Well, JB stated things very well, but I'll add that if my original comment had been meant to be full of contempt, I would have said: 

People who find WATCHMEN to be brilliant are stupid. 

I didn't say that...I said they lacked knowledge of the medium that WATCHMAN is a (very overrated) part of.  

That's odd. I know about comics, and I like Watchmen.

Perhaps I'm not here.

IMP.

Perhaps I'm not here.

••

We could only wish!

"Knowing about comics" has many layers. I wonder how many of them you truly possess? Or, perhaps you have a forgiving nature. That might explain how you could like WATCHMEN despite it being so -- what's a polite word? -- derivative.

John Byrne wrote: Lauren's comment is not really contemptuous at all. Rather, it expresses something unfortunately true. Those who heap great praise upon WATCHMEN fall, in my experience, into two general groups.

With genuine curiosity, I ask: into what group would you put those posters in this very thread who've expressed admiration for it? It seems to me this is a group with some solid knowledge of the medium's history and I haven't seen anyone whose praise amounts to "it was first."

I think maybe people have gotten too hung up on those fans who've praised Watchmen for originating "realistic superheroes." That strikes me as little more than a hasty, shorthand descriptor. Many people - perhaps most - prefer not to analyze their entertainment. They like what they like and it doesn't go much deeper than that, so if pressed for "why" they turn up lightweight answers. "Realistic superheroes" is just a lightweight answer, like saying one liked L.A. Confidential because "Russell Crowe was a badass." It's a silly take, but we shouldn't allow it to negate appreciations that are less surface.

++

With genuine curiosity, I ask: into what group would you put those posters in this very thread who've expressed admiration for it?

••

Some clearly fall into the second group -- comic readers who do not have a full comprehension of comic history.

But please note that I used the phrase "two GENERAL groups" (emphasis added). These groups, being general, are not meant to be all encompassing.

Well, maybe a distinction should be made between liking something and praising it as brilliant.  If you enjoy WATCHMEN because it entertains you, that's individual taste. 

There are certain pop songs that I enjoy.  They're catchy.  I like them.  But even with my limited knowledge of music I know these songs are not examples of artistic milestones that move all of music forward as an artform.  They're pap. 

WATCHMEN is treated like it is some brilliant work of genuis.  But lacks the true brilliance of many works that came before it...works that are treated with contempt by some of the same people that treat WATCHMEN as a shining example of greatness.  (And works that didn't steal from an old OUTER LIMITS episode).   

Oh come on.  WATCHMEN isn't an "entry point" for anyone.  No one picking up WATCHMEN as their first foray into superhero comics, of which it is, comes away wanting to read Spider-Man or Batman.  Most people I know, anecdotal to be sure, whose first experience with comics was reading it, started and ended with WATCHMEN.  It didn't encourage them to seek out more comics and become regular readers/purchasers of the genre.  That's like saying BONE was an "entry point".  It wasn't.  It was a comic that appealed to a certain reader, specific to that story and those characters, and not a gateway to other comics in general.

***

When I want to give someone an "entry point" into superhero comics and show them a piece of work that captures all that is best about the genre, this is the one:

And it contains the essential ingredient that WATCHMEN, in my opinion, lacks: FUN!

"Some clearly fall into the second group -- comic readers who do not have a full comprehension of comic history."

I think this is a fair generalization. If I may ask a second question...what is the impact?

Comic book junkie that I was/am, however, I ended up picking up every new issue just to get my fix.

I was very impressed by the Doctor Manhattan origin issue. The back and forth storytelling depicting his perception of time was and still is my favorite thing in the series. Hey, Captain Marvel acquiring Cosmic Consciousness (ish #29) is forever a milestone of my comic book reading.

The chapter focusing on Nite-Owl sort of won me over, as it depicted an endearing "real-life Batman". In fact, it is Dan Dreiberg´s human POV that makes the whole thing readable.

The issue that tells Ozymandias´s origin is also one I enjoy (I can even remember several lines).

Come to think of it, though Watchmen doesn´t work as a whole, is a book I revisit every now and then for the character portraits.

"Knowing about comics" has many layers. I wonder how many of them you truly possess? Or, perhaps you have a forgiving nature. That might explain how you could like WATCHMEN despite it being so -- what's a polite word? -- derivative.

I know enough to know that there are no un-derivative superhero comics. Even Action Comics #1. Indeed, there are, according to Aristotle, only seven stories, so no fiction in the last 2500 years has been free of derivativeness.

I don't know how many comics I truly possess, because I don't understand the question. I must have a forgiving nature, because of the thousands I do possess most are either poorly written or poorly drawn. I possess them (truly or, er, only actually) often because of the other component in isolation. Of them, Watchmen is cleverer, funnier and more interesting than nearly any.

There is danger, too, in comics people - that's us - saying things like that people who like Watchmen don't know comics. I remember reading a review in a comics magazine of Alan Moore's book of short stories, in which the reviewer referred to the book as Moore's novel. I felt embarrassed to be part of a group whose members don't know what a novel is. The danger is that people who praise Watchmen for its literary qualities will wonder what comics people know about literature.

IMP.