Watchmen and Philosophy

I started reading the book Watchmen and Philosophy while I was teaching the book, and now that I've finished I thought I would go ahead and post a quick review here. Like any anthology of criticism, some essays are better than others, having a bit more to say or plunging a bit deeper into the themes and characters of the book, but overall the quality of insight these critics offer is very valuable to a deeper understanding of the graphic novel. There are only a few essays that I didn't like, but more on those later.

The best section of the book is the section which deals with Doctor Manhattan, which has a trio of essays that each explore a different aspect of his character in a very thought-provoking way. The first of these, "Dr. Manhattan, I Presume?", explores the philosophical question of if Dr. Manhattan is still Jon Osterman if Osterman's body has been destroyed, through the Cartesian concept of the mind existing on a nonmaterial plane. It also analyzes the idea of which of the different versions of Dr. Manhattan retain his identity and can be viewed as "really" him when he splits into three, as well as what happens to the mind when a person is teleported long distances. In the second essay, "A Timely Encounter: Dr. Manhattan and Henri Bergson," the author analyzes how Jon perceived the past, present, and future simultaneously, in a non-linear fashion. It shows how perception and memory are different and how Dr. Manhattan's perceptions of his past experiences intermingle with the present. And finally the third of the Dr. Manhattan essays of note is entitled "Free Will and Foreknowledge: Does Jon really Know what Laurie Will Do Next, and Can She Do Otherwise?" It talks about the concept of fatalism (how everything is preordained) and how it jives with the issue of Jon's perception of time as discussed in the previous essay. All of these essays are very insightful, both to the philosophical concepts they discuss and to the graphic novel itself. (There's also a fourth Doc Manhattan essay too, but it's not quite as good as these others.)

There are also several rather good essays that explore the philosophical motivations of Rorschach and Ozymandias. "Can We Steer this Rudderless World?: Kant, Rorschach, Retributivism, and Honor" is about Rorschach's views on right and wrong from a retributivist point of view, that wrongdoing must be punished not to teach the person a lesson but simply because wrong is wrong and deserves punishment. Similarly the essay "Rorschach: When Telling the Truth is Wrong" also invokes Kant in its look at Rorschach's character, how telling the truth is a categorical imperative and must be done simply because lying is wrong, no matter what its result may be.

Meanwhile Adrian is the focus of "Means, Ends, and The Critique of Pure Superheroes" and how his particular brand of utilitarianism is that of a consequentialist, that the ends are the most important thing, whereas Rorschach is more of a deontologist, believing that the morality of the actions themselves is the most important. It also adds in the concepts of egalitarianism, how Adrian weighs the happiness of everyone worldwide against the death of the population of New York and judges them accordingly. Finally "Superheroes and Supermen: Finding the Ubermensch in Watchmen" explores what Nietzsche meant by the term and how it fits in with various characters in the graphic novel, specifically Adrian.

Probably the weak links of the collection are two essays that come towards the end, and they are weak simply because they are the most obvious. The first of these is called "'Why Don't You Go Read a Book or Something?': Watchmen as Literature." As its name implies it tries to define what literature is and whether Watchmen fits the definition. And the end conclusion is that... the authors remain undecided, that most likely comics are a new hybrid art form, not quite art and not quite literature. In all it's a bit elementary and a bit inconsequential.

The second essay which I found uninteresting, "Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis: The Ambiguously Gay Duo," felt out-of-place because of how little it had to do with Watchmen. It mentioned the characters from the book briefly in the intro and conclusion, but it's mostly just a patronizing piece on why homosexuals are people too. It's full of antiquated notions that the author thinks are progressive but only induced eye-rolling in me. Some interesting quotes:

"Regardless of the way someone acts, looks, or sounds on the outside, he may still be an HM [the author's abbreviation of homosexual] on the inside in terms of his basic orientation. After all, if it's true that Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice are gay, they sure as heck don't act and look like they're gay" (187).

"Plenty of HMs I know are very kind, generous, and gifted; the world would definitely suffer for their loss" (188).

"HMs are, however, quite distinct from pedophiles. The actions of pedophiles in molesting children are, by their very nature, harmful to others, but not so the actions of HMs. ... There is no such thing as a good, right, or moral act of child molestation. We can't say this, necessarily, for the HM, because there are such things as good, right, or moral HM acts; not every HM act need be evil" (191).

so yeah, lines like those made me a bit squeamish while reading it. It's very well-meaning but it comes across as just as judgmental as those it argues against. But those are again the two weak points out of the entire book. Overall it is a very worthwhile read that I would recommend to anyone who is a fan of the GN.

more Watchmen comments from my comic class

Steve here again, posting a wide variety of comments the students in my comic class had about Watchmen as we read it.

When we read chapter four, the Dr. Manhattan chapter, I had my students write about the character. I broke them into groups and had each group look at a different aspect of the character.

One group analyzed Jon Osterman's behavior before he became Dr. Manhattan to see how he was already displaying some of the detachment and belief in predestination that Dr. Manhattan is famous for. This group focused on how Jon was a bit of a pushover, planning to be a watchmaker because it's what his father wanted and then abandoning that career for physics when his father ordered him to. He only ever dated Janey Slater at her insistence, so it's no wonder that, after the fact, he claims that the universe was always his guide. He takes no responsibility for his actions because he never has, and his new unique perspective on time simply provides him an excuse for only intervening when he HAS to.

