Watchmen: Great Art Doesn’t Preach, It Makes You Think
by James Hudnall“Watchmen” opens Friday and we’ll see how well it performs in the theaters, but the graphic novel has been a best seller for DC Comics since its inception in 1985. And not without surprise. It’s been voted the best graphic novel of all time by many people. It even showed up in Time Magazine as one of the best literary novels of the 20th century. The only comic to make that list. Personally, I don’t care much for lists or other popularity contests. They seem too high school to me. A lot of stuff on “best ever” lists tends to be crap. It’s all someone’s opinion, after all. But “Watchmen” is definitely a work of art. One that will stand the test of time and already has.
‘Watchmen’ creator Alan Moore
What makes it an important story isn’t its garish colors or dark and gritty milieu. What makes it so good is that it’s a kind of literary pound cake. The original kind, made from a pound of flour, eggs, sugar, butter, etc. It’s a dense and rich story. One you can read over and over again and pick up new insights from. Whether or not you can accept the idea of superheroes or alternate histories, or even relate to the early 80’s cold war setting, the story has plenty of universal themes running through it. The story is elevated by original takes on the superhero genre that were fresh then and now.
The book was written by Alan Moore, who is one of those rare people that comes along once in a generation, or so. Alan’s a British writer from the North of England. He got into comics in the late 70s and soon found himself writing for the local Sci-fi Publications 2000 AD. In the early 80s he started writing for a black and white magazine called Warrior. The two series he did in that book, “Miracleman” and “V For Vendetta” got him work at DC Comics. A first for British comics writers. His work on “Swamp Thing” reinvented that character and was so successful creatively DC started going to conventions over there and hiring almost every writer and artist who showed a modicum of talent. Alan has been unmatched, however.
I had the pleasure of meeting Alan the year “Watchmen” came out, in 1985. It’s the same year my writing career started. I was working with his former collaborator David Lloyd who illustrated “V for Vendetta.” David and I were doing a series for Eclipse comics called “Espers.” Alan was still writing “Miracleman” for Eclipse who had picked up the US publishing rights. So I talked to Alan several times as he was working on “Watchmen” and in the years that followed. Alan’s sensibility is unique. The man himself is quite a character as you can probably guess from his photos. But he’s no clown. He’s very serious and principled. One of the most principled people I have ever met.
He famously said he wants nothing to do with the film, had his name taken off it. He signed over all money owed to him from the production to Dave Gibbons, the artist. He’s done that with most of the movies adapted from his work. He feels the comic version is the only “real” version. He’s offended by the liberties that have been taken with his work. Alan really stands by his word. When he swore he would never work for DC Comics again, and they bought a comics company he was working for, he finished the work he was contracted to do and gave all the rights to his collaborators rather that be sullied by an association with DC. But in 1985 he was a major star at DC, the only major comics company he wanted to work for. He was not a Marvel fan (even though he did a stint for Marvel UK a few years earlier). He was in love with the DC universe and it showed in the many projects he did for them.
You can’t really pigeon hole his politics, as many have done. He’s kind of a hippy anarchist, extremely intelligent and well read with a deep, deep love of the comics medium. Many of his inclinations seem left wing, but he’s really an extreme libertarian. Or more accurately, a libertine. What he did in the 80s and 90s was revolutionize comics in many respects. And no one’s been able to imitate him with any real success.
The art in “Watchmen” was done by Dave Gibbons, an extremely talented artist who used to be an architect. Dave has was able to translate Alan’s extremely detailed scripts in such a way that every panel in the story is full of nuance and subtext. In “Watchmen,” every sign, newspaper headline, person walking by in the background is relevant to the story later on. There’s a density of information in the story, from the dialog to the images that are all found in the massive scripts Moore wrote, where a single panel description could go on for pages. It took a unique kind of artist to illustrate a book like “Watchmen.” Few working in comics at the time could pull it off as well as Gibbons.
His collaborator on the colors was John Higgins, a talented artist himself. Higgins used a 4 color pallet different than the primary colors they used at the time (red, blue, yellow) and went with something slightly off (purple, orange, green) to give it an other-worldly feel. On surface reading, many people see a story that seems like an attack on Reaganism, Thatcherism and super-heroes. But Moore’s work is much deeper than that. He never resorts to the kind of straw-men arguments lefties usually employ. He always makes even his most despicable characters human beings and shows their different sides.
The Comedian is one of the “bad guys” in the book. A super-hero who has done a lot of evil deeds in his career. Kind of like a corrupt cop. But we come to understand him eventually and see that he actually had love in his heart. The stand out character in the story is Rorschach, who is based on the Charlton comics character The Question. The Question was created by Spider-Man co-creator Steve Ditko who was a hard core Ayn Rand follower. He believed in absolute right and wrong. Moore added that emphasis in Rorschach, making him a kind of demented avenger seeking absolute justice in the world. He immediately became the most popular character.
Rorschach also has one of the coolest costume ideas ever. A mask that’s faceless, but shows an ever moving pattern across it resembling a Rorschach blot. Combined with his crazy demeanor, Rorschach becomes an unpredictable character. Very interesting to follow. You never know what he’ll do next. Moore couples that with a Chandler-cum Travis (Taxi Driver) Bickel narration (excerpted from his journal) that gives us an insight into his mind. Rorschach is the hero of the story because he provides its point of view. He sets the other characters in motion by getting them riled up. He eggs them on and his analysis of what’s happening is proven more or less correct. And he has the last laugh in the end.
