Return-Path: rnd.gba.nyu.edu!dzweig Received: from rnd.gba.nyu.edu by snow.white.toronto.edu with SMTP id 10293; Thu, 17 May 90 13:56:04 EDT Received: by rnd.gba.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA19922; Thu, 17 May 90 13:52:52 EDT Date: Thu, 17 May 90 13:52:51 EDT From: Dani Zweig To: cks@snow.white.toronto.edu Subject: The file's name is watch.late Message-Id: There have been a large number of postings since the end of the original Watchmen discussion on rec.arts.comics, but most of them have either dealt with matters peripheral to the comic (e.g. the cast and script of the Watchmen movie) or have been the work of readers who missed the original discussion and were rediscovering the wheel. This file contains postings which I caught in 1988 and 1989 which broke new ground in the discussion of the Watchmen comic book series. Most of the contents of the file come from a spate of discussion covering about a month in October and November of 1989. One thread of that discussion degenerated into a flamewar on the topic of homosexuality. Those postings which had nothing to do with Watchmen are not included in this archive. --D.Z. From: gs1w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary John Schaub) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN art Date: 13 Jan 88 15:14:09 GMT Hi! I'm back (I really wasn't expecting to leave, but...), and there are ~400 messages on the net. I'm making a "reply.to" file for all of the neat stuff I've missed --the Kirby Wars, etc.---, but I just gotta reply to this one article: In article <8712121708.AA10752@decwrl.dec.com>, boyajian@akov75.dec.com (JERRY BOYAJIAN) writes about WM art: > it didn't stretch the boundaries of >comic art as Sienkiewicz's does. but that doesn't make it bad. BUT, just a few sentences later... >WATCHMEN stretches the bounds >of comic art not because of the drawing, but because the art must be seen >as a large picture, not just a series of small ones. Sort of a weak contradiction (I thought it was stronger when i first read it, but it looks weak now....), but I have to add to the point of "the large picture". Gibbons was using the paneels of WM as a tv screen. He *wanted* to restrict himself to a plain 3x3 grid in order to emphasize the story *inside* of the panels, not the layout of the page, like, for example Mark Beechum does with SAMUREE. Each page is composed to look like a poster. While this is fantastic and all, it wouldn't have conveyed WM the same way the monotonous 3x3 did. So the small pictures count too. It's, as JMB said, the composition of the insides of each panel that matters. Upon reading the TB, the *only* panel that I say that had any dramatic (by comic art standards) composition was when Rorschach threw the first dog (Fred?) thru the window at the man who butchered the little girl. "Good morning Rorschach. How are you today?" "In prison. Yourself?" ----- From: romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN art Summary: Veidt stopping a bullet the harder way Date: 19 Jan 88 05:11:33 GMT In article <2675@fluke.COM>, moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) writes: > In article gs1w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary John Schaub) writes: > >Upon reading the TB, the *only* > >panel that I say that had any dramatic (by comic art standards) composition > >was when Rorschach threw the first dog (Fred?) thru the window at the man who > >butchered the little girl. > > I wouldn't use the word dramatic. The dog-through-the-window scene is one > of the few non-STATIC panels in Watchmen -- that was the style used, I thought that it was somehow appropriate that, since most of Watchmen avoided all the classic comic cliches, including movement linesin the art, that the only really non-static panel I noticed was the one where Veidt is "hurtling towards Laurie far faster than a normal man could ever do." Given that he's really the only character who sees himself as a super-hero (if you think about it, he really does, both in terms of his role as the world's self-appointed savior and i terms of his physical and mental capacity) I liked the touch that he got the only "superheroic" bit in the art-- the multiple outlines of his arm as he lunged towards Laurie. ----- From: cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) Subject: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 17:54:57 GMT I just noticed this bit in WATCHMEN, and I don't recall anyone having mentioend it before, so... When Rorschach finds Gerald Grice, who kidnapped and butchered the little Roche girl, he places the hacksaw in front of the chained Grice, then starts splashing kerosene around, saying, "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through chains. Never make it." Then why give him the saw? Just to falsely raise Grice's hopes? No. He gives Grice the saw so Grice'll cut his own throat with it, butchering himself with the same tool he used on the girl. *Shudder!* God, I love this book... ----- From: pinax3@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 20:17:13 GMT I think Moore was borrowing from Mad Max (the original, not The Road Warrior or Beyond Thunderdome). In that movie, Max handcuffs a bad guy to a wrecked car that's about to explode and hands him a hacksaw. Max tells him it's futile to try to cut through the cuffs, but he might just make it if he cuts his arm off. I think Rorschach was giving the kidnapper a similar choice--either butcher himself (as he'd done to his victim) or die. --Elliot Wilen ----- From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Subject: Re: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 20:53:16 GMT In article cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: > [Stuff about Rorschach giving the Roche kidnapper a saw when cuffing > him down] >Then why give him the saw? Just to falsely raise Grice's hopes? >No. >He gives Grice the saw so Grice'll cut his own throat with it, butchering >himself with the same tool he used on the girl. Actually, I think Rorschach meant for Grice to cut his hand off at the wrist to he could actually get away (not commit suicide by cutting his throat out). Besides, Grice didn't use the saw to cut up the Girl, but a nice big meat cleaver. >*Shudder!* I agree - pretty chilling, ain't it? >God, I love this book... Me too ----- From: scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 21:35:04 GMT In article cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: >He gives Grice the saw so Grice'll cut his own throat with it, butchering >himself with the same tool he used on the girl. > >*Shudder!