I'm a fan here. The backups are totally helping to carry the book)

Static Shock (I had major problems with two of the issues, but overall I'm a fan of Virgil... I can't help but think there's some uglier reasons this book didn't sell well enough to stay around... but then I go back to those two issues and remember thinking, "Yeah, this is a droppable book." Still, I liked Static Shock, I can't wait to see what they do with Static in Teen Titans, and I hope everything works well enough to get him back into a title. Honestly, I'd even be cool with a Milestone comic that functioned like DC Universe Presents or even having everyone from the Dakota incident interacting under a title. The appearance of Technique and Hardware [in the flesh/ power suit] in issue 6 was good, but too little too late)

-Comics I wouldn't mind letting you read at my place

Batman: Detective Comics (honestly, I think it has some of the worst writing out of the entire New 52, but it's concepts aren't bad and I like Florea's art... I think this is the best example of a writer holding a book back. Honestly, I feel like I just dislike Tony S. Daniels' writing across the board. Both this and The Savage Hawkman feel cluttered, unfocused, and then ultimately hollow at the end of each issue. And I don't even know how that can happen. The storytelling here is, "this happened and this happened and then this happened," only all of the "this"es forgot to tie together. The Joker's face as an artifact was the coolest moment of the first month in the entire relaunch. It's gone literally nowhere from there)

Batwing (I mean, it's not good, but it's not THAT bad... I have solid expectations that this book could jump a tier next story arc. But so far, it's a bunch of exposition and scene setting while fights happen. Sweet, Judd Winick set everything up while keeping in the required number of fight scenes that seem to be permeating all of the relaunch books. There's no sense of character, no sense of urgency, just a checklist of information told in a somewhat interesting way while over-the-top violence happens. Still, Winick can tell a story. Here's to hoping there's one in the second arc)

Red Lantern (I love Milligan, but I don't love this; another case of concept failing to live up to execution)

Stormwatch (I assume will be moving up next arc... I think it's unfair that it's not as good as I WANT it to be)

-Comics I wish I hadn't purchased and won't let you read even if we're bored at my place and you want to read them

Green Arrow (on the move up, but the JT Krul run was actually the worst writing in the entire New 52. Dead. Last. Also, how on earth could all of those fight scenes look so boringly posed and stationary? Annie Nocenti's run is looking better, but not enough to jump this title two tiers)

Hawk & Dove (sadly, cause I'm a Liefeld fan... but this book is rough)

Justice League International (I don't know how this book is so bad, but it and Arrow are the only two that leave me angry when I'm done with them... plus, and let's be real here, this is supposed to be a "New 52?" This feels like any number of generically poor "JL" books from pre-relaunch that ALSO lacks the team warmth that kept people coming back during ludicrous plots... and, really, the world is ending but Stormwatch and the big league JL don't show up?! Editor needed to reign that in or be moved to a different book for that call)

Men of War (I was SO PUMPED about this... then it turned out to be a bunch of subpar war stories set in a world that doesn't really need soldiers anymore. This book should've been MUCH better thought out before release, or it should've been done under a banner that was different than "The New 52." Here's to hoping GI Combat is closer to this book's potential and promise)

Weekly Review Methodology

So, working on our seventh month into The New 52, I have some opinions on them (and isn't it weird that my first post has nothing to do with The New 52 even though that's the blog title?!). I mentioned my thoughts previously on numbered reviews. So here's how I'm breaking down the comics.

Week by week. Grouped into four tiers.

-Comics that I believe strongly enough in to purchase for someone else

These are the comics I would purchase as a gift. I think these graphic novels are good enough for non-superhero fans to read. I want to keep reading these comics and have happily revisited them when I don't have fresh issues in my hand.

-Comics I think are good, but either too generic or too boring or too flawed to do more than recommend

This is the stuff I like and will continue to buy after I'm done with this project. These are the on-goings I support and leave me pleased enough to continue to give my money to DC after I no longer feel obligated to by this project. I want these books to continue. It's just that... you know, sometimes you're reading a book and you're like, "Well, that didn't make sense," or, "Oof, that's some bad art right there, how are they bending like that," or, "Yeah, someone slopped that together because of a deadline." But you still like the book and it's generally pretty good. And it's on your pull list for the next month for sure.

