Andrew Hoberek’s book, “Considering Watchmen: Poetics, Property, and Politics,” illustrates how Moore and Gibbons developed the graphic novel Watchmen, the contribution Watchmen had to the superhero genre, struggle of property rights and the politics of Watchmen. Although Hoberek describes many important concepts within Watchmen, the most interesting concept to me was the struggle of property rights. In class we constantly discuss artists and writers not getting the credit or money they deserve for their creations. In Chapter 2, “Property,” Hoberek “…considers Moore’s investment in the concept of literature as a function of his career-long struggle with DC over the rights to his work” (39). Hoberek discusses Moore’s fight with DC on using the Charlton characters for his story. He describes the struggle as “the conflict between corporations’ desire to profit from characters and stories and artists’ desire to revise them creatively” (91-92). Moore wanted to use the Charlton characters for Watchmen but was rejected because he sought to “render them unusable for future projects” (92). DC chose not to give him permission to use the Charlton characters to save those characters for future use.
Hoberek also discusses Steve Ditko’s dispute with Stan Lee on creative and financial control of his cocreation Spider-Man. As we discussed in class, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby also disputed when it came to creative control yet Jack Kirby wasn’t successful in gaining control the way Ditko was. Hoberek recalls, “In leaving Marvel, Ditko chose creative control over profits. Angered by Marvel’s failure to pay him what he thought was his due as Spider-Man’s cocreator, he returned to Charlton, the small Connecticut comic book company for which he had created Captain Atom…” (82) By choosing creative control over profits, Ditko proves to care more about his creation and the comics being written about his character rather than the money unlike Stan Lee.
Through Rorschach and Veidt, Moore successfully illustrates the struggle between comic book artists and corporations. Hoberek tells, “…Moore has repeatedly commented in interviews and other venues on the long struggle between comic book artists who created characters on a work-by-hire basis and the companies who then owned these trademarked characters, then the Veidt Corporation appears at this moment as an exaggerated figure for the latter, able to profit from the creations of others through a combination of Veidt’s contingent relationship with the creators and a legal fiction” (81). Through the Veidt Corporation, Moore illustrates how corporations use artist’s creations and end up profiting from it rather than the artist. Hoberek also connects Rorschach with the “uncompromising artist” and “the comic book artist for whom work-for-hire had historically meant a lack of ownership or control over his (usually) creations” (86). The unfortunate truth about comic books are many artists were deprived of their ownership rights which is extremely unfortunate. After reading “Considering Watchmen” it’s clear to see that artists and writers not getting what they deserved when it came to their creations is a consistent and recurring theme.
Hoberek also discusses Steve Ditko’s dispute with Stan Lee on creative and financial control of his cocreation Spider-Man. As we discussed in class, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby also disputed when it came to creative control yet Jack Kirby wasn’t successful in gaining control the way Ditko was. Hoberek recalls, “In leaving Marvel, Ditko chose creative control over profits. Angered by Marvel’s failure to pay him what he thought was his due as Spider-Man’s cocreator, he returned to Charlton, the small Connecticut comic book company for which he had created Captain Atom…” (82) By choosing creative control over profits, Ditko proves to care more about his creation and the comics being written about his character rather than the money unlike Stan Lee.
Through Rorschach and Veidt, Moore successfully illustrates the struggle between comic book artists and corporations. Hoberek tells, “…Moore has repeatedly commented in interviews and other venues on the long struggle between comic book artists who created characters on a work-by-hire basis and the companies who then owned these trademarked characters, then the Veidt Corporation appears at this moment as an exaggerated figure for the latter, able to profit from the creations of others through a combination of Veidt’s contingent relationship with the creators and a legal fiction” (81). Through the Veidt Corporation, Moore illustrates how corporations use artist’s creations and end up profiting from it rather than the artist. Hoberek also connects Rorschach with the “uncompromising artist” and “the comic book artist for whom work-for-hire had historically meant a lack of ownership or control over his (usually) creations” (86). The unfortunate truth about comic books are many artists were deprived of their ownership rights which is extremely unfortunate. After reading “Considering Watchmen” it’s clear to see that artists and writers not getting what they deserved when it came to their creations is a consistent and recurring theme.