* Not quite. He gives it to him so that, like an animal in a trap, he'll have to cut off a limb to escape. Of course, with that much kerosene and that firetrap of a building, there really isn't much chance of a self-amputee making it. Just raising a few false hopes to further torture the deserving. >God, I love this book... >Chris Jarocha-Ernst Me too. Is there help for me? Only if Moore keeps writing. What's he up to, anyway? ----- From: rickheit@hawk.ulowell.edu (Erich the hahaha Mad) Subject: Re: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 21:15:38 GMT In article cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: >When Rorschach finds Gerald Grice, who kidnapped and butchered the little Roche >girl, he places the hacksaw in front of the chained Grice, then starts >splashing kerosene around, saying, "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through >chains. Never make it." ... >He gives Grice the saw so Grice'll cut his own throat with it, butchering >himself with the same tool he used on the girl. I thought the hacksaw was to saw through his wrists (shouldn't bother with the _chains_) As it was, he had a fair chance; it's relatively easy to saw through flesh and bone; if Grice had the guts (!!!) to saw through his own wrist, perhaps put the stump into the fire to cauterize it, or maybe pick the hand up and _hope_ it could be sewn back on, he might even have been able to get out of there alive... ...to meet Rorschach, waiting outside the burning building to see if anyone made it out. Shuddering now? ----- From: rhend@caen.engin.umich.edu (Robert Henderson) Subject: Re: Just noticed in WATCHMEN ... Date: 28 Mar 89 23:34:00 GMT In article cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: >I just noticed this bit in WATCHMEN, and I don't recall anyone having mentioend >it before, so... > >When Rorschach finds Gerald Grice, who kidnapped and butchered the little Roche >girl, he places the hacksaw in front of the chained Grice, then starts >splashing kerosene around, saying, "Shouldn't bother trying to saw through >chains. Never make it." > >Then why give him the saw? Just to falsely raise Grice's hopes? > >No. > >He gives Grice the saw so Grice'll cut his own throat with it, butchering >himself with the same tool he used on the girl. No, don't think so. This was the very first issue of the Watchmen that I read, it gave me a headache (literally) but I loved it. And I knew immediately what that meant. He's being given the chance to cut his arm off. Heard of wolves chewing their leg off to escape a trap? Same thing. From the screams coming when they did, I'd guess that he tried that option, but too late. "Boy, I'd give an arm and a leg to get out of here..." ----- From: cs173fba@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Tod Kuykendall) Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics Subject: Watchmen reference.... Date: 18 Oct 89 20:43:32 GMT I'm so disgraced. In the early part of the WM there are some guys (top knots?) strolling and listening to a giant radio and the song is about the "guy on your back poarch and buddy he don't feel the weather". At the time I felt I should really know where it came from and just the other day I finally bought and Iggy Pop import and the song is Nieghborhood Threat. I'm embarassed I didn't recognize it at first, being a hard-core Ig fan for years..... Anyway this Roman Meal bakery just thought you might like to know..... ----- From: damarks@lion.waterloo.edu (Judge Dredd) Subject: Re: Watchmen reference.... Date: 19 Oct 89 18:27:05 GMT In article <914@sdcc8.ucsd.edu> cs173fba@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Tod Kuykendall) writes: > > I'm so disgraced. In the early part of the WM there are some guys (top >knots?) strolling and listening to a giant radio and the song is about the >"guy on your back poarch and buddy he don't feel the weather". At the On the flip side of this idea, The Watchmen are mentioned in songs by Pop Will Eat Itself. DEF CON 1 features a line about The Watchmen and CAN U DIG IT mentions Alan Moore (I believe the line is ``Alan Moore know the score''). Also, the video for CAN U DIG IT feature pages from Watchmen as a backdrop. Just thought someone would be interested ... ----- From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Subject: Re: Watchmen reference.... Date: 21 Oct 89 18:30:03 GMT In article <17377@watdragon.waterloo.edu> damarks@lion.waterloo.edu (Judge Dredd) writes: >On the flip side of this idea, The Watchmen are mentioned in songs by Pop >Will Eat Itself. DEF CON 1 features a line about The Watchmen and CAN U >DIG IT mentions Alan Moore (I believe the line is ``Alan Moore know the >score''). There's a little more than that, too. Their lyricist must *really* like Moore's stuff, because there's stuff from other Moore books besides Watchmen, mostly from V for Vendetta. The one that sticks in my mind is "This is ... the Voice of Fate." Bunch of other lines, too. I know, it's pointless, so what? ----- From: jdrew@CS.UOREGON.EDU Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 00:16:06 GMT David Danzig (danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) writes: >In Watchmen #1, p. 19, first row, second panel, Rorschach makes the comment >of Veidt: "Possibly homosexual? Must remember to investigate further." > >It seems noteworthy to me. Does anyone agree/disagree? Does anyone have >other evidence? Another point of evidence. In many ways, Veidt patterned his life after that of Alexander the Great. Who was homosexual, according to some accounts. (I get this from the Donna Barr interview in Amazing Heroes #165. The Alexander thing was evidently tied up in the creation of the Desert Peach.) *********************** Jim Drew "Oprah and Donohue mud-wrestle incestuous jdrew@cs.uoregon.edu Siamese Satanists who work for Elvis! Next on (SCA: Colyn du Corynthe) Geraldo!" "This is stupid. Elvis doesn't hire Satanists." - editorial cartoon by J.D. Stone ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 00:38:10 GMT Good eye! I didn't notice that particular symmetry, or make that connection. Of course, I've always thought of Veidt as autosexual. Nobody else would be good enough for him! :-) It would make sense. The Minutemen had three gays (Captain Metropolis, Hooded Justice, and that woman we know little about except for that scandal . . . I forget her name). Sally Jupiter was of the opinion that superheroing was a profession that seemed to attract gay people . . . so . . . ----- From: mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (ryan d mathews) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 04:24:45 GMT In article jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: > >It would make sense [that Ozymandias was homosexual]. The Minutemen > had three gays (Captain Metropolis, Hooded Justice, and [the > Silhouette]). