Well, there's a whole thread here talking about what the point of the piece is.
Miller is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Alan Moore as an author famous for bringing sophisticated, adult-oriented storytelling to comics and thus broadening the genre.
But a retrospective look at his work shows that much of what was read at the time as an ironic deconstruction of comic book tropes (the same sort of thing Watchmen is rightly praised for) is probably non-ironic; it's just straight-faced pulp id. That's nothing new to comics; he just happens to have done it stylishly enough to attract fresh attention.
So: if Miller's work speaks mostly to young white males, then it's failed to accomplish the artistic goal he's credited for. If it's really meant for adults, that's even worse: then what you have here is something akin to Heinlein and "Starship Troopers" (perhaps substituting jingoism for fascism).
That's the critique in a nutshell. If you don't care about the artistic merit of Miller's writing, then the piece is definitely not written for you.
It has more or less nothing to do with privilege analysis.
> But a retrospective look at his work shows that much of what was read at the time as an ironic deconstruction of comic book tropes (the same sort of thing Watchmen is rightly praised for) is probably non-ironic; it's just straight-faced pulp id.
Yes but that is actually really interesting! We thought he was really clever by ironically exposing the inherent fascist tendencies in the superhero genre. Turns out he wasn't ironic, he just wrote what the liked. But...why does that change the quality of the comic? It still does the same thing, he just removed the excuse that allowed us to enjoy it "ironically". Frank Miller is the honest one, it is the rest of us who have been exposed.
Also notable how Rorschach is everyones favorite character in Watchmen. He is obviously intended as deconstruction of the vigilante hero, exaggerating all the negative traits and unfortunate implications of the type. And everybody loves the character!
I don't think you can plausibly read Watchmen and not understand the commentary that the Rorschach character is making on the genre. If you like the character, his subtext is part of your opinion.
Just noting that Starship Troopers the movie has a rather different flavor than Miller's film adaptations, as regards what people recognize as ironic, or earnest, or problematic.
Miller is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Alan Moore as an author famous for bringing sophisticated, adult-oriented storytelling to comics and thus broadening the genre.
But a retrospective look at his work shows that much of what was read at the time as an ironic deconstruction of comic book tropes (the same sort of thing Watchmen is rightly praised for) is probably non-ironic; it's just straight-faced pulp id. That's nothing new to comics; he just happens to have done it stylishly enough to attract fresh attention.
So: if Miller's work speaks mostly to young white males, then it's failed to accomplish the artistic goal he's credited for. If it's really meant for adults, that's even worse: then what you have here is something akin to Heinlein and "Starship Troopers" (perhaps substituting jingoism for fascism).
That's the critique in a nutshell. If you don't care about the artistic merit of Miller's writing, then the piece is definitely not written for you.
It has more or less nothing to do with privilege analysis.