[Home]History of Watchmen/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 5 . . November 11, 2001 4:56 am by Aristotle
Revision 4 . . November 2, 2001 5:59 am by Aristotle [Relax, literary works need literary criticism.]
Revision 3 . . November 2, 2001 5:20 am by Trimalchio
Revision 2 . . November 2, 2001 5:10 am by Aristotle [Prehaps we should also talk about retro-continuity.]
Revision 1 . . November 2, 2001 3:37 am by Trimalchio
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (author diff)

Changed: 3,8c3
If you want I can re-write it with some additional comments about retro-continuity, the comic book term for establishing a fictional continuity without the benefit of preceding comments. Alternatively your comments could be transfered to the false document entry. As you see fit. -- Aristotle


Well, I am not sure what to do. (insert moment of intense navel gazing). The text need not be returned anywhere. A copy yet exists in the false doc talk section, so for what it is worth, the original will stand. And the issue really isn't about improving it as analysis... your addition might work, my improvment might work... the issue is whether analysis belongs in an entry at all. (more navel gazing). anyway, I think there is such a things as "true analysis". But is that NPOV? This is a very different issue then determining if a fact is true, like the date of someone's birth. Can literary analysis, even rudimentary stuff like this, be NPOV? Or should there be a place like wikipedia commentary, but under a different title, for wannabe critics and college analytical papers? --trimalchio

To discuss literary works, you do need literary criticism and Watchmen was the first graphic novel to be considered as such. My plot summary, which was requested as not containing any spoilers, was as subjective as your comments. -- Aristotle
Well, I am not sure what to do. (insert moment of intense navel gazing). The text need not be returned anywhere. A copy yet exists in the false doc talk section, so for what it is worth, the original will stand. And the issue really isn't about improving it as analysis... your addition might work, my improvment might work... the issue is whether analysis belongs in an entry at all. (more navel gazing). anyway, I think there is such a things as "true analysis". But is that NPOV? This is a very different issue then determining if a fact is true, like the date of someone's birth. Can literary analysis, even rudimentary stuff like this, be NPOV? Or should there be a place like wikipedia commentary, but under a different title, for wannabe critics and college analytical papers? --trimalchio

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: