Thoughts Upon Rereading Watchmen

[Kirkman1987]

It's cool to have this thread right now because I'm currently re-reading the comic. For added fun, after reading an issue or two, I'll immediately check out that portion of the film (ultimate cut) to compare.

Obviously, the graphic novel is loads better, simply because a lot of the stuff done in the comic can't be replicated well on film. Also, The comic has a lot of detail not present in the film. The details really add up in the comic, and the sense of cold war paranoia is always present.

That said, I love Snyder's film, and don't think Watchmen could have been done that much better on film. I'm perfectly alright with the new ending, and I don't have a preference between the two. I find the movie ending more natural, but I miss the hordes of dead bodies from the comic.

I also think Snyder did a cool job making the Under the Hood book into a fake news program. It was clever, and although it would have killed the pacing, as a fanboy I wish some of it was in the film, at least the Hollis Mason stuff.

 

[DonIago]

Thanks for the info folks!

I assume it's never made explicitly clear, no pun intended, whether Ozy is gay.

 

[Teelie]

It's never more than implied and even the implication isn't so strong as to be an all-but-confirmed implication.

 

[Christopher]

I assume it's never made explicitly clear, no pun intended, whether Ozy is gay.

I doubt any such implication was actually intended by Moore and Gibbons. Rorschach's musing in that regard said more about Rorschach, about his paranoia and preconceptions than it did about Veidt. Rorschach saw enemies and conspiracies everywhere, and since he was contemptuous of Veidt's "shallow, liberal affectations," he was evidently well to the political right himself. Assuming the people he didn't like were gay fit right into that school of thought. So we were never intended to take Rorschach's words as an actual suggestion that Veidt was gay, but merely as a reflection of Rorschach's own twisted and judgmental thought processes.

 

[Mr Light]

I never got the impression he was gay. That was just Ror being nuts.

 

[Teelie]

Yeah believing Rorschach is like believing the guy on the corner telling you the end is near and that 2012 is the end of the world. If he turns out to be right it's from sheer coincedence as opposed to some hidden insight.

 

[Silvercrest]

Why was the attack on Veidt the worst in the book? It seemed perfectly in character for Rorschach, and for Veidt. I admit Nite Owl's use of that laser seemed excessive.

I mean the second attempt, by Rorshach alone, on Page 19 of Chapter 11. Have you ever tried a two hundred word speech in the span of one punch?

There are still some levels of Watchmen I'm learning to "get". Its deconstruction of the comics medium is one of them. In some ways I still tend to read it as just a comic book.

Edit: caveat--an exception to the rule is the Flash.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Rorschach triumphs over every obstacle but Dr. Manhattan. It is quite clear his diary will be published and ruin Ozymandias' plan, as Dr. Manhattan says, which makes Rorschach's death a moral victory like the Comedian's.

I've never understood this assumption on the part of so many readers. The previous scene of the New Frontiersman editor and his assistant clearly indicates that even they don't believe anything that's in the crank file, so assuming Rorschach's journal is published - why would anyone believe it when the publication is a right-wing conspiracy theory rag, and all Rorchach's journal contains is paranoid ramblings about a mask killer that end with - Veidt's behind it all, I'm sure of it. How would that possibly ruin Veidt's plan? I think what Moore is really implying is that the truth is out there, but it's so garbled, and from such unreliable sources, that it can't be effectively unraveled - thus we all live in a world created by the manipulation of powerful people and there's no way to discover the unadulterated truth of history.

Moore's general bent seems to be that all of his characters in Watchmen are despicable in one way or another. I will grant that Rorschach is Travis Bickle cast as so powerful a personality that his paranoid nihilism is influential (as with the psychiatrist) - that he ends up coming off as heroic by the structure of the story when he really shouldn't be given the tone of the rest of the narrative.

