I am absotively not a comics blogger, but this post by Sean T. Collins re: Alan Moore’s “clockwork-precise plotting” got me thinking. Just because I think about structure all the time, and it’s easier when you’ve got something to kick against, I suppose. About Watchmen, Sean writes:
I think it’s awesome that there’s a completely symmetrical of issue of Watchmen, but it has sweet fuck-all to do with the way the world actually works.
And he’s not wrong, I guess, except that I can very easily argue the opposite. First, though, let’s not lose sight of the differences between a comic written and drawn by one never-changing pair of artists, and a tv show (Sean compares Watchmen with Sopranos); the latter will have a metric ton of writers and directors by the time the series ends. Also, as an open-ended series, the makers of that show were contractually obligated to keep coming up with new ways to keep it going. It’s a very different exercise when you know you’ve got 12 months to get in and get out.
But, more to his point– the very act of storytelling is an imposition of artificial pattern on “messy” life. It’s the face in the clouds, the Christ in the pudding. We constantly see patterns in and draw parallels between our lives. Maybe a symmetrical comic has less to do with the way the world works than it has to do with how we work in the world?
And also, I think Sean imagines Moore to be a bit more– stolid? mechanical?– than he may be. He’s certainly calculating, but if his memory of the book’s genesis is to be believed, Moore’s Watchmen was actually a lot more organic than it comes off. Maybe the problem is that Moore is too mannered, too “writerly,” as Sean puts it. I’d have to agree. Not only does Moore write for effect, he writes for effect in every damn panel. Watchmen does read like Moore, at some point, was trying to write a great book, rather than just write a book that might turn out to be pretty good. And even though you can produce masterful work like that, it can also be grating. Who reads Ulysses for the hell of it?
But it is interesting to compare with someone like, say, Chris Ware. Ware writes and draws at the same time, creating the story as he goes from panel to panel, and page to page. His diagrammatic and precise cartooning seems to fly in the face of this technique. His almost mechanical drawing allows him to be a more improvisational writer.
See? This is why I stopped reading comics blogs. Now I’m going to have to sit down and figure out who in comics are the bakers (measuring ingredients out in precise amounts) and who are the chefs (throwing flavors together with abandon). It’s not like I had anything else to do…