Watching the World

Watchmen, Chapter 12: A stronger loving world, Page 19, Panel 7

I know I’ve used the terms “good guys” and “bad guys” on this blog. The truth is that those terms are cop outs. The world isn’t full of opposing forces colliding with each other, just individual elements that combine to make a whole. That whole is both–no, is neither beautiful or ugly. It’s hard to break these dichotomies. We are raised to see the world in pairs, and it’s a hard habit to break. This is a thing that even Veidt doesn’t see. He thinks that he has his victory, that the world has been saved by his actions. As readers, we have the ability to see outside of the narrative world. In our world, an action like Veidt’s wasn’t necessary to stop the Cold War. There was the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the financial collapse of the USSR. The threat of an immediate nuclear war has receded. Although these events occurred after Watchmen’s publication, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to believe that Moore and Gibbons thought there was another way for the world in Watchmen to unfold. It didn’t unfold in a different way, of course, because they were presenting a particular message. Even with the end of the Cold War, have we not seen our share of conflicts? Genocide? Inhumane captivity?

Let me pose some questions, then: Do you think that Veidt’s world would be any safer than ours? Would you trust a man who stood stunned when a peer told him “Nothing ever ends?” (Watchmen, Chapter 12: A stronger loving world, Page 27, Panel 5) I have trouble considering Veidt the smartest man on Watchmen’s Earth, but I’m sure he wouldn’t be the wisest.

Watchmen, Chapter 12: A stronger loving world, Page 27

If nothing truly ends, there is no ultimate good and no ultimate evil. The choices that we make may be solutions to particular problems but they cause their own issues to arise afterward. We as individuals are not wise enough, nor strong enough, to make the world a “better” place. All we can do is to make it a different place. We don’t even have to kill half of New York to do it, either. Just living, just having lived, a person accomplishes change. All we have are our wishes to help those close to us, perhaps the world-at-large, get along. For a man like Veidt, that may mean sacrificing thousands of lives or more. I couldn’t do that and I would try to stop him given the chance. No matter whether I despise people like Veidt, no matter how I may call him a villain, a “bad guy,” all I can do is follow my convictions as he follows his.

Adrian dreams of swimming towards a hideous something (Watchmen, Chapter 12: A stronger loving world, Page 27, Panel 1) and we as readers are aware of what that something is–the Black Freighter. We are lead to make this parallel and it’s a fair one to make. We can all imagine being so convinced of the truth of something that we are blind to its consequences, that we accept them as inevitable. It’s easy to see our paths leading to the edge of a precipice, and it’s easy to understand that any time we walk towards the edge, blindness is a danger. This blindness, however, does not necessarily lead to apocalypse. It may lead to tragedy, to people dying, but as long as there are people who survive, time marches on and memory tells our tales. None of us are above this, regardless of how special we may be.

If nothing truly ends, then there are no true dichotomies. There are no absolutes. Believing in absolutes usually only leads to tragedy and death. No amount of tragedy and death can make the world any better than it is. There is no solution to make a stronger loving world. If that is the case, do we have any need for superheroes? Aren’t superheroes and supervillains just synonyms for ultimate good and ultimate evil? If so, then there are no superheroes or supervillains. There are just people who do what they believe in, seperated only by perception.

SK asked me to work on one more post. Truth is though, it’s hard to work up the insensitivity to write what I intended to write, considering her post this morning. Understand that by writing what she has that she’s probably in a lot of trouble. I don’t think she cares right now, though. My best wishes to her though, in this time of difficulty.

There has been a strengthening resolve, especially in America, that no punches should be pulled in order to combat “evil” throughout the world. Protecting “the American lifestyle” has taken priority over United Nations mandate. Corporate interests have taken over even the interests of the American people. To make it clear, I’m not bashing Americans: I have many friends and even family that live in the US and they are good people. But, you see, that’s the key: They are people, like the rest of us in the world. What scares me about America–the rhetoric of the nation America–is this insistance on pre-destination. Even those who would blow me off for saying so likely believe that they have the right to defend their nation, that their nation is just, that the just are superior, and finally, that the superior must protect (perhaps even spread) their culture by any means.