Which is why my complaint about Rorschach being a little too right and Veidt a little too wrong has more to do with narrative pacing than anything else. The ending of Watchmen is rushed. Or the first two acts drag on interminably, depending on how you want to look at it. Veidt is a litte too wrong because we never get a chance to get to know him except through his narcissistic speech at the end of the book, whereas we've spent issue after issue subjected to Rorschach's inner life. That's the imbalance.

The peculiar thing is, I don't believe Alan Moore intended this. I suspect the fundamental problem is that the real way to deconstruct superheroes is elementary physcis and chemistry. Tacitly assuming the fantasy universe where the superheroes exist takes its toll on the critical faculties, including the author's.

This is closer to my ultimate unease with what Moore seemed to be trying to do. If he was deconstructing the superhero, the climax, featuring a normal human who is so greatly smarter, faster, stronger and richer than everyone else deeply undermines all the work he'd done before. Veidt is too much a typical evil mastermind and instead of deconstructing that, Moore exploits it, pulling what is really only an elementary twist that seems out of place with the originality of the rest of the book. The bad guys wins - but it would have been so much more interesting if Veidt had been explored and given more complexity so that the reader is left with a genuine question of whether the manipulation of powerful people really does result in a better world. The final denouement, of New York apparently rebuilt in next to no time and everyone singing kumbaya together, is downright silly - the world just experienced what it feared was an invasion from another dimension. Human hostilities might have ceased for that reason, but it would not have been a happy world that resulted - rather one that was battening down the hatches with an extreme bunker mentality, waiting for the next giant squid to attack.

 

[stj]

The belief that the publication of the diary will successfully expose Ozymandias strictly speaking is a conclusion, not an assumption. The basis for the conclusion? Dr. Manhattan, who sees the future, plainly implies that Ozymandias' plan comes undone. In addition to being awesomely powerful, which means he's a winner, which means what he says is good stuff, there's very little else he could have meant when talking about how things are never ended. Plus, since he came to help humanity, even by the love standard he's at least partially redeemed as a good guy. Which means what he says is true.

Also, Rorschach is so unbelievably cool that what he does can't be expected to fail.

Also, if people believed that accusations against Dr. Manhattan, they'll believe the accusations against Ozymandias.

Also, the assumption that an extra-dimensional squid would naturally murder millions is kind of nuts. But when look people look around afterwards and see Ozymandias has essentially taken over just as if he was prepared for the crisis, some will ask, "Cui bono?"

Also, the details in the diary will be supported by investigations. For instance, the cops who investigated Edward Blake's murders will quickly realize Blake really was the Comedian. The diary will be authenticated by that sort of thing.

Also, given the nearly universal assumption in thrillers and mysteries is that exposure of the plot suffices to defeat the plot, it is something of an assumption to interpret it otherwise.

Obviously, "truth" as what the good guys say is more narrative convention than a logical argument. Still, after all, this is a fantasy universe where there's a Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandia and Nite Owl. Whatever the deconstructive intent, it still demands the reader buy into narrative, which means such narrative conventions, no?

Actually, the only reason to think Rorschach's diary will fail of its purpose is that Dr. Manhattan retroactively endorsed the plan by killing Rorschach. Dr. Manhattan, as the ultimate winner, a living god, of course must be good. But I think Dr. Manhattan could kill Rorschach because he didn't like Rorschach. (I would swear it was impossible but Rorschach's the favorite character by far, with the nearly as unlikable Comedian his only competition. So what do I know? The essential point is, I don't think Moore likes Rorschach.) I think Dr. Manhattan would be quite capable of letting Ozymandias try to take over the world and fail because he was pissed at Ozymandias and wanted Ozymandias not just dead but even more humiliated.