So the hero of the story is basically a crazed right-wing zealot (but not in the usual way right wingers are portrayed). And yet, as mad as Moore tries to make him, he also gives us sound reasons for why Rorschach thinks the way he does. Rorschach has seen the worst of humanity up close. And rather than surrender entirely to cynicism and giving up, Rorschach keeps on fighting the good fight as he sees it, trying to stop evil in its tracks. He provides one view of humanity. The other characters provide their own perspective.
Dr. Manhattan is the only character in the story with actual powers. He has the powers of a god, and as such has become detached from humanity. He sees things on a cosmic scale. He can see through time. So he has a fatalistic view of life and is fairly passive. He goes along with what he is told for a long time, until he finally gets fed up and leaves the earth. Nite Owl is a superhero in the Batman mold. A rich industrialist who takes up crime fighting through the use of gadgets and martial arts. Silk Spectre is the daughter of a 1940s super-heroine who pushes her into the business. She resents it and is glad to retire. But is brought back in when things are set in motion. Ozymandias is another rich guy who moonlighted as a superhero and then retired. He’s a classic elite liberal who thinks he’s smarter than everyone. They’re all connected in some way to the Comedian, the hero who gets murdered at the beginning of the story.
The Comedian is another cynic like Rorschach, but without the moral underpinnings. He’s someone who gets off on the power of being able to run around and blow things up. He’s worked for the government for years and done a lot of unsavory things. He has a lot of enemies so uncovering who killed him won’t be a simple task. The overall story is rather simple, but it’s in the telling that makes it special. The little back stories we’re given about each character fleshes out the world. There are many rich ideas Moore throws in. And then, finding the the many Easter eggs laid around the whole landscape is a reward. The movie apparently tries to incorporate a lot of that, but you really have to read the graphic novel. Moore is correct. The comic is the only real version.
Many reviewers comment on how depressing New York is portrayed in the story as if it’s some kind of apocalyptic fantasy world. The truth is, it was written in the David Dinkins era of Manhattan when it was that sleazy and depressed. Even worse, in some cases. The Cold War was a reality, as well. Just not as intense as it’s shown in the story. But all good fiction has a point to make. And Moore’s was about mankind’s tendency to perpetuate bad situations. Every writer has a few themes he likes to use. They’re what he wants to say. Moore’s tend to be about man’s inhumanity to man. “Watchmen” shows us how even people with the best intentions can do harm, even through inaction. Especially when they’re all hyped up on a paranoid view of reality created by our leaders and the media. What kind of madness would make anyone want to bring about a nuclear holocaust? He doesn’t directly deal with that question, but instead shows what horrible lengths some people will go to “solve” the world’s problems.
It’s a question that’s still with us today and will likely be relevant long after we’re gone. You can read this story from any political point of view and come away with your own conclusions. Great art does not preach or instruct. It makes you think. That is what Moore managed to accomplish with this story. All his characters are well rounded no matter how extreme they may seem at first. We come to understand them as people. All political points of view are represented, but done in a non judgmental way. You may be offended by the violence in places, but it’s not done for shock value. It’s done to show how it affects the character. Superhero stories fall into the fantasy realm. But good fantasy has to have some level of verisimilitude. “Watchmen” has that in spades. It may make you uncomfortable at times but it does that to make its point.
I’m looking forward to seeing the movie tomorrow. Hopefully, it’ll do what no one has done before, translate an Alan Moore comic with some measure of justice.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
86 Comments
So this thing was written by Rasputin?
Or Donald Sutherland in the 1970s.
Funny you should mention that. Alan reminds me of Spaulding Gray's description of film maker Roland Joffe in his monologue: Swimming to Cambodia. Look up the movie if you haven't seen it. It's worth watching.
He's got these penetrating eyes and he gives you his full attention when he talks to you. He definitely comes off Rasputin like at times. He has a deep baritone and can talk for hours on end about all kinds of interesting and strange stuff. He's got an ability to retain a lot of information and can remember who sections of book he's read word for word.
He's definitely an exceptional guy.
He looks more like Ian Anderson from the 80's version of Jethro Tull to me.
(Yeah, I'm too old to rock 'n roll, but too young to die.)
I must confess that although I liked Moore's work in a few other places, particularly in Swamp Thing, I think that The Watchmen is one of the most overrated comics I've ever read, and I've been reading them for 32 years. I didn't care for it when it came out, and I still don't now.
I'll look that up. Moore is one crazy looking man, that's for sure.
By the way, nice point. I agree completely. The best art (also the most convincing arguments) let you get there on your own. Poor art (and weak arguments) shove it in your face or beat you over the head with their arguments.
- "Great art does not preach or instruct. It makes you think. That is what Moore managed to accomplish with this story"
I don't really agree with this at all. You don't think Dostoyevsky had a point to make? Really? Not that he polemicized for the Pan-Slavic movement, but he made very specific points. Atheism is bad, Western ideas corrupt, etc.
The so-called greatest novel of all time, "War and Peace," isn't pro- or anti- revolution, nor pro- or anti- Czarism. Yet it does include long digressions that turn into actual treatises. You better believe Tolstoy was making a point.
(Continued…)
As for "Watchmen," people aren't reading attacks on Reaganism into the text. It's out there in the open. Moore had a specific point to make, in that he believed the arms race would probably accidentally spark nuclear war. And he was careful in the end to justify Ozymandias the internationalist against Rorschach.
It is one thing to convince the audience that the characters believe what they're saying. It's another thing altogether not to have a message. You don't have to agree to enjoy. But you have to recognize what it is the author's trying to preach before you draw your own conclusions.