Removing the equation of Powers from US military defense, the decrease in deployed and stockpiled nuclear weapons will actually be counterbalanced by an ability to manufacture an arsenal if necessary:

The administration’s work to restore a modern infrastructure includes, among other things, three ongoing initiatives:

(1) planning for a Modern Pit Facility to restore the nation’s ability to manufacture plutonium parts for nuclear warheads;

(2) an advanced concepts program to enable scientists and engineers at the national nuclear weapons laboratories to retain critical skills and to provide the United States with means to respond to new, unexpected, or emerging threats in a timely manner; and

(3) enhanced test readiness.

Completion of these programs and the realization of a responsive infrastructure will offer opportunities for the United States to reduce further the nuclear stockpile secure in the knowledge that the nation has enhanced its capabilities to respond to possible future challenges to its security.

Sincerely,

Linton F. Brooks
Administrator

USInfo: U.S. Plans to Reduce Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Substantially

There is also the recent increase in Private Military Company usage, especially in the conflict in Iraq. Not only is this a case of civilians involved in combat situations, but that states are held accountable for the actions of the PMCs they employ without a well-structured international guideline.

In the case of PMC involvement in Iraq, holding employees of PMCs accountable for their actions proved difficult for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) because of CPA Order 17, which stipulated that “contractors [including PMCs] shall be immune from the Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract or any sub-contract thereto.” Since the termination of the CPA, Iraqi efforts to keep a closer watch on PMCs have proved difficult. In May 2005, erstwhile Deputy Interior Minister Adnan Asadi sent a letter to PMCs operating in Iraq, warning the companies that if they continued to disobey local laws, “the cancellation [of PMC licenses] will be circulated to all state offices, with the aim of shunning any dealing with [PMCs].” However, such threats have often been disregarded; the Washington Post reported in September 2005 that Iraqi citizen Ali Ismail was shot at by PMCs while in traffic. It therefore seems clear that it is a duty of the US government as well as the Iraqi government to rein in the PMCs.

Kwok, James “Armed Entrepreneurs: Private Military Companies in Iraq”

The ability to generate a nuclear arsenal at a moment’s notice and the ability to deploy armed civilians without proper international regulation? This doesn’t sound so different from the situation in Watchmen to me. That any other nation with the wealth to field the same abilities can does not comfort me at all.

If certain people in powerful positions within the US government truly believe America’s own Exceptionalist rhetoric, then it will only take another nation with sufficient firepower and a conflict of interest to cause another international ordeal, as Iraq has shown (whether or not you believe that there have been weapons of mass destruction housed there with the intention that they be used to attack Western powers). In the worst case, the Doomsday clock could be started all over again, though I hope no such thing ever occurs.

This extends too to the role of the superhero: With the highest concentration of Powered citizens in the world, yet another arsenal could be called into play by the United States. It will only be a question of where an individual Power’s allegiance lies. Powered citizens are no less exempt from rhetoric and politics, and in many ways, they would not be so much different than the PMCs that are fielded today. With what right does an exceptional individual judge whether they should side with one nation over another? It is only their own personal right to do what they believe in within the guidelines of the law: But what happens when both law and rhetoric promote fervent righteousness and ideological superiority? Again, I can only criticize the rhetoric that can hold people enthralled. Any ideology that promotes superiority of a person or people over another should be kept at mental arm’s length. If it nests in heart and mind, the only thing that separates a hero from a villain is social acceptance.

Look upon your works, ye mighty, so that we may not fall into despair.

In case you were wondering, SK sent me a message last night to cover a couple of chapters for her while she’s out of town.

For chapter 10 though, I only have two things to say:

1) I love Bob Dylan songs, and;

2) Notice the many, many pairs (and #2s) throughout the chapter, from the first shot (Defcon 2) to the pairing of President and Vice-President, straight through to the two “riders” of Nite Owl and Roschach approaching Veidt’s Karnak. If anyone ever wondered why Veidt chose such an insecure password, I think it was just so Moore and Gibbons could throw in the “rider” “II” joke (Two Riders Were Approaching 20.7). That’s just my opinion.

In any case, the idea of dichotomies–two opposing (or contrasted) forces–runs throughout Watchmen. As the world of Watchmen nears apocalypse, should we begin to wonder whether this mindset of dichotomies is the best to approach the world? Should we really occupy our time thinking of “us versus them” scenarios when for the most part, all everybody wants is to get along in life? By creating polar dichotomies, we create a pair of exceptional states, one of our selves and one of our opponent’s. Often times however, because we create polar opposites, we also have as many things in common as not, just like in a positive and a negative of a photograph. Although dichotomies, and the larger function that is categorisation, have their uses in logic and rhetoric, they are tools that can just as easily destroy bonds and people. Care should always be taken when operating a dangerous power tool.