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Jym Dyer Huh? Where do we learn that Hooded Justice is gay? Is it in one of those text articles? I don't remember this. For that matter, I can't remember how we learn Captain Metropolis is gay, although I don't dispute that. It's been some time since last I read it, perhaps some Watchmen archivist could help me out? ----- From: haste+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dani Zweig) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 17:55:00 GMT mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (ryan d mathews): >Huh? Where do we learn that Hooded Justice is gay? Is it in one >of those text articles? I don't remember this. For that matter, I >can't remember how we learn Captain Metropolis is gay, although >I don't dispute that. Yes, I believe we are told that they'd taken to squabbling in public to the extent that it was difficult to cover for them. ----- From: archmage@cbnewse.ATT.COM (scott.t.grant) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Summary: In defense of Alexander the Great..... Date: 31 Oct 89 18:28:54 GMT In article <8910310016.AA00274@dogmatix.cs.uoregon.edu>, jdrew@CS.UOREGON.EDU writes: > > Another point of evidence. In many ways, Veidt patterned his life after that > of Alexander the Great. Who was homosexual, according to some accounts. This really belongs in alt.history or something, I suppose, but here goes. Veidt admired Alexander the Great (if you read Watchmen carefully) for his style of conquest, his lateral thinking, and his freebooting ways. I doubt this makes him homosexual anymore than it makes me homosexual. My favorite hero out of history is Alexander the Great and I am working towards a degree in Archaeology (and I can't even spell it for sure :-)) and ancient history so I think I know what I'm saying when I tell you: Alexander the great may have been bi-sexual but he definitely wasn't *homosexual*. Arrian recounts some of Alexander's lecherous rampages in his "Campaigns of Alexander". There are many other sources, equally trustworthy, that provide accounts of Alexanders lascivious encounters with females. There are also stories of his trists with young boys. It appears to me, from an objective perspective, that Alexander wasn't even bi-sexual. He was just a horny bugger who got it on with anything that moved, especially if it made him feel more powerful, boosted his already enourmous(sp) ego, and the object of his attention was particularly beautiful (yes, the greeks thought of men as being beautiful too). I admire Alexander above most persons in history, yet I can assure you that I am as heterosexual as they come. I doubt that Veidt's worship of Alexander makes him homosexual anymore than my worship of Alexander makes me homosexual. (I also doubt Veidt's arrogant claim as "Smartest man in the World". He tried to destroy Dr. Manhattan by the "intrinsic field" seperation device, yet Dr. Manhattan had already had his "intrinsic field" seperated once before. If Osterman had put his "intrinsic field" together the first time, what would lead Veidt to believe that he couldn't do it again??????) > > (I get this from the Donna Barr interview in Amazing Heroes #165. The > Alexander thing was evidently tied up in the creation of the Desert Peach.) > Could you please explain what relation Alexander has to this stuff about the "Desert Peach"???? ----- From: mfterman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mutant for Hire) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 18:43:59 GMT In article <12497@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU.UUCP (ryan d mathews) writes: >Huh? Where do we learn that Hooded Justice is gay? Is it in one of >those text articles? I don't remember this. For that matter, I can't >remember how we learn Captain Metropolis is gay, although I don't >dispute that. > >It's been some time since last I read it, perhaps some Watchmen >archivist could help me out? Well, I can hardly be called a Watchmen archivist, and I don't have a copy on hand, but I do believe that in the text section containing the material on Sally Jupiter you will find a notice from Sally's agent about how Metropolis and Justice were squabbling in public and how it was getting harder to cover up for them. It is also mentioned somewhere that she hung around with HJ in public to cover up for this. This also puts into more focus the comment the Comedian made when Hooded Justice was beating the crap out of him, about how this was what turned him on. So this is where we find out about CM and HJ. A hint that Veidt may have been gay is when Metropolis tried to form the Crimebusters only to be upstaged. Veidt commented that he stayed around afterwards to comfort him. Not much of a direct fact, but aside from the Alexander the Great connection, its all you can really say about Veidt's possible homosexuality. ----- From: goldfarb@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 21:16:32 GMT In article <12497@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU.UUCP (ryan d mathews) writes: }In article jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: }> }>It would make sense [that Ozymandias was homosexual]. The Minutemen }> had three gays (Captain Metropolis, Hooded Justice, and [the }> Silhouette]). }> Jym Dyer } } }Huh? Where do we learn that Hooded Justice is gay? Is it in one of }those text articles? } } ---------- Ryan Mathews Check out Sally Jupiter's scrapbook at the end of #9. In the interview, she says that there were other gays besides the Sillhouette. In the letter from her agent/husband he talks about Sally being an "alibi" for Hooded Justice, but that HJ and Captain Metropolis were quarreling and "acting like an old married couple in public". The implication is pretty clear. As for Veidt being gay, I tend to agree. The Ozymandias triangle juxtaposed with the pink triangle is a nice touch; other corroborative evidence is the way Veidt "stayed to comfort Nelson" after the breakup of the Crimebusters, and the insistence of Veidt's servants to Doug Roth that Veidt does not mistreat young women. (Remind me sometime to get around to posting my compare-and-contrast of Veidt and V...) David