Sometimes at my LCS, people will see me with a stack of all the DC from the week (I'll have Marvel and whatever other books I want in my hands as well, but when you're holding 14+ issues of DC every week you tend to stick out). They will ask my opinion of a comic. If the comic is in the top two categories, I'll tell them to get it. If it's in the bottom two, I push 2-3 books from the top two on them instead.

-Comics I wouldn't mind letting you read at my place

Yeah, I bought it. Yeah, I'll revisit it during the project. No, I probably won't read it after that. And if you REALLY want to read it, you can borrow it. But you gotta convince me you want to read it and prove that you've read everything from my top two categories first. I will probably not continue to purchase these books after the project is done.

-Comics I wish I hadn't purchased and won't let you read even if we're bored at my place and you want to read them

I'm mad I spent money on these comics. I finish the book and feel angry I spent my time reading it. I'm floored these collections of talent are working on these books sometimes, and sometimes I'm in shock that this is publishable writing. Honestly, these are the books that, when I'm done reading them, I find Jillian and tell her, "I can't believe these guys are writing comics and I'm not." These are the books I find insultingly bad.

Right? Those seem pretty accurate. Those labels actually mean something. I've got some definitions for you. So let's work from here.

Additionally, I'm going to group comics by how they are coming out weekly at this point in groups of 13. This is simply to help with grouping. Batgirl and Red Lanterns switched places, for example, so I'm grouping them with their current weekly productions. Justice League will be kept in Week 3. If there are other discrepancies, I'll try to keep them pointed out.

Andrew Reviews "The New 52"

I've been waffling about how best to do this. "This" referring to the higher concept of "Reviewing the New 52." I'll be straight up: I hate numbered reviews that assign an arbitrary score to comics without clearly laid out methodology. Working in corporate USA, I've learned that numbers for the sake of numbers means little to me. I'm far more interested in the number of words or sentences per page and the number of panels per issue than I am about splitting hairs between a 3.5 or a 4.0. Or an 8.5/ 10. Because the difference in a review between a 3.5 and a 4.0 isn't going to change my mind on whether or not I should consume a comic. Nor is the difference between even a 7.0 and a 10.0. There are two reasons for this:

1. Arbitrary rankings (and all numerical rankings of qualitative data are arbitrary) are not helpful. Honestly. I've looked at these assigned values quantitative data for my entire life (professionally, academically, and in my hobbies) and what I've learned is this: they're arbitrary.

2. Why not just say what the numbers are supposed to mean at the end of the review? "I think this comic is so awesome that I would buy a copy for a friend to get them interested," and, "I would not even have my friend read this comic if we were bored at my house and he wanted something to peruse while on the can," are far, FAR better ways of letting review readers know what you actually think of the comic. "I don't want to read this comic, but WOW do I want to look at it," tells me the story that I need. And, honestly, if that's how someone laid out their rankings from 1-5 including a clearly justified methodology, I would still dislike it. Assigning scores is arbitrary. And the fewer times we can do it, the better off we're going to be as critics of our medium.

So what does it mean to "Review the New 52"? I've simplified it to this:

I'm going to tell you which comics I think you should buy or not buy and give you the reasons why I think this.

Honestly, it's that simple. It's being completely transparent about the arbitrariness of the process. Further, I want to look at how comics work in shaping the continuity of this "New 52" and see in what ways I think someone should buy a particular comic. DC had a pretty rad idea when the relaunch happened that I'm still behind: quit limiting the ways in which people can read comic books (keep a hold of that statement because I shall return to it!). For years I've been lamenting the black-and-white newspaper comic page. Calvin & Hobbes forever shaped my existence, so I'd guess Bill Watterson would have something to do with that! The continuous reduction of panel size, the restrictions on Sunday pages, the forced requirements of the syndicates changed one of our two uniquely American art forms (sequential art existed previously, but The Yellow Kid changed the game; I'm in the camp that refers to pre-The Yellow Kid works as proto-comic strips and would love to hear contrary opinions!) from merchandised art to merchandise vehicles. It happens. When art is created for commercial purposes, it invariably ends up kowtowing to the demands of finance over art.