It was a comic mini series, NOT a graphic novel.
My main problem with Moore is that for all his deep thinking, he's still not above taking leaps of illogic, i.e., Thatcher's England was "fascist" to him and inspired V for Vendetta, or his childish jibes at the United States military and his justifications for islamic terrorists.
He has made his millions off of suburban fanboys who would not exist if not for capitalism, but his Anti-Americanism shines threw in every interview. He can live fat and rich because of US, and call us evil and stupid at the same time.
He takes these very public stands of "I don't want your stinky money" while already a multi-millionaire. Gee whiz Alan.
He changed comics, but mostly for the worst. Now every comic is full of self-doubting sissies, written by these jackholes who, not content to ruin the concept of a hero by their endless deconstruction, actually get the characters to sit around with each other and do the deconstructing in their own dialogue and action, right there in the book.
And do we even have to get into his kiddie porn comics? You can call him a libertine or an extreme libertariran or whatever, but that doesn't change that he's mostly a self indulgent jerk.
Heck, I even own Watchmen and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but I think a lot of people hold up Alan Moore as some kind of literary genius. Nothing is more annoying then when people say something like "I don't read comics, they're for kids, but Watchmen, that's literature."
- "What kind of madness would make anyone want to bring about a nuclear holocaust? He doesn’t directly deal with that question"
Yes he does. Rorschach is blamed, and it's because of his moral inflexibility. Remember when he says something about not compromising even in the face of armageddon? He follows through on that in the end.
We will know more tomorrow.
[...] By datechguy James Hudnall writes a tribute to the Comic Books series The Watchmen at Big Hollywood: “Watchmen” opens Friday and we’ll see how well it performs in the theaters, but the graphic [...]
Funny you should mention that. Alan reminds me of Spaulding Gray's description of film maker Roland Joffe in his monologue: Swimming to Cambodia. Look up the movie if you haven't seen it. It's worth watching.
I personally don't believe art can be political. Once it becomes political it's propaganda.
Even V for Vendetta, which is arguably his most political opus, doesn't stoop to propaganda because it isn't a defense of any politics. It's an attack on politics itself.
I totally disagree. I don't know if you're referring to the film, but the comic doesn't say that at all.
I don't agree. The "soft sell" has always been recognized as superior to the "hard sell" because people come to believe the sales pitch as something they thought up themselves. By the same token, an author can ask a lot of questions and lead you to an awful lot of answers without ever coming out and making any statement of what they are trying to do.
He looks like Paul Giamatti trying to look like Joaquin Phoenix.
Great art presents balanced arguments. It doesn't ram home a one sided viewpoint. I don't know where you're getting this stuff that I think there can't be politics discussed in a great story. I didn't say that. I said it can't be preachy and one sided. And Moore's isn't. Nor does Rorschach become the villain at the end and start WW3.
Dostoevsky wrote great novels, but as far as being art, as I said, art can't be one sided. Not in my opinion. A good example is the film The Bicycle Thief which was written by a communist and has communist themes but it's not obvious and is a great film because it's a very universal message. Communism is not even that relevant to the story even though he is using symbolism in the story.
Tolstoy's was an instance of the hard sell; I guess that's why people tend to drift over the pages on his grand Theory of History.
I never meant to imply that the author has no obligation to render his message artfully. In "The Brothers Karamozaov," for instance, Dostoyevsky doesn't come out and say, "Intellectuals are ruining our culutre!" like an old-time Bill O'Reilly. No, he has Ivan subtly seduce the bastard Smerdyakov and Alyoshka's girlfriend, without the reader realizing it until too late.
Dostoyevsky both knew what he was doing and had an axe to grind. Some things are left open, while others are slammed shut. "Watchmen," I guess, is artful enough, so far as comic books go. Moore hits you over the head with some things (i.e. Nixon, the ending), and takes his time with others (i.e. the Black Freighter story, which to me is the height of the book). But for me to ignore the fact that Moore is screaming from the rooftops that the Cold War is a cruel joke and we don't need anyone to save us would be for me to ignore the obvious.
Dostoyevsky had a point to make, but he didn't preach. The protagonist of Crime and Punishment is a double murderer. The story is an examination of guilt and repentance, but never preaches.
I think there's a big difference between "making a point" which I would define as a theme and preaching, which I would define as boorish posturing.
And thats not political? /Raises Spockian eyebrow.
Its good that you're loyal to your friend.
And no, my objection is not rooted in being uncomfortable with alternate realities. I've sketched up dozens, many far weirder than Moore's. In making alt realities I had two rules. Don't do 'What if the South won?' or "What if the Roman Empire never fell?' because those are so obvious. I should add, "Don't do America is fascist rightwinger and the light bill is too much to pay." for the same reason.
I will grant you that Watchmen is somewhat interesting, and it is thought-provoking. In no way is it the Best EVAR! We will just have to agree to disagree. And I hope that we can soon go on to discuss something else entirely as I find myself tiring of this topic.
Haven't seen the film.
Let's see if I remember the comic accurately. Okay, a Giant Squid terrorizes Manhattan, thus averting the apparent build-up to WWIII. Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre show up. Ozy tries to kill Doc, then convinces him that international cooperation under the Big Alien Lie is best for life on earth. Night Owl and Sil Spectre are made to agree. Rorschach holds out. Doc kills Rorschach.