Goldfarb goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer) "I came to Casablanca for the waters." "Waters? What waters? We're in the desert!" "I was misinformed." ----- From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 01:15:51 GMT In article <1934@cbnewse.ATT.COM> archmage@cbnewse.ATT.COM (scott.t.grant) writes: > (I also doubt Veidt's arrogant claim as "Smartest man in the World". > He tried to destroy Dr. Manhattan by the "intrinsic field" seperation > device, yet Dr. Manhattan had already had his "intrinsic field" > seperated once before. If Osterman had put his "intrinsic field" > together the first time, what would lead Veidt to believe that he > couldn't do it again??????) Consider that he did better than most people would have against Dr. M. in that he at least came up with the tachyon-generating satellite system to jam his time-independent perception... Besides, can you think of any other way to attack Dr. Manhattan? I think the intrinsic field separator bit was as good a shot as any that anyone could take at him... he may not have solved _every_ conundrum presented him, but he probably got further than most people would have. ----- From: danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 03:26:22 GMT In article <11199@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <1934@cbnewse.ATT.COM> archmage@cbnewse.ATT.COM (scott.t.grant) writes: >> (I also doubt Veidt's arrogant claim as "Smartest man in the World". ... >Consider that he did better than most people would have against Dr. M. >in that he at least came up with the tachyon-generating satellite system >to jam his time-independent perception... > >Besides, can you think of any other way to attack Dr. Manhattan? I >think the intrinsic field separator bit was as good a shot as any >that anyone could take at him... he may not have solved _every_ >conundrum presented him, but he probably got further than most people >would have. > Veidt isn't the smartest man in the world unless Moore was the smartest man in the world, and I don't think that's the case, although he did an amazing job of conveying Veidt's intelligence. ----- From: dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Douglas R. Oosting) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 15:44:45 GMT In article <11199@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <1934@cbnewse.ATT.COM> archmage@cbnewse.ATT.COM (scott.t.grant) writes: -> (I also doubt Veidt's arrogant claim as "Smartest man in the World". -> He tried to destroy Dr. Manhattan by the "intrinsic field" seperation -> device, yet Dr. Manhattan had already had his "intrinsic field" -> seperated once before. If Osterman had put his "intrinsic field" -> together the first time, what would lead Veidt to believe that he -> couldn't do it again??????) > >Consider that he did better than most people would have against Dr. M. >in that he at least came up with the tachyon-generating satellite system >to jam his time-independent perception... This may be a bit late in the adding but it would seem to me that all Veidt wanted to do was get Manhattan out of the way until his plan finished off. Thus the "banishment" idea and the field-separator. Last time it took Manhattan months to figure out how to put himself back together; given limited data, Veidt may have concluded that it simply took that long to do, not just to figure out. His line of reasoning *may* have been "Ill talk to him when he comes back; Im sure Ill be the first person he looks up" and then use the arguement he used anyway (when there was more concrete evidence than just news reporter babble) Im sure that went a bit longer than it needed to... -- Cogito ergo Spud | Douglas R. Oosting, University of Florida (I think, therefore | dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu or Pendragon@oak.circa.ufl.edu I yam...) |...{mailrus|gatech}!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!dor In the Society : Cadrys ap Dulas o Caereira, Barony of An Crosaire, Trimaris ----- From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 16:06:08 GMT The summary line to Scott Grant's message was "In defense of Alexander the Great". Calling someone homosexual is not an attack, except to a homophobe. As for the substance of Grant's message, as opposed to his manifest homophobia, I think it suffices to point out that he claimed that Alexander had no sexual preference as to gender, then denied that he was bisexual. This is much like pointing out that, yes, a BMW has four wheels, an engine, a driver's seat, a transmission, and so forth, but none the less it is not any kind of car. [Archivist's note: Subsequent debate on homophobia excluded except where it relates to Watchmen.] ----- From: danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) Subject: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Summary: At least 2 references. Were there more? Date: 1 Nov 89 20:09:16 GMT In two places which a friend (Chuch Gillman, U of P, no account) just showed me in Watchmen, the Comedian makes reference, we think, to having assasinated Kennedy. #9, p. 20, center panal: "Just don't ask where I was when I heard about J.F.K." Another one, I can't find was something to the effect that he was guarding Nixon the day Kennedy was assassinated. No one knows what Nixon was doing in Dallas. Or something like that. hmm. --David Danzig "I'm leaving this galaxy for one less complicated." "But you'd regained interest in human life..." "Yes, I have. I think perhaps I'll create some." ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 31 Oct 89 15:22:05 GMT In article <16105@netnews.upenn.edu>, danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) writes... } In Watchmen #1, p. 19, first row, second panel, Rorschach makes the comment } of Veidt: "Possibly homosexual? Must remember to investigate further." } While this line may have been included only to show Rorschach's irrational } paranoia, I wasn't so sure. It seems unlike Moore to just casually drop } in a comment like that and forget about it. Moore had said on one or more occasions of WATCHMEN, "Everything means something, but not everything means a lot." I'm sure that it was just Rorschach's prejudices showing through. But even if it wasn't, my reaction is something along the lines of, "Who cares?" "How *dare* you fart before the King!" "I'm sorry. I didn't know it was 'is turn." --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA) ----- From: cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 23:07:49 GMT There is one bit of info that makes me doubt this interpretation-- but not real seriously. Moore's politics with regards to homosexuality are well known. His publication of (as well as work in) AARGH! is explicitly designed to defend homosexualty (as well as freedom of the press) from "rampant homophobia". Yet in spite of this blatantly non-homophobic stance, every hommosexual character in Watchmen is portrayed in a less than ideal light. To make the "ultimate villian" of the story also homosexual would, if it were being done by Byrne or Jim Shooter, raise huge cries of outrage and "gay bashing". (and rightly so). As it is, it seems just a step or two too far to have such Veidt, the arch-nemisis, also be homosexual. Sort of a casting of gays in TOO bad a light for someone with Moore's convictions. Three arguments that I can think of against that reasoning: 1: EVERY super=powered individual in Watchmen is cast in a pretty bad light. Gay or non-gay makes no difference (which is a message in its own right.) 