Quoting myself

From July 2007. Footnotes new tonight.

To borrow terms from Bakhtin (whom I'm probably misusing), there are two levels of a story. There are the events of the story (the sjuzet), and there is the telling of the story (the fabula). The sjuzet of Watchmen is extremely good and it is, to me, almost conceivable that a brilliant filmmaker could create a film which captures some of the dramatic effect of Watchmen on that level*. However, the fabula of Watchmen is one of the most striking works ever created in comics, and is inseparable from the comics medium. No film could capture the panel-by-panel comicness of Watchmen--the juxtapositions, the background detail, the panel-by-panel and whole-issue structure of "Fearful Symmetry".

I'm not saying there couldn't be a film that is as good a film as Watchmen is a comic. I'm pretty sure there are some out there**. What I'm saying is that what makes Watchmensuch an accomplishment is inherent in the fact that it is a comic book. Trying to make a film of Watchmen is like trying to make a painting of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" or a short story of M. C. Escher's "Relativity". You can make a good short story about a world which violates the rules of perspective, but you can't make a short story which is "Relativity".

The fabula of Watchmen reinforces the sjuzet, and the sjuzet reinforces the fabula. Separating them might still leave you with a good film***, but it won't be Watchmen, and, more importantly, it can't capture why Watchmen is the landmark that it is.

*In this case, some, but not much.

**This really isn't one of them.

***I liked it more than I feared and much less than I hoped.

ETA: In comments, crowleycrow points out that I haven't used the terms completely accurately--sjuzet is a more precise term than "story" and "fabula" is something more than "telling". Read his comment--I'd just end up repeating it. I think my basic point can stand, even if my terminology is a bit naff.

A very nice, very nasty image about an unpleasant person

I've met Will Shetterly in person once. He was pleasant in person. He and I have friends in common, but are not by any stretch friends.

I've met him online dozens of times, dating back at least a decade. He wasn't pleasant, there, though he had the surfaces of it correct, and he's gotten worse and worse over the years.

papersky just said:

Will Shetterly is a toxic person. It's easier for me to say that than for some people, because he's never been my friend.

Also, seriously -- if you find yourself on the same side of an argument with Will Shetterly it's time to reconsider your position.

Thinking of Shetterly's online actions as "toxic" brought to mind a further helpful image: he generates sort of a stereoisomer of correctness--not just not right, but not right in a way which looks deceptively like being right. And as with all stereoisomers, it's harder to separate from the thing you actually want than it would be to separate out something that is just plain completely not the thing you want.

[Very minor edit to the final paragraph to change the phrasing--I want to practice thinking of people not as "is toxic" or "is good", but "does toxic things in context A" or "does good things in context B". A chance recollection this afternoon reminded me of someone whose online participation has ranged from amusing to batshit insane, but who unmistakably did a great mitzvah to someone he barely knew, at significant cost to himself, simply because it was the right thing to do.]

My Economic HOLY SHIT moment for the week

This is courtesy of Atrios, from the New York Times

Across the nation, 19 million houses and apartments — nearly one out of every seven — are vacant, the highest percentage since the 1960s. But only about six million of those homes are for sale or for rent. That means millions more could still flood onto the market, depressing prices further. (emphasis added)

Way to go, economic overlords!