Later, the U.S. has apparently become acquainted with Russian culture. Perhaps we're now a satellite state? Anyway, Ozy has achieved peace, for the time being. Just then, Rorschach's diary–containing within it the evidence necessary to expose Ozy–has made its way to a kooky right-wing newsletter. The Doomsday clock strikes 12. Blood nearly covers the page. There's something about an investigation quoting Juvenal's "Who watches the watchmen?"
What other explanation is there than that Rorschach has caused nuclear war? Really, is it just me? 'Cause I can't think of another explanation.
My only point was that I think the soft cell is superior to the hard sell (because the audience comes to believe that it was their own idea) and that you don't always need a hard sell. I think your example with Ivan is a perfect example of a good soft sell.
Actually, It was a graphic novel told in 12 chapters. Dickens novels were serialized initially. Same difference. It was designed to be collected later.
So what it really comes down to is not whether the author leaves things up to the reader, but that when the author passes judgement, he must do it well. That is, he must use a pin instead of a hammer. For my money, Moore uses a hammer throughout the book, with the exception of the Black Freighter section.
Rorschach is drawn so as to be interesting. And he is a charicature of the worst sort of right-winger, don't get me wrong, but at least he's believable. That being said, Moore disproves of the character, and he makes it clear in the text.
And Rorschach does start WWIII. Read it again.
Dave Gibbons drew the cover and interior illustrations for "Too Old to Rock 'h Roll." No kidding.
Well, a lot of what we have in comics today is the fault of editors who seem to only hire a handful of writers who fit a certain POV. Moore has said time and again he doesn't like the dark comics that came after Watchmen and he tried to lighten things up with his ABC comics (Americas Best Comics). He's also not Anti-American exactly. But he is kind of a recluse and I think being in England and listening to crap like the BBC will influence your way of looking at our politics. I have always found Europeans to not understand us, especially if they haven't lived here or even visited for very long.
- "The story is an examination of guilt and repentance, but never preaches."
Raskolnikov's journey from cold rationalist to genuflecting mystic is not forced. It is a habit of Dostoevsky to make the sufferers extra interesting. However, the author does avail himself of sledghammer judgement from time to time. I can't quite remember the character's name. Peter, or something, I think. He's an unsentimental fellow. Careless of the feelings of others.
Anyway, he's caught doing something or other unseemly. The reason he stands out in my memory is because Dostoyevsky gives him an Adam Smithian philosophy of the greatest social utility springing from the rational self-interest of individuals. That particular character is the only one to mouth the capitalist ideal, and therefore its consequences are tied up in the world of "Crime and Punishment" with his actions. Much like Nietszche is tied up with the murder and devotional Orthodoxy is tied up with salvation.
I find it interesting how all the "cool kids" are into bashing Watchmen. How things change. I guess it's like how some people are into bands until they succeed, at which point they sneer and say things like "Oh, yeah, I liked them before they sold out."
Alan has his political beliefs, but unlike almost every writer, he doesn't let them warp the story. If the story takes him in a direction that leads to, say, Rorschach being a hero (or at least an anti-hero), then he has the necessary control over his ego to let that happen. He's capable of writing excellent dialog convincingly representing beliefs that are at great odds with his own, rather than making those characters cardboard cut-outs for the "good guys" to bash.
"Once it becomes political it's propaganda."
Can you seriously not see the anti-conservative, anti-Reagan propaganda in "Watchmen"? If it's too superficial to reflect Moore's real feelings, then why did he include the references at all? And if he's a consistent anarchist (which would make him non-political, I guess, according to you "V for Vendetta" standard), is it just by chance that he doesn't attack liberal policies or liberal personages?
Heh, not quite. I've read it a bunch of times including this week. So here's what happens:
Everything you said to an extent happens except we don't become a Soviet satellite state,. There is a new era of detente and a spirit of world unity there are American-Anglo fast food joints opening up. One is across the street from the New Frontiersman magazine office. The office gofer guy brings back some food from there, and is told to pick something off the slush pile for their next edition. He seems to be about to pick up Rorschach journal.
The stuff about the blood is not part of the story, just a running element in the 12 issues on the end pages. As you may recall, a bunch of people in Time's Square get killed and the clock gets covered with blood. That was at the beginning of the final issue, so it already happened,. The clock was set to the time of their death, before midnight. That is what one of the running themes. A ticking clock is also a literary device to move a story along to suggest urgency.
There is nothing about WW3 starting. To me it suggests that Rorscach' s journal gets published and the truth gets out about Ozymandias scheme. But that does not mean a war would happen. I think a truther movement based on Ror as the hero would probably evolve. Maybe things would go back to where they were at the beginning of the story. It could go a lot of ways. He left that up to the read to decide. So you decided on war.
I really, really wanted to see it. Then, just when I think I may convince my Mom to look past any violence and language, I find out they made Dr. Manhattan nude throughout the whole movie!? In the trailer he's wearing some kind of bikini bottom/cloth thing! Damn.Damn.Damn.
Let me know how it awesome it is, guys. I'm gonna go sulk.
- "If the story takes him in a direction that leads to, say, Rorschach being a hero (or at least an anti-hero), then he has the necessary control over his ego to let that happen"
Where do you find the evidence for that? Is there another comic where Moore has the arch-conservative succeed? Certainly in "Watchmen" the fix is in. The story does come together as things go. The end is rather set from the beginning. The whole book is about the inevitability of nuclear war. It is The Comedian's big joke. It is why Ozymandias kicks the whole plot in motion. It dominates the last act, and sets the stage for the climax. And Moore obviously has feelings on the subject. For him to have Rorschach be the hero, he'd have to go against what he believes. Why bother?
