If you think any parts of Watchmen were boring, you should only be disappointed in yourself. There was absolutely not one extraneous scene or line of dialogue in there. It's a terrific lesson in efficient writing, which some other writers have made a living simply copying (Straczynski, most notably).

I agree. Reading WATCHMEN in its original serial format was a delight.

And a lot of what made Moore so impressive was reading his work at a time when the ideas he was throwing out there were still fresh. I mean, as a kid, I'd thought SWAMP THING was a ho-hum horror comic with nice art by Bernie Wrightson. Then you read some of these stories by this new British guy Alan Moore and, holy jeez, what is this? This is brilliant, this is sophisticated, is this actually published by DC Comics, the same people putting out ALL-STAR SQUADRON and BATMAN AND THE OUTSIDERS?

For some of the younger guys who started reading comics after, say, the 1990s, they possibly don't realize just how derivative much of the industry became in the face of the 1980s work of Moore and Frank Miller. They've been fed a load of Moore-lite, which can make Moore seem less distinctive, as if there's really any valid comparison between "The Anatomy Lesson" and someone getting ass-raped on the Justice League of America satellite.

And the notion that people thought they could add to Moore's story on WATCHMEN ... good lord.

Anyway, just my rant.

I agree. Reading WATCHMEN in its original serial format was a delight.

the guy's greatness is in his mastery of more commercial storytelling.

It helps that Alan Moore reads more than just comic books. He's pretty well read an incorporates real science in some of this stories.