I would like to take this moment to very clearly let everyone know that the first clause of the previous sentence is the most important. I may use it again. "When art is created for commercial purposes, [insert dependent clause here]." That's pretty strong framework.

Another reason behind the waffling behind how exactly to translate my New 52 notes to readable content is that I'm not doing this to be "the expert." I would like to be "the expert." I'm arrogant. I'm well-read. I like comics. I don't see why I couldn't be "the expert." But that's not the purpose behind these reviews. I am simply one voice among thousands of voices who, weekly, are letting major publishers know what they would like to continue to read and what they wouldn't (of course, I'm not telling DC what I would and wouldn't like to read because I'm buying everything, but we'll get to that in my methodology). Instead, my purpose is to become an academic of this universe, one of many well-researched voices who want to let DC know what they we think they should or could do as they continue to evolve this ground-breaking project. So, here it is in print: I do not think I'm the sole expert in this universe and will make mistakes. I will be critical of DC's continuity and storytelling in this relaunch and will make mistakes as I go about it. I eat very healthy, so if I introduce crow into my poultry consumption, I will be okay. So if you see something I missed, if I whiffed on something entirely, or I spout an opinion that sounds researched but you think I am drawing an incorrect conclusion from it, let me know.

The other intent behind this project (behind the "reviewing") is that I'll be using this as a place to explore the larger elements of comic book composition and how I think this consumer-shaped continuity changes the product for DC. I am very interested in shared continuity, especially when that shared continuity creates a massive world. I'm certainly not saying that the worlds of other comics are IN CONCEPT smaller or bigger than the two publishers, but because of the volume of books put out by Marvel and DC every month there is a difference. When comic book creators are putting out their work in smaller, encapsulated form, a beautiful world can be built. I secretly believe that part of why Watchmen is such a big deal is because it created such a massive world in just twelve issues. Massive in terms of scope and depth, characters and story. But it was just twelve issues (please don't bring the Before Watchmen argument up here; it's valid, but the oodles of criticism for Watchmen existed long before even the announcement of those upcoming minis). Gah, twelve issues and an RPG supplement, but how many critics do you think dove into that to respond to the work? Also, I think I randomly have it... don't know why. SIDETRACKED! No matter how brilliant or breathtaking those panels in Watchmen are, how much more powerful would they be if Alan Moore was using his original character choices? Not to Moore (I'm sure Moore ended up thinking far higher of his creations than the Charlton characters he could've used), but to the readers? Imagine if Watchmen had happened in the actual DCU. How massive would that have been? Would/ could it have been bigger than it was when it was coming out?

tl;dr

1. I won't post reviews with arbitrary numbers. I will simply offer my opinion on the books (most likely entire story arcs) in DC's "The New 52."

2. I'm not trying to be the expert. But I am trying to be an expert. Thus I value the exchange of ideas moreso than the pedantic lecturing of a comic book snob.

3. I'm using this concept to help create the framework I will use as a point of reference from where I can extrapolate ideas about larger scaled visions of comic book universes all the way to the medium itself. Sounds heady. It might be.

Why Before Watchmen is a Good Idea

I don't want to sound like a Watchmen or Alan Moore basher (starting off a sentence like that is bound to put people on the defensive, so I want to acknowledge that as well as point out that I am a Watchmen fan), but there are a few things I think need to be addressed regarding Before Watchmen. The internet has already shot off a flurry of ideas and this news is stale, so I'm not attempting to add anything to the conversation here. Right now I want to address the following points

-Watchmen is a stand-alone work full of derivative characters

-Every argument against Before Watchmen because Watchmen is a stand-alone work is faulty at its core

-No one (including Alan Moore) knows if Alan and Dave would have done more work with the characters if DC had given them back to Alan and Dave in, say, 1989

-Anyone, including Alan Moore, who argues the previous point is claiming omniscience, which is the single greatest argumentative fallacy that exists

-Alan's Ad Hominem attacks against the DC creators are also hyper counter productive: Alan Moore is only known for comic work

-The Dark Knight Returns is a stand-alone work, yet it is not the only Batman (nor the Joker, nor Gordon, nor Robin) story people love that is also well told