2: There is at least one excepption to the "gays are warped" theme I've been hypothesizing-- the female truck driver and her girlfriend. These are depicted as two normal individuals with normal sets of problems who, like most normals in Watchmen, have a great deal more integrity and "decency" than the "people of power." 3: I may simply not be giving Moore enough credit as a writer. IMHO, since homosexual people are "just people" too, any story about homosexuals should have its share of "good homosexuals" AND "bad homosexuals". Any other division is ppolitically motivated. It is too Moore's credit as a writer of integrity that he writes gay "bad guys" in spite of his politics. You know, though, off the top of my head, I can't think of a gay "good guy" in any of Moore's work. I wouldn't cunt Hooded Justice or Captain Metropolis. Can anyone remind me of one? If not, anybody care to speculate on why? ----- From: cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 23:41:49 GMT >>>>> On 1 Nov 89 23:07:49 GMT, cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) said: C> Yet in spite of this blatantly non-homophobic stance, every hommosexual C> character in Watchmen is portrayed in a less than ideal light. To make the C> "ultimate villian" of the story also homosexual would, if it were being done C> by Byrne or Jim Shooter, raise huge cries of outrage and "gay bashing". C> (and rightly so). As it is, it seems just a step or two too far to have C> such Veidt, the arch-nemisis, also be homosexual. Sort of a casting of C> gays in TOO bad a light for someone with Moore's convictions Personally, I feel that it makes no differece. But.... Another argument against: Viedt was not just the "ultimate villain" in Watchmen; he was *also* the "ultimate *hero*". His means may seem cruel, but remember his goal: avert nuclear destruction and unite the world. Makes him a hero in my book. ----- From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 2 Nov 89 02:23:54 GMT In article <37298@srcsip.UUCP> cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) writes: >Yet in spite of this blatantly non-homophobic stance, every hommosexual >character in Watchmen is portrayed in a less than ideal light. I wouldn't agree. Every character is portrayed as human, with faults, strong points, and a gamut of emotions. What they share in common is a desire to do more good than evil and some ability to do so. Personally I believe Moore wants us to consider the fact that Veidt may be gay- but not to be judgemental about it, rorschach may have his values but that does not have to color ours when rorschach makes the observation. As for the fearful symmetry, I would point out that pyramids and triangles look a lot alike, it could easily be a case of trying to hard to read something into the work. I don't consider myself homophobic or homophilic (well, I do like to go down to the Castro for Halloween. One Rorschach costume there last year. I am happy that there were no Batmans this year) but do consider it relevant to the story. Part of the story is about control and oppression. Not to mention perhaps some pokes at wonderful Dr. Wertham - ___ Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu "Note the professional clear plastic binder" ----- From: 193pai@frazier.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 2 Nov 89 03:42:04 GMT In article <41789@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > > > Personally, I feel that it makes no differece. But.... > > Another argument against: Viedt was not just the "ultimate >villain" in Watchmen; he was *also* the "ultimate *hero*". His means may >seem cruel, but remember his goal: avert nuclear destruction and unite the >world. > > Makes him a hero in my book. > Are you saying the ends justify the means?? Sorry, 'fraid I don't quite share your opinion. Especially since I think the means were not only cruel, but incredibly illogical. It was sheer luck (with a boot in the butt from Moore) that enabled them to justify his means. (Here, I duck and wait in terror for the flames...) Hate to drop the bomb and run, guys, but I gotta go. We'll discuss this later....(I hope not, anyway...=)) ----- From: mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (ryan d mathews) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 2 Nov 89 04:22:47 GMT In article <37298@srcsip.UUCP> cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) writes: >To make [Veidt] the >"ultimate villian" of the story also homosexual would, if it were being done >by Byrne or Jim Shooter, raise huge cries of outrage and "gay bashing". >(and rightly so). >--Chris I don't understand? Why would this be gay-bashing? Is there an unwritten rule that gays are not allowed to be villains? Just because one homosexual is a bad guy, does that mean that the author thinks that *all* homosexuals are bad guys? Now if the author implies that the character is a villain *because* of his homosexuality, *that's* gay-bashing. ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 2 Nov 89 08:14:03 GMT In article <16259@netnews.upenn.edu>, danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) writes... } In two places which a friend (Chuch Gillman, U of P, no account) just } showed me in Watchmen, the Comedian makes reference, we think, to having } assasinated Kennedy. } #9, p. 20, center panal: "Just don't ask where I was when I heard about } J.F.K." } Another one, I can't find was something to the effect that he was guarding } Nixon the day Kennedy was assassinated. No one knows what Nixon was doing } in Dallas. Or something like that. It's certainly the case that Moore wants us to speculate about whether the Comedian assassinated Kennedy. I'm not convinced, at least by the first bit you quote above, that such is the case. I always felt that remark to be a bit of a joke on his Comedian -- at least his listeners seemed to be treating it as such. How much truth there is in it, who's to say? ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 2 Nov 89 08:18:31 GMT In article <37298@srcsip.UUCP>, cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) writes... } There is one bit of info that makes me doubt this interpretation-- but } not real seriously. Moore's politics with regards to homosexuality are } well known. His publication of (as well as work in) AARGH! is explicitly } designed to defend homosexualty (as well as freedom of the press) from } "rampant homophobia". Let me put on my Devil's Advocate cap for a second here. Actually, AARGH! *does* represent Moore's *politics* with regards to homosexuality, though it doesn't necessarily reflect his feelings about homosexuality per se. He may well disapprove of the practice while at the same time feel that it's none of the government's damn business what people do with their lives. Note Brian Bolland's piece in AARGH! whether he says right out in no uncertain terms that gays make him very uncomfortable, but (a) he realizes that that's *his* problem, and (b) he still feels that legislation against homosexuality is wrong. Or a more compelling analogy is that there are a *lot* of "pro-choice" people in this country who loathe the practice of abortion, but still feel that it's the individual's right to choose to practice it or not. Moore *may* feel the same, which might account for a seemingly (but not really) inconsistent view. I doubt very much that he really disapproves of the practice, but I'm just pointing out that *if* he did, it wouldn't be inconsistent with his politics. } To make the "ultimate villian" of the story also homosexual would, if } it were being done by Byrne or Jim Shooter, raise huge cries of outrage } and "gay bashing". (and rightly so). As it is, it seems just a step or } two too far to have such Veidt, the arch-nemisis, also be homosexual. } Sort of a casting of gays in TOO bad a light for someone with Moore's } convictions. } Three arguments that I can think of against that reasoning: [Deleted, but] all very good arguments. However, you missed the Biggie, which Ryan Matthews also pointed out. The big difference between Moore having Veidt, the "ultimate villain", be a homosexual and Shooter having some would-be rapists be homosexual is that in the second case, their homosexuality is linked to their crime, whereas there is no such link in Veidt's case. Veidt is wiping out 10 million people because he's gay, but those characters in the Hulk story are portrayed as wanting to rape Banner because they are gay. } It is too Moore's credit as a writer of integrity that he writes gay } "bad guys" in spite of his politics. } You know, though, off the top of my head, I can't think of a gay "good } guy" in any of Moore's work. I wouldn't cunt Hooded Justice or Captain } Metropolis. Can anyone remind me of one? If not, anybody care to } speculate on why? Why don't you want to count Hooded Justice or Captain Metropolis (or for that matter, Silhouette)? They were "good guys" and they were gay. I think the point that Moore wants to get across is not that these people were fucked up in the head (which they certainly were) because they were gay, but because they were fucked up in the head. In other words, you had to be fucked up in the head to want to be a superhero in the first place. So, the good guys had their share of heretosexuals and homosexuals, *all* of whom were fucked up. I don't really think that Moore thought of it as "Well, just to seem impartial, I'll introduce some 'bad gays'," but "Well, all of these folks are a half-bubble off plumb, and some of them would likely be gay, so..." ----- From: nrt@cs.brown.edu (Nick Thompson) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 2 Nov 89 13:18:53 GMT In article <37298@srcsip.UUCP> cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) writes: You know, though, off the top of my head, I can't think of a gay "good guy" in any of Moore's work. I wouldn't count Hooded Justice or Captain Metropolis. Can anyone remind me of one? If not, anybody care to speculate on why? You never actually meet her, but I would say that Valerie (from _V_for_Vendetta_) is most certainly one of the "good guys." (ahem!) ----- From: cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 3 Nov 89 01:37:20 GMT >>>>> On 2 Nov 89, 193pai@frazier.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) said: M> Are you saying the ends justify the means?? Sorry, 'fraid I don't quite M> share your opinion. Especially since I think the means were not only cruel, M> but incredibly illogical. It was sheer luck (with a boot in the butt from M> Moore) that enabled them to justify his means. (Here, I duck and wait in M> terror for the flames...) Hate to drop the bomb and run, guys, but I M> gotta go. We'll discuss this later....(I hope not, anyway...=)) We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the villain or the hero of the book? If you feel that he was the hero, you've condoned the murder of millions in New York. If you feel that he was the villain, you've condemned the Earth to death by nuclear holocaust-- billions of people. This is what the characters are faced with at the end; is Veidt the villain their instincts tell them he is, or not? Rorschach(sp?) couldn't resolve it. Dan and What's-her-name decided that Veidt was a conditional hero-- i.e., they'll keep their mouths shut. Dr.M. considered Veidt a hero *and* a villain; he agreed with the solution (hero saving the human race), but it wasn't over (villain killing millions). Moore is very subtle, we hve to decide for ourselves. "Ends justify the means..." Maybe, but it's more like "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Some won't agree with this principle, but it is on this that majority rule is based. ----- From: wjones@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Wendell E Jones) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 3 Nov 89 02:55:39 GMT In article <5871@shlump.nac.