Predestination and memory. Things that are already set create narrative. Can King Lear be King Lear without Cordelia dying? Lear? Can Watchmen survive without Laurie realising who her father is? Without Veidt getting away with his chilling plan for world unity? Storytelling always has two sides to it: The story being told is always fated to be “itself,” and never-changing; and the audience interprets it anew every time.

For Dr. Manhattan, time itself is a narrative where he is both a character in it and an audience member. He has concentrated only on seeing the overall narrative, and like with many summaries in TV Guide, the synopsis just doesn’t sound very interesting. For him, watching one SitCom is like watching all others. Blandly predictable. Yet because he is as much part of the audience as he is the narrative, he can be far more active if he wishes. He himself says that “The details are vague” (The Darkness of Mere Being 17.2). Though there is a fluid substance in the form of narrative, it is the reader, the audience, that allows for konkretisation (Iser, The reading process: a phenomenological approach)–the realisation of meaning. As Jon asks Laurie, “What do you want to be in the bottle?” (The Darkness of Mere Being 10.2), a narrative can be contained, even defined as a certain substance (a fluid), but it is up to the interpreter to actualise specifics into being.

If any reason can be given for Laurie realising that the Comedian was her father, it can be that she has taken the narrative in her life (a narrative framed by the larger narrative of Watchmen) and has made an interpretation that makes so much sense that she cannot deny it. This is the way we not only understand stories, but how we understand our lives: “We’re all blind, stupid things, stumbling through our lives . . . hopelessly lost in the fog.” (The Darkness of Mere Being 19.4) Instead of making our lives meaningless, this unknowing, this impossible narrative that we call life allows us to create our selves, finding our own meaning and purpose where, in the bigger picture, we may seem insignificant.

Unfortunately, I won’t be spending much time on chapter 8. There is still plenty to work with, especially with the imagery of reminiscence and transformation.

Watchmen, Chapter 8: Old ghosts, Page 1, Panels 1-2

There is the bottle of Nostalgia on Sally Jupiter’s table being mirrored by Hollis Mason’s statue for his community service.

Watchmen, Chapter 8: Old ghosts, Page 11, Panels 1 & 6

The transformation of a roughly vaginal (sexual, creative) image to the face of a monster. Sexual imagery opposed by a monster of psychic (intellectual) power, strengthened by the references to brains on page 12, panel 1 and Rodin (his famous “The Thinker” sculpture) on panel 3 with Hollis Mason making a pumpkin into a Jack-o-lantern.

Watchmen, Chapter 8: Old ghosts, Page 22, Panel 1

The calendar being changed. Time passing. October was an owl, November a hawk catching a sparrow. Wisdom is replaced by war mongering.

Watchmen, Chapter 8: Old ghosts, Page 28, Panels 1-3

Hollis Mason killed by thugs who mistaken him as the new Nite Owl (Dan), killing him with his own statue. The reference to “The Thinker” connected to the Jack-o-lantern is modified to show how intellect becomes shattered in madness.

With the reference to Rodin’s “The Thinker,” it is important to note that this famous sculpture was originally meant to be a small piece of a larger work called “The Gates of Hell,” where it depicts Dante pondering Hell for his great work “The Divine Comedy” (known often as “Dante’s Inferno”). The statue of “The Thinker” was made around 1880, near the end of the century, when there was much pre-occupation with the end of humanity and the return of Jesus (fin-de-siecle).

Names are important aspect in Watchmen. Moore and Gibbons use quite a lot of allusions in Watchmen. This is a list of characters and places that seem to have names that seem to be alluding to interesting. By no means is that a complete or authoritative list, but it may be worth thinking about while (re-)reading Watchmen.

Rorschach / Walter Kovacs - Rorschach test / perhaps Ernie Kovacs?

The Comedian / Edward Blake - Shakespearean Fool, Batman’s Joker? / William Blake?

Dr. Manhattan / Jon Osterman - The Manhattan Project / ?

Ozymandias / Adrian Veidt - Ramses II / Conrad Veidt?

Moloch / Edgar Jacobi - Ba’al / Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi?

Gunga Diner - Gunga Din by Rudyard Kipling

More names will be added whenever new information is found

For me, chapter 7 is a chapter that begs to be analyzed with an eye for queer theory–not only through the lens of sexual behavior, but through the broader meaning of “queer” as deviant from social norms. There is certainly material for a queer study–Dan’s feelings of impotency, Ozymandias’ gymnastic routine coupled with the attempted coupling of Dan and Laurie, the imagery in the Nostalgia commercial, et cetera.