I mean, the story does NOT come together as things go.
Actually, it's not my favorite work of his and I disagree with Moore on a lot of things. But I respect him and his work.
I would suggest you aren't seeing the obviosu attack on liberals in Ozymandias. He's the villain of the story.
Oops, you don't see that. Nevermind.
Moore said he only decided to kill Rorschach halfway through writing the series. Normally he has things all mapped out in advance. So he intended to keep him alive in the beginning. It's not quite as you see it.
Read the appendixes in the Graphitti hardcover of Watchmen. Alan made many changes on the fly as the story developed. The evolution of Rorschach was one of them.
As for Alan's ability to (sometimes) place writing ahead of propaganda, if you read Alan's statements of his beliefs, and then read any large sample of his work, it will become blindingly obvious. As a professional writer myself, I know all too well how easy it can be to stereotype the "opposition" and that it takes talent, hard work, and intellectual honesty to portray them convincingly. The reward is a far better story. And in the end, that's all Alan really cares about–a better story.
Great breakdown of the book and characters, Mr. Hudnall, particularly your breakdown of Rorschach and his place in the story. I've gone from being bored to hell with the book when I read it as a kid to now appreciating it as the work of two completely committed artists giving us all they've got in a superhero story. Looking forward to it, mostly to hear and see Rorschach in action.
He can see through time. So he has a fatalistic view of life and is fairly passive. He goes along with what he is told for a long time, until he finally gets fed up and leaves the earth. Nite Owl is a superhero in the Batman mold. A rich industrialist who takes up crime fighting through the use of gadgets and martial arts.
First, manhattan isn't fatalistic he is a "quantum" character, who truly is outside of the events created, no matter his participation, manhattan understands that life time and the universe is, thus his closing argument of "no, nothing's changed, and it never will." Or something like that.
As for NightOwl, nightowl is just a brilliant engineer, inspired by the original nightowl who was a gearhead, he isn't an industrialist, he is a guy who knows how to make great things based on his income. OZYmandias was the rich guy.
In addition, Rorschach isn't depicted as insane, though moore tried to show that, but rather, Rorschach is the only person, even among a group who SHOULD be able to see good an evil as the only person who could see good and evil.
Thus the split head of the dog.
I think that image is an expression of absolutes, like gary sinise's statement in the movie "The Green Mile" about how his dog bit his son ONCE, and gary put him down.
Rorschach is the rabid dog, but his brutality is focused only on the Black that is evil against the white that rorschach see's as gray.
Cynical yes, but judgmental no, and I don't think moore is happy with how his creation is viewed, the liberal wussbag that he is.
Well, I think he puut some of himself in that character,. And whether he intended or not, it came out that way. You can analyze the story a lot of different ways, that's why it comes off as art. Art does that.
I can easily back up my take. I did so in the article.
He stops wearing clothes in the present, in the past he wears shorts. I hear they give him this John Holmes wang in the movie. In the comic it was just ordinary.
I was trying to capsulize it for non-Watchman readers. Getting into quantum theory sidetracks my point. Nite Owl is rich by most people's standards. He owns a large building with a substructure in Manhattan. And a company as well. He's just not as rich as Oz. You would need a lot of money to build Archie and all that gear. But yeah, Ozy is a lot richer than everyone else. He's an ivory tower liberal hence his idealistic plot which is kind of laughable if it wasn't so wrong.
Moore isn't an ideologue. He doesn't like world leaders at all, left or right. He views elites as bad people who get us into wars and so on. So to call him a liberal wuss is not accurate. He's more complicated than that. But yeah, he says a lot of lefty type stuff, or did. I think some of that had to do with the women in his life at the time.
Oh, and I agree. ROr isn't really insane, just crazy by most people's standards. He's the crazy guy who sees more clearly than the "normal" people do.
Yeah, but I was under the impression they were gonna cover him up past and present. Or at least just blur that area and not give the nudity that much attention. In hindsight, kind of stupid assumption.
Very nice of you to reply James.
Kind of like Biden?
Random Thing,
So far Hudnall is the BEST poster on this blog.
It's important to build a community.
The Soviet satellite thing was a joke. I only brought it up to highlight how well Ozy's scheme worked.
The clock serves not merely to build suspense. Very specifically, it is meant to signify the time left before nuclear annihilation. Way back in Chapter 1, a newspaper headline on Veidt's desk reads, "Nuclear Doomsday Clock Stands Five to Twelve Warn Experts."
On the first page of Chapter 12,where blood is running down the clock after the squid attack, twelve has not been struck. The minute hand is clearly to the left of the hour hand.
On the last page, it is precisely twelve o'clock. The minute and hour hands are flush.
Rorschach's diary revelations would not mean war in our world. In Moore's world, it absolutely does.There are too many signals from the rest of the book for it to mean anything else.
Ozymandias certainly parodies utopians. We all know Moore hates saviors. However, Ozy does not mock any popular liberal personage that I know of. And unlike Rorschach, all his arguments are completely rational.
Furthermore, his scheme works. It brings peace, whereas we were led to believe the continuation of the Cold War paradigm was about to cause war. Finally, as I've said, it is Rorschach who causes nuclear war. However many people died as a result of the squid attack, it was less.
can I just say that I was never a comic book guy (although my 4 year old loves super heroes and I'm buying comics for him now — a little darker than when I was a kid) and until this week had never heard of watchmen or Moore. But this has been a fascinating conversation to follow and I'm making plans to see the movie if I can tomorrow — hippie anarchism, conservative second thoughts, who cares, this sounds fun. Thanks guys
Alan Moore is a brilliant and innovative story teller. I don't care what he wears or believes.