A second group focused on just that, Dr. Manhattan's view of the passage of time, which led to a pretty straightforward discussion of predeterminism v. free will. A third group looked at how Jon's abilities have shaped the world, in regards to society, politics, and pop culture.

Finally the fourth group discussed Jon's detachment from humanity in chapter four. I asked them whether or not there were any signs that he might care about people a bit more than he claims to. Some of the students argued that his claims of detachment were just sour grapes, the act of an outcast. Because the world treats him as different, he withdraws emotionally from the world as if to say "I never wanted to be in your stupid club anyway." He's not as completely emotionless as he claims, since he does react in anger when confronted about possibly giving cancer to those he loves and he runs away to Mars like a teenager hiding in his room when Laurie leaves him. (You could even make a case that while on Mars Jon is a stereotypical emo kid, making "profound" statements about the nature of the universe while lamenting over lost love.)

Other students then pointed out that these emotional responses were interesting when considered through the lens of his foreknowledge. Why would he get angry at the interview with Nova Express, they wondered, if he knew it was going to happen? My response was that foreknowledge of an event doesn't mean you're totally prepared for the emotional ramifications of it. I said to them, "I could warn you that I was going to punch you in the face, but it wouldn't make it hurt any less when I did so."

I also had my students write about symbolism when we got up to the seventh chapter, which is rife with symbols like reflections in glass representing the nostalgic remembrances of various characters or the embracing silhouettes/shadows/skeletons which could illustrate the emotional cost armageddon has on those at its heart. They also mentioned the recurring motif of the slashed circle (representing both impending doom and tainted innocence, depending on the scene) and of course the pirate comic. But one symbol a couple of students mentioned that I liked was Nite Owl's goggles. In issue seven, Dan makes mention of how he could always see more clearly when he wore them, and Laurie also wipes the dust from their lenses at one point, clearing the obstruction of her view (she does this also on the fogged-up window and on Archie's dust-covered eye). Each of these actions, my students argued, showed the characters of Laurie and Dan recognizing just how dependent they were on their costumed identities, how they need them to fully express themselves and how they are finally able to be honest about who they are when they're in costume.

Finally, when we got to the end of the book, one student pointed out that it was interesting how in one issue we see Adrian murder his three servants with poison, yet later he claims to Dan and Rorschach that they opened the dome themselves in a drunken stupor and died accidentally. We came to the conclusion that this disparity goes to show that Adrian is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions. He won't admit to personally getting his hands dirty killing these three men, even though he has just killed millions in New York. It also reveals his true nature, for if lying about the death of these three men is so easy for him, might he not be lying about his motivations for killing the population of New York? He claims to have altruistic reasons for his heinous crime, his desire for world peace, but he has also been maneuvering his companies in such a way to set it up that he will be the one to usher in this new age. He doesn't want world peace; he wants to shape the world in his image (as illustrated in his flier for the Veidt method) so his legacy will be remembered forever.

Watchmen day 1

I'm teaching my comic class again, and I thought that as I go through each class period, I would post here some of the interesting little observations made by myself and the students. Today was chapter 1 of Watchmen, and here were a few of our insights:

+page 1's slow pull back from the smiley face button is reciprocated in the last page as well, the first page symbolizing death with its blood and the last symbolizing life with Dan and Laurie laughing over drinks

+page 1 also contains hints at two incredibly significant presences in the book: Kovacs walking through the blood (while Rorschach's journal narrates) and a purple Pyramid Deliveries truck goes by (singled out by its purple color, tying it to Adrian)

+panel 5 of page 4 is filled with clues: the newsstand, gunga diner, a knottop, electric cars, Kovacs. it is all important. it's all part of the narrative puzzle. everything is connected and nothing ever ends.

+page 4's last panel and page 5's first are the same two buildings in the day and at night, with one other change: Kovacs is in the former, and Rorschach in the latter

+our introduction to Rorschach sums up his character well. we've gotten insight into his world view in his journal excerpts that run parallel to the action, but in his first actual scene he says little. he slowly and methodically puts pieces together, looking down on them from above

+our intro to Dan: a dork who hangs out with old guys reminiscing about the good old days. he walks home to where he lives alone and has locked all his toys in the basement, in denial about how much happier he would be if he let himself play with them

+the middle panel of page 10, one of my students pointed out, has Dan in silhouette from a distance, and the shape of his coat and his glasses mimic Nite Owl's costume perfectly

+the Dan/Rorschach scenes are essentially the two different sides of Batman (gadget-loving wealthy thrillseeker vs. obsessive grim detective) having an argument

+intro to Adrian: first panel of page 17. skyscraper with his name on it, dialogue coming out of the side like the building itself is speaking. He IS the ivory tower. Lots of purple and yellow too throughout this scene, in his costume and in his present day business suit, the colors of opulence.

+intro to Jon: he's 25 feet tall. he looms large over everything and his presence and uniqueness is undeniable. demonstrations of his powers and his detachment to human concerns (the bit about the number of particles in a corpse) throughout these pages.

+intro to Laurie: in Jon's shadow, arms crossed in confrontational pose. demonstrations of her boredom throughout these pages. (is Jon smiling on the bottom of page 23 because he knows where she and Dan will end up?)