Sadly, in his tearing down of Moore and his work, Byrne is naked in his jealousy. He clearly resents how Moore's Watchmen is regarded as a sophisticated masterpiece of the medium.
The weird thing is that he adamantly insists that there's no reason to think Watchmen
is innovative, unless that thought is based on ignorance. And sure, if someone thinks Watchmen
is innovative because it's got dark superheroes, then yes, that had been done before.
Problem is, the plot isn't what's so innovative about Watchmen.
The plot on its own is kind of weak. It's entirely about the execution, which is layered and sophisticated in a way that even now most most superhero comics don't even try. (Let alone when Watchmen
was first printed.)
A while back on this board, Larsen described Byrne as "a dumb guy who thinks he's a smart guy." Hoo boy, if that ever applies, it applies here. It's like Byrne only read Watchmen
on a superficial level, and doesn't get what the big deal is, since those superficial elements were already in the air. Which would be fine if he wasn't going around saying that people who do
see past those superficial elements are ignorant.
That's just bizarre. It's like saying, "I don't get this, so you're