Moore certainly has a talent for creating characters who sound as if they believe what they're saying, and from a variety of viewpoints. Bearing in mind, of course, that they're all gross charicatures, not real people. They're superheroes, after all, and as such stick close to archetypes.
Now, however convincingly Rorschach is portrayed, he's still the opposition. Whatever the narrative was for the growth of his development in Moore's mind, if Rorschach were somehow to end up the hero, both the end and the theme would have to change. For if Rorschach causes nuclear war, as I believe he does, he cannot be the hero. Unless Moore is fine with nuclear war. And if the unalloyed conservative doesn't cause war, then the inevitability of nuclear war within the paradigm of the arms race theme is out the window. In short, it would have to be a completely different story. Or else Rorschach wouldn't be Rorschach.
In the comic it was not shown that often, except in distant shots. Hopefully they won't dwell on it as it would be distracting.
"He never resorts to the kind of straw-men arguments lefties usually employ."
I take it that you haven't read LOST GIRLS, then. His depictions of soldiers isn't just typical leftist bull — it's typical leftist gay-baiting bull.
That isn't exactly germane to the way I see it. Rorschach could be anything, a freedom-fighter or a fascist. His fate depends on how he relates to the larger story (whenever it was that the larger story was set). I cannot help but notice that he was the biggest conservative and just happened to be the only one of the gang to continue to defy Ozy. I have the feeling that whosoever it was to stand in the way of international peace and the end of the Cold War would be the arch-conservative.
What I find most interesting about Rorschach's death is that he must have known that the truth would live, since he knew he mailed the diary. In that sense, it doesn't much matter if he lives to tell his tale or not. His tale will be told.
Kudos to Moore for carrying through the deconstruction theme to its limit. Start to finish, down is up, up is down. Ozy is the textbook villain (secret lair, wealth, intelligence, crazy scheme) who turns out to be right. Rorschach is the small-timer and the only one with integrity who turns out to be the greatest monster of all.
- "He's more complicated than that"
Aren't we all?
- "He left that up to the read to decide. So you decided on war."
You see, this is exactly why I can't buy the article's thesis. I'm absolutely certain, as certain as I've ever been about any literary analysis, that we are intended to believe that nuclear war follows. Thus, monstrous as Ozymandias is, he's not the villain. Rorschach is. Or to be more precise, Reaganism is. Cold Warriors are. Governments are. The arms race is. International rivalry is.
The problem is, in my opinion, people who come from one angle have a limited perspective. And thus won't enlighten us. As a writer, I am interested in reading people who can show me new things I never thought of, techniques that are fresh. I want to learn from people. I've been doing this for over 20 year snow but I will never stop wanting to learn.
And frankly, having read a zillion books in my lifetime (or it feels like it), I can see a hack's ideas coming from about a light year away. Any writer who can't emphasize with all his characters is a hack. Alan obviously understands each character no matter how bad. He doesn't look at them as just bad guys and good guys. That is why much of his stuff may seem morally ambiguous to someone looking at it from the surface. But it really isn't. He definitely has a sense of morality. It just may not be the same as other people's.
Every story should be an argument. It should have a point of view. The "villain" of the story (which can be nature or the heroes inner demons) runs counter to the protagonist's desires. As a result, they are championing a counter argument. For a story to sell it's point to the audience, it has to make it's case that the hero is making the right decisions. And to make it a compelling story, therefore, the "villain" has to seem superior in the beginning. Otherwise, it's boring. I mean, who cares if the story is no challenge to the protagonist?
So I agree with your professor's statement. But that statement in no way means he's defending one sided work.
Would you eat a one sided pancake? How can you see something from new angles if you're only shown one side?
A small quibble: Watchmen was written during NYC's Ed Koch era. Dinkins did not assume office until 1990
Well, I don't know what to say other than I really disagree with your theory. To me Ozy is the fvillain. After all, he is the one who kill as lot of innocent people. In the end Ror exposes his crimes. It doesn't matter if the others side with Ozy (reluctantly or not). Ror has the last laugh.
Hud –
Great column and I appreciate the insight.
Yeah, but it was the same mess. Dinkens did make it worse/. He's like a foreshadowing of Obama.
No, it doesn't interest me to be honest. I don't like everything he's done. I tried reading the first story and got bored.
In the movie, when ozy is exposed Owl says to Ror 'but he's a vegetarian.' Ror says 'so was Hitler.'
In the film they show his blue dingy about 100 times. No joke.
Howdy FOLKS!! Just finished watching Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes movie that's due to be banned and destroyed by 20th Century because of the allusion that the last scene is somehow "racist" as it contains a Lincoln/Obama/Chimpanzee ending. Tim Burton apparently has surrendered the contents of his scrotal sack to the PC Police and is shooting a new ending! Get your future "banned" copy before it's too late!
But in keeping with this thread…"Watchmen" and "Planet" are categorically "eye candy". I didn't watch Planet of the Apes looking for it's alleged racist overtones anymore than I'd look for a deeper deconstructionist meaning in "Watchmen"…I just wanna see Laurie Jupeczyk's hooters and watch her bust out a can of CGI whup-ass!
Is this too much to ask?
