I am also using this as a source for my Watchmen paper, and I love the emphasis Van Ness puts on the structure of Watchmen. I began my research being most interested in what I call the "interchapters" of Watchmen (Van Ness calls them "expository documents"), but I found a few other points to focus on while reading Van Ness's critical study. I hadn't fully considered a comparison between Billy Pilgrim in Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen, but both are presented as "unstuck in time." Another fascinating study was chapter four, in which Van Ness detailed the many interpretations of narrative voice in Watchmen. She accurately states that it is not something easily caught on a first reading but in subsequent readings, something I am finding out now. All in all, this book is a wonderful study on an amazing graphic novel, and I recommend it to fans of Watchmen and graphic novels in general. ( )

Watchmen as Literature is pretty much a double whammy of "nerdiness" -- a literary criticism of a graphic novel. Being a big fan of Watchmen itself, I was really intrigued by this book when I first heard about it. There isn't one central thesis throughout but rather a number of interesting literary takes through a series of lens. For instance, at one point the author looks at the characters of the Watchmen universe by examining how well they conform - or in some cases, don't conform - to the monomythic hero laid out by Joseph Campbell.

Although each of these examinations/theories is mostly confined to one chapter, there is enough crossover between chapters to feel like a continuous book rather than a series of essays. However, perhaps because each chapter focuses on a new argument, some of these arguments are stronger than others. The final chapter looks at the 2009 movie based on the graphic novel, specifically exploring the critical and audience reactions to the film. All in all, I found the book interesting, even when some of the arguments seemed a bit weaker. It made me think about things I hadn't thought about before, recall details of the source material I had forgotten or notice ones that escaped me in the past, and overall gave me a greater appreciation for the book. Indeed, there were several times throughout reading this book that I wanted to pick up the GN again and re-read it. At one point, the author of Watchmen as Literature cites a contributor to Comics as Philosophy as saying:

“Perhaps the first thing one realizes upon rereading Watchmen is that it requires rereading. Watchmen was written to be reread; indeed, it can only be read by being reread. That may sound paradoxical, but upon rereading Watchmen it becomes painfully obvious that the meanings of almost every word, image, panel, and page are multiple - obviously multiple. In Watchmen, the meanings are primarily multiplied by the fact – and this is painfully obvious when one finishes the series and then rereads it – that, from the first panel (a blood-stained smiley-face, looking like a clock counting-down to midnight, floating in a gutter of blood), the parts all fit into a whole one grasps only in the end (although in retrospect the hints are everywhere).”

Such a multi-layered story as Watchmen deserves to be looked at over and over again, not only as a reader, but also as a critical thinker and theorist. Watchmen as Literature helps you to do just that. ( )