-All-Star Superman is a stand-alone work, yet it is not the only Superman (nor Luthor, nor Lane, nor Olson) story people love that is also well told

-Straight up, Alan Moore has exactly one "original" work that I think is anything more than par for the industry (the amazing V for Vendetta), which means he is not the arbiter of brilliance and originality in comics

-Everything else he's done of any quality deserves to have the same vitriol spit at it that he spat at Before Watchmen based solely on his argumentative reasons against it

-Before Watchmen is a legit good idea and one that should have been explored previously (except for the Tales of the Black Freighter comic, which ruins a great deal of Watchmen's pace and was a poor idea from it's inception and prolly doesn't deserve a slot in the prequels)

-The previous requires a caveat: Before Watchmen is a legit good idea if all the books don't end with, "and tomorrow, Watchmen started"

-Alan Moore is overly attributed with all of the in panel cleverness, yet Dave Gibbons who conceptualized plenty of it feels sorely lacking in credit

-Dave Gibbons is working on Before Watchmen

These few points are ones I think should be chewed over when it comes to Before Watchmen. Yes, I'll be buying every single one of those books. Yes, I expect them to be of super high quality and caliber. Yes, I bet they're better than the internet says.

Further, as someone who is highly interested in comic books and the classroom, I find it lazy at best and loathsome at worst when it comes to using Watchmen as the graphic novel taught in classes. Seriously. Watchmen may have been amazing, but it has not aged well. Watchmen is now an artifact, no longer the critique it once was; Watchmen is the book comic book fans should love, but should not be used for non-comics readers. Why? Well, it's a critique of superheroism, a deconstruction of the pastiche super hero universes that went wildly out of control. Alan and Dave, when correctly applying a deconstructionist lens to the product, saw the major flaws and set about to address those issues. I'm sure when it was written (which was when I was in kindergarten... and I'm 30 now) that it blew those universes wide open. I've read a ridiculous number of academic articles on the issues (and book as a whole), and the vast majority of the reasons why it is held up in academia could be applied to the entire industry 20 years later. Watchmen is a big deal because of primacy. Yes, quality is a massive part of its success. But answer me this, academia:

If you are teaching Watchmen, why are you teaching graphic novels in the classroom?

This isn't to suggest comics shouldn't be taught in the classroom. Far opposite, I think the medium is far more powerful than literature in creating shared continuity and allows for more interactive development as a reader than passive experiences like film. But in my grad school experience and discussions with teachers who use Watchmen at the high school level, the response is the same:

"I don't know which super hero books are 'good,' so I teach the one everyone says is good."

Yet teaching a Cold War era story about super hero deconstruction in a world where super hero deconstruction is the only thing that happens in the world of super heroes (giant, huge, flashing bright light example: Nolan's Bat films) means that, perhaps, Watchmen is the book that should be taught last instead of first. Based on that argument, everyone's first glass of wine should be their best, everyone's first movie should be Citizen Kane (another classic piece of work that is held in far higher regard than it should be today), and everyone's first novel should be Ulysses. The issue with working that way is that these are products that demand previous knowledge of their respective fields in order to even begin to understand the depths and levels to which "connoisseurs" (and I am straight up using that term sarcastically since I rarely believe most self-proclaimed ones have actually done the content work necessary to refer to themselves that way) praise these products.

Plus, Watchmen is boring. You want to introduce comic readers or teach the medium to students with a boring example of the work?

The reason to teach the graphic novel to the reader should be for one of two reasons:

1. the medium needs an introduction (like arbitrarily, publisher-required defined genres differences) (like an intro course to Prose/ Poetry/ Drama, all of which are the same forms of writing haphazardly divided because publishers need to know which shelves to tell stores to stock them on or which search terms they should be categorized under on Amazon)

2. the content teaches the theme you are dealing with in the class (HELLO THIS IS THE REASON TO USE COMICS IN THE CLASSROOM BECAUSE THEY ARE AN AWESOME WAY TO EFFECTIVELY TEACH THEMES)

Here's a short list off the top of my head of comics that could be taught in the classroom instead of Watchmen (meaning they either deal with the deconstruction of a hero/ superhero, they have a heavy/ literary "feel", or they are simply good examples of the quality of the work in the medium and, thus, "teachable")

