Watchmen

Automatic recommendation goes to the Watchmen. There's so much richness that brings me back to read it day after day.
To start, it's able to capture an epistolary novel, in a comic-medium. These are an assortment of notes, amended after each arch that clue to the eventual story line. Even better are the small detailed objects within the comic panels that only give further plot understanding.
Story within a story. This is used often. Either separate, parallel instances, or an actual independent side-story that seems out of place at first, but eventually gets linked in, in the finest show of synergy I've seen. In fact, the divergent ends combine together so that they're complementary to finally understand the overall plot.
A visible characterization that tangles with the psychology (immediate cause of reason) or the character's general mantra/philosophy (overall trend) of how the character behaves. You can see the various Ayn Rand, Nietzchean, Idealism, and Absurdism motifs. And as with a super hero / comic book form, these conflicting beliefs clash, eventually to question the reader whether they agree with the outcome.
Amazing.
Each episode is squarely encapsulated by one
theme. Fucking literature today doesn't do this. You can read one episode, step back, and understand how it relates to the theme.
The numerous allusions to outside work, enough to make modernist T.S. Eliot proud. In many cases they provided a context.
---
The Watchmen is a fucking masterpiece in the comic world consider how the rest of it is garbage. I'm not saying it's the best literature ever, I'm saying it elevated the comic book medium from stupid 10 year old kids to something academic professors would appreciate.
Don't fucking tell me you can get the same feeling from watching the movie. The movie is a corpse without a soul.. The essence of the work was made to exploit every advantage of the comic-book medium.
Sorry for long reply

Continued. Is there anything else in the comic world even remotely close to the level of complexity of Watchmen?
I haven't found it. In terms of a Wilkie Collins mystery page turner, there's Batman's The Long Halloween. In terms of general crime fiction, 100 bullets. In terms of a Duma's Count of Monte Cristo -- Daredevil under Brubaker's run (it's a stretch I know)
Other books I'll name (mostly the Vertigo imprint)
Sandman
Astro City
Preacher
Hellblazer
Sin City (I know
[more fun titles]
Fables
Y the Last Man
Hate by Peter Bagge <-- for light hearted
Bone by Jeff Smith
More interesting note:
Existential crisis do not belong in Indian culture. This is due to a strong belief in pre-determination seen in Hinduism's rigid caste structure, and Buddhism's eternal re-birth.
Sorta neato to think about.
This was the ideal society Nietzsche (Mr. Existentialism) wanted - structural, monarchic, power inherited from the ancestor. I guess in ways you can see how so many thinkers back then fell into conservatism/fascism -- Yes, T.S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats, Erza Pound, Heidegger.

>>3419268
I'll blabber from an evolutionary biology perspective, (I'm not one in real life, I'm a chemist)
Existentialism is seen as a crisis from having too much freedom. This is most reverberated from males because males can begin parenthood from the time he drops his balls to the time he dies. That's not to say parenthood ends an existential crisis, but in many ways having a new born ends the abstract thought, and puts the needs of the material world in front. Think about it. Existentialism has long been defined by lonely bachelor men.
-Kierkegaard declined a girl, and fucking regretted that decision every single day of his life.
-Nietzsche was a lonely fucker.
-Kafka felt enslaved by his sexual pleasures in that he felt as if the freedom of his ability doomed his life. Despite all the women he scored, he wavered between living with his parents, and died childless.
-Sartre had one love, and that was Simone, and she did not produce kids.
-Dostoyevsky who led the most regular life, thought Christianity was the answer.
So alright. Men have freedom. What about women?
For most part of their history women were determined to fulfill the role of the housekeeper. No matter how much the mind is allowed to dwaddle on why Humans exist, they have to worry about putting food on the table and make sure the baby doesn't die.
In the secondary case, women are in fact more likely to change their lifestyle due to them aging. Women for one, are most marveled for their beauty. That's the first criteria for selection, and in many ways, that was their first step in success. This elevated view of beauty has it's flaws though. All humans age. And that beauty is quickly lost.
What that means is that a woman does not have as much 'freedom' to a quality of life, since their greatest draw is their age. (Likewise it's though blondes are more attractive because infants typically have blonde hair). As such, their life is structured between childhood -  young adult - maternal - old age/death.
Teenage years start when she's gets first growth spurt
Young adult starts when she first menstruates/first growth spurt
Maternal starts with menopause
Old Age starts when she can't walk anymore.
As such, women do not have to freedom to start maternal life whenever they want. Unlike sperm, eggs have a distinct count. In most cases it's preferable to have healthy baby before the age of 35. It's risky with downs afterwards -- and the attraction of a mate at that age diminishes. (Compare vs. men where it's said that older men are more attractive)
So in ways, a women's life is more structured -- with less freedom. Less freedom means less of an idea of existentialism. This is why in modern culture, it’s more common to see men as “man-children”, versus the female.
Does that preclude women from existential crisis? Not necessarily. In the western world vs. south indian, the role of the workplace has changed.
In many ways women have embraced the idea of a second job, and in that random assortment of job-seeking, that allows enough degrees-of-freedom (?not the academic term), to ponder about existence.