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) writes: >In article <16259@netnews.upenn.edu>, danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) writes... ** **} In two places which a friend (Chuch Gillman, U of P, no account) just **} showed me in Watchmen, the Comedian makes reference, we think, to having **} assasinated Kennedy. ** **} #9, p. 20, center panal: "Just don't ask where I was when I heard about **} J.F.K." ** **It's certainly the case that Moore wants us to speculate about whether **the Comedian assassinated Kennedy. I'm not convinced, at least by the **first bit you quote above, that such is the case. I always felt that **remark to be a bit of a joke on his Comedian -- at least his listeners **seemed to be treating it as such. How much truth there is in it, who's **to say? ** **--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA) Well I think the clincher is one of the watchmen poster we see the comedian holding a rifle over a parade. ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 3 Nov 89 06:55:50 GMT In article , wjones@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Wendell E Jones) writes... } Well I think the clincher is one of the watchmen poster we see the } comedian holding a rifle over a parade. Guess again. If you look at the writing on the banners in that poster, you'll see that they're in Spanish. It's far more likely that in that scene, he's attempting to assassinate Castro or some other "unsavory" Latin American character. ----- From: 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 3 Nov 89 08:56:15 GMT In article <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > >>>>>> On 2 Nov 89, 193pai@frazier.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) said: > >M> Are you saying the ends justify the means?? Sorry, 'fraid I don't quite >M> share your opinion. Especially since I think the means were not only cruel, >M> but incredibly illogical. It was sheer luck (with a boot in the butt from >M> Moore) that enabled them to justify his means. (Here, I duck and wait in >M> terror for the flames...) Hate to drop the bomb and run, guys, but I >M> gotta go. We'll discuss this later....(I hope not, anyway...=)) > > > We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the >villain or the hero of the book? > > If you feel that he was the hero, you've condoned the murder of >millions in New York. > > If you feel that he was the villain, you've condemned the Earth to >death by nuclear holocaust-- billions of people. > > This is what the characters are faced with at the end; is Veidt the >villain their instincts tell them he is, or not? Rorschach(sp?) couldn't >resolve it. Dan and What's-her-name decided that Veidt was a conditional >hero-- i.e., they'll keep their mouths shut. Dr.M. considered Veidt a hero >*and* a villain; he agreed with the solution (hero saving the human race), >but it wasn't over (villain killing millions). Moore is very subtle, we >hve to decide for ourselves. > > "Ends justify the means..." Maybe, but it's more like "The needs >of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Some won't agree with this >principle, but it is on this that majority rule is based. > > Timothy J. Miller > cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu Well, I was going to do some trimming, but I didn't really see anything I could get rid of. Anyway, what I meant to say (I didn't really articulate properly, probably because I hadn't really completely thought it out, since I was in a hurry) was that, sure, I could see how Veidt could be seen as the ultimate hero, and I even believe in "The needs of the many..." and even sometimes "The ends..." , but to me it's all dependent. If you compare the dropping of the bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the dropping of a fake alien on Manhattan (which is, I think, a fairly valid comparison), you may find me mourning over the after-effects of the action, but not arguing over the validity of the action in its context. Kill millions to save billions. Sure, I can see it, if I don't exactly like it. My problem with Veidt's solution to world hatred is that it is highly questionable. The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was reasonable, as it was extremely likely to induce immediate surrender from the Japanese and end the war -- they would surrender to save their own skins. Perhaps a morally reprehensible act (that is not what we're discussing here), but certainly extremely likely to produce the desired effect-- surrender. But the dropping of an "alien" in the middle of Manhattan seems to me to be highly UNlikely to produce the desired effect. If it were to happen, I could see the Soviets expressing deep sympathy and horror, and even sending aid and "observers". But pulling out of Afghanistan? Admitting their policies re: human rights are wrong? Forming an immediate and total alliance with the US? Yeah, right. I would think they'd take the opportunity of a crisis in the US to strengthen their power world-wide. Perhaps to put some economic pressure on the US, which has just lost one of its major cities. Maybe move to become THE power in the world. All these seem more, or at least just as likely, as the result in the book. And, suppose they did form said alliance. What happens in fifty, sixty years? When all the people who've had the alien's thoughts put into their heads are dead, the US and the Soviets have built up their defenses to fight the alien hoarde -- and they don't come? The collective human memory is short. I don't think the dim memory of some weird alien is going to keep two nations allied when they were forced into the alliance by an alien that never appeared. So there we'd be, more powerful than before, and hardly more friendly towards each other. With such serious doubts as to the effectiveness of Veidt's plan, I find it difficult to classify him as 'hero'. Sacrificing millions of people for a dream of world peace which has a minimal chance of working is, to me, not heroic. As I commented in my first post, the only reason it worked is because Moore was writing the book and he wanted it to work. I could see nothing even remotely sure in the plan, even if formulated by the Smartest Man in the World. It seemed to me just a ploy on the part of Veidt to prove he was the Smartest Man in the World and could solve any problem. Killing millions of people just to satisfy someone's ego just strikes me as sick, not heroic. apologies to bcholmes, who I guess has now heard this ranting twice...