Dr. Manhattan's epiphany about love and the meaning of life is so much nicer than the usual thought processes of the other heroes, it is easy to forget that it doesn't quite jibe with what Dr. Manhattan does, which is murder Rorschach, then abandon humanity to Ozymandias. It seems to be something of a shout out, invested in the biggest winner (who is therefore coolest and rightest character of all.) I suppose that Moore doesn't just think his characters are bad, but that people in general in bad, and that no one, not even a superhero, could even fool them into getting along. We'll all rot together and kill each other in the end, in spite of the value of life attested by Dr. Manhattan's soliloquy. Or so the moral of the story seems to be.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The belief that the publication of the diary will successfully expose Ozymandias strictly speaking is a conclusion, not an assumption. The basis for the conclusion? Dr. Manhattan, who sees the future, plainly implies that Ozymandias' plan comes undone.

I disagree. As usual, Jon is speaking in very esoteric terms. He means that history is long and even should Ozymandias be completely successful - this is only in the short term - though the short term to an immortal being like Dr. Manhattan may encompass a thousand years or more. Remember that the quote associated with the architect of the grand plan "Look upon these works, ye mighty and despair") is from a poem by Shelley. The short excerpt used in the book seems to be about the horror Veidt is enacting, but the rest of the poem gives the larger context to Jon's words:

"And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

Shelley's poem is about the hubris of an ancient king whose only mark upon the modern world is the ruins of his once great statue. In other words, his works may have been mighty once, but time marches on and leaves them in nothing but decay.

In addition to being awesomely powerful, which means he's a winner, which means what he says is good stuff,

I don't think Moore is interested in winners and losers at all in this book.

there's very little else he could have meant when talking about how things are never ended. Plus, since he came to help humanity, even by the love standard he's at least partially redeemed as a good guy. Which means what he says is true.

Again, I disagree. Goodness does not equal truth - certainly not in the world of Watchmen.

Also, Rorschach is so unbelievably cool that what he does can't be expected to fail.

While numerous readers found Rorschach to be "uneblievably cool", that does not mean he was intended to be so. I found him repugnant both on this reading and on my original one when I was 16. Many reviewers remark on this as well.

Also, if people believed that accusations against Dr. Manhattan, they'll believe the accusations against Ozymandias.

The accusations against Dr. Manhattan happened dramatically on live television and came from a reputable source. The only person in the book ever shown reading the New Frontiersman is Rorschach so it is implied that the magazine has little reach and what reach it has is to fringe elements. For instance, it prints vague conspiracy ideas about the missing artists and scientists - but no one believes that. No action is taken by the government or anyone else. This is a pretty direct indication by the author of the idea that the truth is out there, but in a garbled form that no one believes.

Also, the assumption that an extra-dimensional squid would naturally murder millions is kind of nuts. But when look people look around afterwards and see Ozymandias has essentially taken over just as if he was prepared for the crisis, some will ask, "Cui bono?"

Veidt explains at least twice that the murders occur because they incorporated a psychic human brain into their faux being and it was this that made so many people die from neurological overload.

As for people looking around and seeing that Veidt has taken over - no one has any reason to look around unless 1) they read the New Frontiersman, which apparently few people do, 2) believe the particular article that is constructed out of Rorschach's odd paranoid ramblings and 3) jump from Rorschach's conclusion that Veidt is behind the mask killer (keep in mind, Rorschach concludes and mails his journal before he and Dan have anything but the vaguest notion of Veidt being involved in something heinous) to Veidt being behind the astonishingly unlikely interdimensional creature attacking New York.

Also, the details in the diary will be supported by investigations. For instance, the cops who investigated Edward Blake's murders will quickly realize Blake really was the Comedian. The diary will be authenticated by that sort of thing.

Perhaps - should the police pay any attention to a radical right wing conspiracy rag, which they apparently didn't when it published an article about disappearing artists and scientists. And even if they conclude that Blake was the Comedian and Veidt was somehow behind his murder and perhaps even the accusations that drove Dr. Manhattan away - it's still a big jump to the attack on New York.

Also, given the nearly universal assumption in thrillers and mysteries is that exposure of the plot suffices to defeat the plot, it is something of an assumption to interpret it otherwise.

