Andrew, I didn't say he was a bad writer. I was just saying he's not known for his great writing. Even in my case I remember Gruenwald ( very fondly, I will add) more as being an editor. Loved the Avengers family of books when he was in charge of 'em. Loved his lettercols.

I guess my overall point would be illustrated by this:

Two books on the rack. One written by Gruenwald and one written by Moore. Which book is the owner of the shop gonna have to refill more? And don't go by your personal preference. What do you think fandom as a whole is going to lean towards? Gruenwald's book or Moore's?

Moore is known around fandom as being a great writer. In the upper echelon, even. Gruenwald, like it or not, is not.

Funny.  I haven't read much of Dave Gibbons work.  But I love me some Bob Hall and Paul Ryan!!

I've certainly re-read Squadron much more than Watchmen.  Watchmen drags really bad when I try to read it now.  Once the mystery is gone, it just isn't much fun.

Squadron's completely different in that it's a tragic story about super heroes trying to do good, while Watchmen is about a bunch of crazy fools.  And the ending is soooo anti-climatic.

The original Squadron Supreme mini series has never garnered the same amount of critical praise that Watchmen has gotten because it just isn't as good.

******

This is a false statement. It fits in with the other statements some are making about Squadron. The writing was great. Gruenwald went into great detail about the main characters. He clearly explored the full potential of the plot. You would see the effects of the Utopia Program all over the world. Tom Thumb was given a great deal of attention. The issue where he tried to cure cancer is one of the best single issues I have ever read.

Also do not care for all this bashing of Paul Ryan (and Bob Hall to a lesser extent). Paul Ryan is a very good artist. Perhaps not as good as Dave Gibbon. But look at Paul Ryan's work on the Squadron graphic novel with quality coloring and printing. Very good artwork.

Im not bashing Watchmen. Its a great series with really layered multi dimensional characters. But the idea that no other comic is close is what made me not want to give it a chance.

I think Watchmen suffers at times by the attitudes of some of its fans. That if you don't get it, or it doesn't speak to you (and it is hard to produce something that appeals to everyone) then you must not be smart enough or hip enough to get it. A friend of mine told me to read it, I read it, I was unimpressed and told him so (in a polite fashion, I am a Canadian after all) and he started being condescending, almost patting me on the head for not being smart enough to get it. He then broke it down and explained all the literary devices Moore and Gibbons used and I pointed out that literary devices such as the ones cited are usually used to add something to the story and the message and I believed that the devices were there to be there. Some had a specific intent which improved the story but others (to my mind) did nothing but show off the skill of the writer and the artist. He rolled his eyes at that one and rather than start an argument I just changed the subject.

Partly Watchmen is hurt by the expectations (though the expectations of brilliance are why it is still being published, right? If it was not an acclaimed piece it would just be an old comic that some remember and some don't), but I think it is also hurt by the fact it is simply not as good as some believe. If it speaks to you, great. If it doesn't, great. I just hate the implication that if you don't like Watchmen it is because you aren't smart enough to understand it.

That attitude doesn't come from Moore and Gibbons and I won't put that at their feet, that attitude comes from disdainful fanboys who are too cool for superheroes (and yet who know a remarkable amount of trivia about superheroes for people who profess their disdain), and want to use Watchmen to feel superior to other fanboys.

Squadron Supreme was well done but I don't think it was as well done as Watchmen. Partly because of the art and partly because Gruenwald played by the rules and tried to write a compelling story in the traditional style. He could have gone further in terms of literary devices and the like but I personally believe he chose not to, and from his columns and his other work I believe that he wanted the story to be front and center and not obscured by creative tangents.

His run on Captain America was incredible, making me a fan of a character I didn't really care about, though I would say he probably stayed on the title for too long and the pencillers he had near the end were not nearly as good as the ones he had at the beginning (particularly Kieron Dwyer and Ron Lim). Great art can make a good story look awesome, and less than good art can make an adequate story look like crap.