This is a comic book fairy-tale, fer crissakes! This overall thread is starting to devolve into the pseudo-argument of "can Superman beat up Batman and does the winner get a "happy ending" with Wonder Woman". I make too much money to fathom this sort of thing when all I really want is to escape into the sweaty confines of Ms Jupeczyk's leotards. [OK, I want to be a "happy" Batman]
Call me a pig…OINK! [Just don't tell my wife!]
Then maybe I didn't consider the conditions of the argument, because this is where it becomes medium specific. If the art piece is a narrative, then yes, we need genuine counter arguments or compelling points of view for reference, contrast, and conflict. Non-narrative art does not require this to be effective.
"He changed comics, but mostly for the worst. Now every comic is full of self-doubting sissies,"
Fair enough, but what the jackholes do isn't really Moore's fault and he's expressed regret that Watchmen (and Dark Knight) changed the direction of comics in that way. His ABC comics are sort of a response to that.
The supposed omnipresence of Manhattan's genitalia are ridiculously overblown: You can see it clearly a couple times, he never "does" anything with it, it's not noticably large (seriously, if that's "huge" I suddenly feel a tremendous rush of self-confidence…) or "expressive" and it's as blue and semi-transparent as the rest of him so most of the time you can barely make it out unless you're looking for it – and if it makes a difference, it's only ever shown when he's in his glowy all-CGI phase, so it's essentially a computer-drawing of nudity, not the real thing (they didn't just spray-paint Billy Crudup blue.)
Great breakdown of the book and characters, Mr. Hudnall, particularly your breakdown of Rorschach and his place in the story. I've gone from being bored to hell with the book when I read it as a kid to now appreciating it as the work of two completely committed artists giving us all they've got in a superhero story. Looking forward to the film version, mostly to hear and see Rorschach in action.
As an art major, I had a professor for three semesters whose lectures always focused on conceptual development rather than aesthetics (which was common among this medium– Video art). One of his quotes stayed with me:
"One of the purposes of art is to tell us things that we already know, but in a new way in order to give us a new understanding."
I believe that to be true, and I also believe that's why preaching a message has no impact. When conveyed literally, it doesn't give us any new understanding. Effective art requires deciphering and discovery, which leads the recipient's interest, and it articulates the message with a new context, which reveals new relationships, facets, and values around your message. It helps people link your message with the rest of the world.
So I don't think that the message has to be balanced in order to be great (balance could actually be contrast at times). It can be one-sided and still be as stimulating or provoking. It just needs to be effectively demonstrated through the subject, environment, or medium.
Thank you for adding what I've been thinking every time some belabors "it's a comic book series not a graphic novel."
That's good to know. It would have been absurd if they had made it huge like I had been reading in web reports. I'm seeing the movie today.
"(although my 4 year old loves super heroes and I'm buying comics for him now — a little darker than when I was a kid)"
If it's of any help, the main two publishers actually do maintain seperate lines aimed at the pre-teen audience that might know their material better from cartoons and movies – Look for a masthead that says "Marvel Adventures" above the title: Entirely family-friendly, reading level age-appropriate stories with most of the popular characters. (DC also puts out seperate lines based on their cartoon programs.) If you go into a comic store, they usually keep these all together in a seperate area.
As if The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen weren't dark as all hell.
[...] I’ve read don’t seem quite to get it, which I don’t mean as a slight at all. It is a complicated story and often a very violent one. Not that Zack Snyder is unable to adapt such a story, but it just [...]
[...] I’ve read don’t seem quite to get it, which I don’t mean as a slight at all. It is a complicated story and often a very violent one. Not that Zack Snyder is unable to adapt such a story, but it just [...]
Then I'd really recommend you look elsewhere than this movie, dulcamara. The source material wasn't intended for folks just looking for a quick superhero read and neither is the movie.
In some ways Alan Moore is a political idiot and a bit of a commie. You just have to accept that to enjoy the good parts. In much the same way, the Frank Miller of today very likely would not have made the slams against Reagan he put in 'The Dark Knight Returns' and the whole Martha Washington load might have been a very different piece of work.
Some artists can overcome themselves and admit their past mistakes while other never grow. Some are so good it is worth enduring the stupid bits for the rest. Moore's 'Promethea' descended into painfully boring philosophical wankery toward the end but was very enjoyable for the first two thirds or so. This was because Moore had such a sharp understanding of the history he was slipping his new creation into retroactively. Like Tim Powers' Ashbless in 'The Annubis Gates,' you could really believe there had been several incarnations of this character Promethea reach back across the 20th Century.
One of the themes Moore explores in Watchmen is a continuation of his Marvelman/Miracleman series. The question being, if you possess the talent or sheer power to impose what you see as improvements on the world, are you obligated to act? In Miracleman the central character and his allies take control of the world after passivity results in the slaughter of London's populace in a sort of one day Holocaust wrought by a single insane superhuman. Miracleman had it within his power to prevent this by taking action against the madman in his human form but was dissuaded by his seeming appearance of being a harmless child with a different personality.
In Watchmen, Ozymandias has the same choice once he becomes convinced that nuclear war is inevitable. The problem with Ozy is that he really is the smartest guy in the room but only in most ways. Intelligence is a multi-faceted function. In my job I regularly do work on computers for people who are at the top of their fields but a complete loss when it comes to anything under the hood on a PC. I've also met people who are technically brilliant but have so little comprehension of normal human behavior they must rely on others to decide what product they should develop.