Watchmen, Chapter 7: A brother to dragons, Page 16

Dan’s superhero costume fetish is an example. Despite his feelings for Laurie, he is simply unable to perform until he and Laurie have performed an act of heroism, saving the lives of civilians trapped in a burning building. Page 16 sees Dan aroused by an ex-villain from his past (Twilight Lady, as noted on Page 5, Panel 4). They mutually strip each others’ clothes off before the female villain strips his skin off to reveal Dan-as-Nite Owl, and he strips her to reveal Laurie-as-Silk Spectre. It is only then that they can kiss, though the dream ends with a nuclear explosion.

This kind of costume dress-to-undress is modified by the fact that Dan’s impotency was linked to images of nuclear war and Ozymandias. His impotency is more than just sexual, but a matter of overall ability to act, including as a superhero–especially in comparison to the persona of Ozymandias that Veidt has created. It is only by becoming a superhero again that he regains the ability to act, and interestingly, he then decides to go free his ex-partner (another item for queer study) Rorschach from prison.

So I was thinking about how you said that chapter 6 isn’t about nihilism. I was wondering though, how does all the imagery end up fitting in? The abyss, in particular, seems nihilistic. Then I started thinking about something else that is also often (in my opinion quite wrongly) connected to nihilism: deconstructionism. The abyss for me recalls the phrase “mise en abyme” and Rorschach’s mask reminds me of “un text déjà écrit noir sur blanc.” Then I thought about how Rorschach’s face can be read simultaneously at a surface level as well as a symbolic level–isn’t that, in a way, what Rorschach blot tests are all about? However, if we were to follow the deconstructionist line of thought here, then there could be a practically limitless way of interpreting an ink blot, and thus Rorschach. That got me thinking about what you said about personas, that beyond the surface presentation, maybe there is an abyssal thing in each of us. Perhaps it’s not a bad thing, though. At least it would mean that we’re all open to interpretation, all full of a variety of meanings, none inherently better than any other.

In relation, that got me to thinking about how I feel about a character like Rorschach. I immediately want to categorize him as either a “good” guy or a “bad” guy, but really after thinking about deconstructionism and his function in Watchmen, Rorschach just seems like a dangerous vigilante who honestly believes he’s doing the right thing–a complex of personas. At that point, I can’t like him or hate him, but end up just feeling sorry for him. As much as you connect him to the Comedian (and I do think that there is some connection), I just think that Rorschach doesn’t understand how profound the cosmic joke is. The Comedian recognized that cosmic joke, but he let it eat away at him. Maybe even the Comedian didn’t really get the joke. Maybe the punchline is that, just like with deconstructionism, just because there is an abyss, it doesn’t mean that meaning is obliterated. Maybe the real joke is that, yes we really are alone, but we always were and we didn’t feel lonely then, so why should we now?

Let me start off by mentioning a quick and interesting note: Moloch’s name, Edgar Jacobi, is most likely a reference to Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, who coined the term ‘nihilism.’

Watchmen, Chapter 6: The abyss gazes also, Page 28

I mention this to make note of the nihilistic attitude that the chapter seems to give off. However, note that Friedrich Jacobi and Friedrich Nietzsche (who is referenced by means of the chapter title) were not nihilists though their names are often connected with the term. Although Dr. Long seems to make a nihilistic statement at the end of page 28–”We are alone. There is nothing else”–I think that perhaps there is something different at stake: Individuality and identity.

Watchmen, Chapter 6: The abyss gazes also, Page 2, Panel 6, Page 1, Panel 4, Page 7, Panel 1, Page 17, Panel 6, Page 18, Panel 4 & Page 17, Panels 8-9

Notice the number of mug shot-like panels in this chapter (not all of them are above, but a good representative sample), as well as the police file of Walter Kovacs (Rorschach). This kind of imagery is often connected to identity (check your purse or wallet for any picture ID you may have). Here, we have the construction of the identity of Rorschach from that of Walter Kovacs. Notice how often he is face-to-face with something (the Rorschach test cards, the bully, the watchdog, or Dr. Long for example).