I don't believe the plot could possibly be exposed by Rorschach's journal which doesn't even have half the information regarding Veidt's ultimate plan. Lacking exposure, there's no chance of defeat.

Obviously, "truth" as what the good guys say is more narrative convention than a logical argument. Still, after all, this is a fantasy universe where there's a Dr. Manhattan, Ozymandia and Nite Owl. Whatever the deconstructive intent, it still demands the reader buy into narrative, which means such narrative conventions, no?

Not if it's purpose is to directly undermine them. The entire book is about flipping the assumption of superhero's goodness and rightness on its head. Far from being good or right, Manhattan watches Blake murder the pregnant mother of his child and barely blinks an eye. Rorschach, Blake and Veidt murder without remorse. These are directly counter to the assumption of the main characters being good or right.

Actually, the only reason to think Rorschach's diary will fail of its purpose is that Dr. Manhattan retroactively endorsed the plan by killing Rorschach. Dr. Manhattan, as the ultimate winner, a living god, of course must be good.

I disagree. Dr. Manhattan is shown over and over again to be beyond human morality. He can barely even grasp it. He does at last come to see that the specificity of each individual life seems to indicate some sort of value - but that's not enough for him to be moved by the deaths of millions in New York. He can still abstract the whole thing and decide that either, it's for the best, or, he really doesn't care that much. I often find his final scenes to be ones of impotence and resignation. "I'm leaving this galaxy for one less complicated." That's rather throwing up his hands.

But I think Dr. Manhattan could kill Rorschach because he didn't like Rorschach. (I would swear it was impossible but Rorschach's the favorite character by far, with the nearly as unlikable Comedian his only competition. So what do I know? The essential point is, I don't think Moore likes Rorschach.) I think Dr. Manhattan would be quite capable of letting Ozymandias try to take over the world and fail because he was pissed at Ozymandias and wanted Ozymandias not just dead but even more humiliated.

I think it is well established in the narrative that Dr. Manhattan has next to no opinion, and certainly no emotional reaction, to any individual human except possibly Laurie, who he cares about in sort of a vague way.

I will say I always found it interesting that while Dr. Manhattan lost any interest in things human after his transformation - he still is compelled for a good long while by sex and a pretty shallow attachment to it. He ditches Janie for Laurie because Janie is aging. Seems even if a man becomes a God he's still going to be motivated by a hard dick.

Dr. Manhattan's epiphany about love and the meaning of life is so much nicer than the usual thought processes of the other heroes, it is easy to forget that it doesn't quite jibe with what Dr. Manhattan does, which is murder Rorschach, then abandon humanity to Ozymandias. It seems to be something of a shout out, invested in the biggest winner (who is therefore coolest and rightest character of all.) I suppose that Moore doesn't just think his characters are bad, but that people in general in bad, and that no one, not even a superhero, could even fool them into getting along. We'll all rot together and kill each other in the end, in spite of the value of life attested by Dr. Manhattan's soliloquy. Or so the moral of the story seems to be.

I'm not so sure Dr. Manhattan's epiphany has anything to do with love. Moore seems to think the universe itself is bad - in that it can contain the miracle of individual life as Manhattan attests, and then have that life be as twisted and brutal as the experiences Rorschach relates and the horror that Veidt enacts. Watchmen is a deeply nihilistic book since it concludes that even if there is world peace, it will be because most people are igorant pawns living a lie thrust upon them by those of wealth and power.

 

[stj]

Compared to other viewpoints, ours are practically identical. Which I suppose magnifies the differences we see.

I can't agree that Moore doesn't know what he's doing when he decides to show Rorschach unmanning his shrink. Or being so cool as to tell prisoners they're locked in with him, and then delivering. Nor that when he has Veidt be so clueless as to call himself Ozymandias just to recall the Shelley poem.

Ozymandias, by the way, does express remorse. Which is interesting since he is the most negatively drawn character in the book. I can't think Moore is so inept he is doing this unconsciously.

The nihilism theory is an interesting thought.