Ozy sees a problem he should fix and knows he can make his solution work. Oddly, it never occurs to him to help further the way the Cold War was ended in real life. But then, this was written while there appeared no end in sight and plenty of smart people didn't see a non-apocalyptic end to the USSR as possible. (Consider the interstellar milieu of Mike Baron's [and Steve Rude] Nexus comic series. Set many centuries in the future, many planets, including the birthworld of the lead character, are part of the Sov. Whether the Sov was at the time intended as a direct continuation of the USSR is never stated in my recollection but it plays the same role in galactic politcs. Jack Chalker had what he called Comworlds in his Well of Souls books. And of course there is the CoDominium in much of Jerry Pournelle's works. (This was both predictive from that era's perspective and a plot device to let him restage some parts of military history he'd witnessed directly.)
Besides, for all his intellect, Ozy is the sort of guy that chose to put on a strange costume and go out to beat up bad people. Watchmen's exploration of what kind of world this would create has loomed over comics writing ever since, for good and ill. Some writers suffer from wanting to have their cake and eat it, too, by having their superheroes exist in a world far too close to the real thing to make any sense.
So Ozy is flawed in that any solution he devises is going to involve assaulting people. He is just scaling up what he consider reasonable to achieve the goal. If it is alright to hospitalize a mugger to stop him in the act, then it is further acceptable in his mind to kill a few millions to save bilions from immolation. He is an incredibly smart man but this doesn't mean his choices are necessarily the correct ones. Only that he is capable of achieving his goal where any other would fail.
Rorschach is deeply flawed but possesses a moral intellect Ozy is completely lacking. He has a far more intimate experience of the world's flaws but doesn't pretend to be above it. He can only fix those things he can touch with his own hands and cannot accept the sacrifice of innocents for a supposed greater good. Whether he could maintain his standards given the power of Dr. Manhatten or the influence of Ozy is another question but I suspect he'd reject godhood rather than live with the constant temptation.
"Would you eat a one sided pancake? How can you see something from new angles if you're only shown one side?"
You keep trying to claim '"Watchmen" as having a multi-sided viewpoint, but I don't buy it. Character development is one thing. And yes, authors ought to be able to empathize with all their characters. However, creating empathetic characters does not mean your story isn't one-sided. In terms of theme, plot, morale, and in almost all the little details, "Watchmen" is decidedly one-sided.
That's fine. It's Moore's perogative. As you yourself said, he has a sense of morality. Adding that it's not the same as other people's was totally unnecessary, in my opinion. Whatever form his morality takes, if he expresses it in his art, and if it has political applications (as the morale of "Watchmen" obviously does), then his art is polemical.
(Continued…)
Contrary to what people claim, polemical art can indeed be high art. "1984," for instance, fits the bill. As does "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". Surely, the audience can apply their own political interpretation to anything they see, no matter how polemical, including "Farenheit 9/11". Your argument is that for the material to be great art, the author has to leave interpretation open. Perhaps to some extent, but a s a general idea, nuts to that! People consume art far mostly to hear the creator's judgement far too often for that to be true.
Everyone knows where Orwell and Heinlein stood on their subjects. The reader is free to dissent, as always. But to do so, one has ro put himself at odds with the author. Same for "Watchmen". If you side with Rorschach, you have to disagree with the major themes and the ending. No way around it.
Doesn't mean "Watchmen" is low art. I happen to think it is, but that's for aesthetic reasons beyond the topic at hand.
"To me Ozy is the fvillain. After all, he is the one who kill as lot of innocent people. In the end Ror exposes his crimes. It doesn't matter if the others side with Ozy (reluctantly or not). Ror has the last laugh"
If that were the case, I'd willingly agree with you that "Watchmen" is not one-sided and that it leaves all answers up to the audience. Whether or not its great art on top of that, I'd still have to disagree, but for different reasons.
Since I'm sure Moore intended us to believe that Rorschach (inderectly) caused nuclear war, I can't do that. Rorschach stood for the two things Moore relentlessly argued against in the story: vigilanteeism and Cold War madness. I think on one level, Rorschach was supposed to stand for Reagan, risking existence itself just to be right.
There's no basis for your idea Rorschach cased a nuclear war, except in your mind. It doesn't really matter. It's just a story. You obviously don't like it so I don't know why you want to keep arguing about it.
Except for all the people I know who have read the novel, you are the only one I've come across who sees it this way. And whatever happens as a consequence of Rorschach's journal being published is not Rorschach's doing. In order for WWIII to happen, there are still people of free will who have to make these decisions. WM puts Ozymandius and Manhattan on one side – those favoring predestination, moral relativism and Great Men- and Rorschach and Laurie on the other, the side that believes in free will, right and wrong, and the importance of every individual. Roschach's journal would only reveal the truth to the world. To believe it would inevitably result in WWIII would be to embrace the deterministic view that the series has spent a good amount of effort rejecting. Again, the emotional climax of the story is when Laurie convinces Jon that humans – individual humans, not some collective humanity- are worthwhile. There is nothing that I know of in any of Moore's other works (though I grant I've not read them all) that leads me to believe he values the deterministic view.
Funny. Ozymandius mocks EVERY liberal personage that I know of. The rich liberal intellectual elite living in an ivory tower, believing that he and only he knows how to save the world from its own problems? That doesn't remind you of ANYONE?
Good analysis. I've long been troubled by the fact that I've known many people of varying intelligence, and yet their intellect never seems to have any bearing on their politics. I'm as likely to run into a liberal idiot as a conservative one. All the intelligence seems to do is magnify their ability to rationalize and explain their beliefs.
You must be logged in to post a comment.