-DC: The New Frontier (Darwyn Cooke with Dave Stewart)

-All-Star Superman (Grant Morrison, Frank Quitely)

-Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller with Kurt Janson, Lynn Varley)

-The Marvelous Land of Oz (Shanower, Young, Beaulieu)

-Kurt Busiek's Astro City: Life in the Big City (Busiek, Anderson, Ross)

-Civil War (Mark Millar, Steve McNiven)

-The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Moore, O'Neill)

-Saga of the Swamp Thing (Moore, Bissette, Totleben)

-V for Vendetta (Moore, Lloyd)

-Kick-Ass (Mark Millar, John Romita Jr)

-Kingdom Come (Waid, Ross)

-Marvels (Busiek, Ross)

-Understanding Comics (Scott McCloud)

-Any of the Calvin & Hobbes collections (Watterson) or Peanuts collections (Schultz, tho I'd go with the stuff from before 81, when I was born... honestly, and this is so awful to type, I'd say the stuff before his bypass) or Doonesbury collections (Trudeau)

-The Sandman: Preludes & Nocturnes (Gaiman, Kieth, Dringeberg, Jones III)

-Bone (Jeff Smith)

-Wonder Woman (Azzarello, Chiang)

Those are the ones that I think would work as a substitute for Watchmen, not the only teachable books. I've left off plenty of other amazing reads that would be easily classroom justified or would work better if you could teach 5 or 6 graphic novels in a row (EEK THE $$$) or were teaching an entire class on the subject (the rest of The Sandman, Morrison's Batman: Arkham Asylum or Animal Man, Brubaker's Cap run or Criminal, Frank Miller's Sin City, Frank Miller's Daredevil, Waid's current Daredevil run, Geoff Johns' long form work, Bill Willingham's Fables, Brian Azzarello and Eduard Risso, Brian Azzarello and Lee Bermejo, plenty from Fraction or Hickman's libraries, stuff from Scott Snyder or Jeff Lemire, gruesome work from Garth Ennis, James Robinson's Starman, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four, Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's Spider-Man, major event books like Crisis on Infinite Earths/ The Death of Captain Marvel/ The Death of Superman/ 52/ Infinity Gauntlet/ Secret Wars/ Sinestro Corps War, and even my personal favorite work of all time, Walt Simonson's Thor run). Further, I hadn't even touched on artists like Daniel Clowes, Chris Ware, Will Eisner, Brian K. Vaughan, or Craig Thompson. There's no manga on the list. No Persepolis. No Maus. No American Born Chinese. No Smile. There's no Bryan Lee O'Malley (Scott Pilgrim) or Mike Mignola (Hellboy). There's no Mark Gruenwald, Chris Claremont, Denny O'Neil, Warren Ellis, Peter Milligan... and I haven't even gotten to the artists that I feel I've left out like the Kuberts, Rob Liefeld (I can hear your snickers and derision from across the internet and don't care), Neal Adams, Tim Sale, Carl Barks, Bill Sienkiewicz, Bill Sienkiewicz, Bill Sienkiewicz (so much love)...

Look, this is getting ridiculous. There are a stupid number of comics available in print and digitally that can be used to teach the medium in the classroom. Academics and fan boys, I just would like to say that Watchmen isn't a good comic to teach in the classroom and, honestly, it's starting to fray around the edges. It's why the movie came out and the prequels are coming out in the first place: the book has become dated as the medium evolved. We can no longer see Casablanca or The Godfather in all its brilliance. We can only see the artifact that remains, wholly appropriated by its medium and now a part of lore instead of a burning brilliance coming to life before our eyes. Watchmen's time has passed. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be getting all of these reinterpretations.

So, please, unless your class is about the genre of the superhero or teaching the graphic novel, leave Watchmen at home. Be less lazy and snag something from the list I left above or, better yet, find something perfectly suited to your class (how I encounter Smile and American Born Chinese!).

And if you're going to teach Watchmen, make sure to teach Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme right next to it.

~ajc

P.S. I do love Watchmen and have read it over a dozen times (that's when I stopped counting). I just recognize it for what is has become and want the populations of the comic fandom and academia to do the same.