Every superhero has to construct their identity as a hero and, often times, as an alter ego. This extends to everybody though, hero or not: Everyone ends up constructing personas that others see by performing specific actions in specific ways, as well as by saying the things that we say. It’s just that superheroes get to do so more flamboyantly. If we all construct the personas that others see, then are we essentially blank slates? Is there a core person within that inherently individualizes me? Perhaps the question is “Does it matter?” Regardless of whether inside I am a particular person, I still have to create a persona that I use to interact with the world. Superheroes simply have exceptional personas to interact with the world in ways that most people don’t.

In Watchmen, however, this separation often blurs: Jon lives as Dr. Manhattan, without much of a secret identity at all; Dan and Laurie adopt new identities to continue their lives together; Hooded Justice (mentioned only briefly) never truly has his secret identity revealed, but “disappears.” More problematically, Rorschach gets rid of his identity as Walter Kovacs, and Veidt takes on the mantle of Alexander the Great before discarding it for the title of Ramses II, known also as Ozymandias, positioning himself as the successor to military dictators and emperors. Instead of adding a persona in order to function in a different manner, both Rorschach and Veidt displace their previous identities to assume new ones. Both recognize their past selves, but it is the insistance of that self being in the past that becomes problematic. Although people often say that they have changed, have become a “new person,” it goes without saying that these personas do not serve the purpose of eradicating evil from humanity. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to live only in the exceptional persona of the superhero because it is a persona made not to live in society, but to change it.

This is one of the larger issues that Watchmen takes to task: Exceptionalism does not work if it works outside of society.

Symmetry is a central theme to chapter 5. The title, “Fearful symmetry” is a reference to William Blake’s famous poem, “The Tyger,” which is in itself one of his “Songs of Experience” (which are themselves mirrored by his “Songs of Innocence”). I think that it’s hard to discount an intentional link between the theme of symmetry in Watchmen and Edward Blake, the Comedian. However, it is the character of Rorschach who begins and ends this chapter, as he pays visits to the ex-villain Moloch, who himself has had recent contact with the Comedian. In this way, Rorschach and the Comedian are again linked.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 1 & Page 28

That Rorschach appears “symmetrically” in this chapter is meant for the reader to relate this “Fearful symmetry” to him. We are meant to identify him as the Tyger.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 26, Panel 3

Here, even the SWAT officer refers to Rorschach as a Tyger.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 11, Panels 3 & 9

Connecting Rorschach to the theme of symmetry even more.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Pages 14-15

Here, we are shown Veidt (Ozymandias) at the very middle of the chapter. Notice the symmetrical panel structure of the two pages. This extends out in both directions through the entire chapter. Also notice how the middle panel is split so that Veidt is mostly on one side and his assailant is on the other. Also notice the presence of water and reflection–the attacker’s reflection can be seen in the water, and the Egyptian figurehead, representative of Veidt, is in the central panel also reflected in the water, and in the fourth panel of page 15 where it is used to bash the assailant’s face (Ozymandias and the assailant going “face to face”).

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 24, Panels 4-5

Opposing faces are a very powerful visual device. Here we have the dead Moloch immediately juxtaposed to Rorschach. Rorschach immediately recognizes that he is danger–that death, perhaps, is coming for him.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 12, Panel 8 & Page 28, Panel 7

Here, we have a visual link between the protagonist of the “Black Freighter” comic and Rorschach. The sub-plot of the “Black Freighter” mirrors that of Rorschach and Veidt, the two central figures in this chapter.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 19, Panel 4 & Page 16, Panel 4

The “Black Freighter” protagonist and Veidt compared.

Watchmen, Chapter 5: Fearful symmetry, Page 17, Panel 7

Raft of the Medusa by Théodore Géricault, 1818-19, oil on canvas, 193.3″ × 282.3″ (491 cm × 717 cm), The Louvre

On a slightly separate note, I can’t help connecting these images together, though I’m not particularly sure whether this is an intentional connection or not. In Raft of the Medusa, the ship has been smashed to pieces due to the incompetence of a captain who gained his rank through high connections instead of ability and experience. The survivors portrayed here are signalling to a ship on the horizon. However, if the viewer is aware of the events that occurred contemporary to Géricault, they would know that it is not actually the ship that rescues them–it is a sign of false hope, and we find that the protagonist of the comic is also led on by a false hope of reaching his home before the Black Freighter does. The survivors of the Medusa fell to cannibalism to survive the duration, which I think reflects in Veidt’s later actions. (FINE 210, Prof. Joan Coutu, Feb. 6, 2007)