=) ----- From: entropy@pawl.rpi.edu (Angel of Rivers) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 3 Nov 89 13:50:32 GMT In article <1989Nov3.085615.7725@agate.berkeley.edu> 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) writes: > The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was > reasonable, as it was extremely likely to induce immediate surrender from > the Japanese and end the war -- they would surrender to save their own skins. That's funny. Isn't that what they said when they firebombed Dresden? Followups to misc.misc. I would suggest sci.military, but it's moderated. ----- From: harrison@darkside.com (Harrison) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 3 Nov 89 08:00:50 GMT > From: wjones@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Wendell E Jones) > > Well I think the clincher is one of the watchmen poster we > see the comedian holding a rifle over a parade. That's what I believed for the longest time, too. If you look close enough at the poster, it's obvious from the banner hanging outside with the surroundings that he's making a hit "south of the border" .. ----- From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 3 Nov 89 16:10:46 GMT In <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the >villain or the hero of the book? > If you feel that he was the hero, you've condoned the murder of >millions in New York. > If you feel that he was the villain, you've condemned the Earth to >death by nuclear holocaust-- billions of people. He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt got rid of Dr. Manhattan. /r$ ----- From: cs127050@brunix (Garrett Fitzgerald) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 3 Nov 89 18:58:00 GMT In article <2136@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt >got rid of Dr. Manhattan. No, if the world was that close that losing one man could send us over the edge, I hardly think Veidt can be blamed for replacing it with something more stable! --------------- Campus Crusade for Cthulhu--when you're tired of the lesser of two evils. Sarek of Vulcan, a.k.a. Garrett Fitzgerald ----- From: jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 1 Nov 89 16:39:05 GMT In article <16105@netnews.upenn.edu> danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (David Danzig) writes: >Well, on pages 8 and 21, Veidt's purple pyramid emblem seems to corespond with >the pink triangle emblem. The pink triangle, incidentally, was Hitler's >symbol for denoting homosexuals. The National Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual >Coalition adopted it as their symbol. This is an interesting observation. >It seems noteworthy to me. Does anyone agree/disagree? Does anyone have >other evidence? I tend to agree. What made me think this originally was that Veidt seems to be on Nelson's "side" in the abortive 1966 meeting, and that he was for some reason interested in tracking down Hooded Justice in the docklands. If the Comedian was a gay-basher (as suggested by the allusions to his involvement in HJ's disappearence) then some of his antipathy to Veidt might be explained by Veidt being gay. It's too bad that Moore didn't try to make this more explicit, so as to present a more interesting and well-rounded homosexual character than the others in _Watchmen_, of which there are many: HJ, Nelson, Silhouette, Joey the taxi driver and her girlfriend Aline. (I also remember a panel of two men embracing in the restaurant in the first issue.) Most of these characters are pretty stereotyped, we must admit. BTW, is Aline a reference to Aline Kominsky-Crumb, R. Crumb's wife? If so, what was Moore trying to say with this? ----- From: danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 3 Nov 89 20:31:54 GMT In article <1989Nov3.085615.7725@agate.berkeley.edu> 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) writes: >My problem with Veidt's solution to world hatred is that it is highly >questionable. ... >[T]he dropping of an "alien" in the middle of Manhattan seems to me to >be highly UNlikely to produce the desired effect. If it were to happen, >I could see the Soviets expressing deep sympathy and horror, and even >sending aid and "observers". But pulling out of Afghanistan? Admitting their >policies re: human rights are wrong? Forming an immediate and total alliance >with the US? Yeah, right. I would think they'd take the opportunity of a >crisis in the US to strengthen their power world-wide. Perhaps to put some >economic pressure on the US, which has just lost one of its major cities. ... move to become THE power in the world. All these seem more, or at least just >as likely, as the result in the book. And, suppose they did form said alliance. >What happens in fifty, sixty years? When all the people who've had the alien's >thoughts put into their heads are dead, the US and the Soviets have built up >their defenses to fight the alien hoarde -- and they don't come? The collective >human memory is short. I don't think the dim memory of some weird alien >is going to keep two nations allied when they were forced into the alliance >by an alien that never appeared. So there we'd be, more powerful than before, >and hardly more friendly towards each other. ... >As I commented in my first post, the only reason it worked is >because Moore was writing the book and he wanted it to work. I could see >nothing even remotely sure in the plan, even if formulated by the Smartest >Man in the World. It seemed to me just a ploy on the part of Veidt to prove >he was the Smartest Man in the World and could solve any problem. Killing >millions of people just to satisfy someone's ego just strikes me as sick, >not heroic. ... > >--Margaret Pai Okay; It doesn't seem like it would work to me, either. But I'm not the smartest man in the world, and obviously neither is Moore. The results don't seem any less plausable to me than the method. Stealing the psychic's head and hiring a writer and artist to fill it with ideas seems kind of absurd, too. The plan worked, not by chance (and certainly not by probability), but because, as you said, Moore wanted it to work. Why? Because Veidt is the smartest man in the world. But Moore isn't. So how can Moore record the actions of the world's smartest man? He can't have him spew formulae that Moore doesn't know. He can't analyze and provide a solution to the problems of the real world that Moore can't solve. All Veidt can do is predict things accurately, because Moore *does* know what's going to happen next. My point is that Veidt was right. It was destined to work, and nothing could have stopped it, because Veidt knew what he was doing, even if we don't know what he was doing. i.e. it's just a story. As to 60 years later: Veidt said (#12, p. 20, 1st panal), "I saved earth from Hell. Next, I'll help her towards utopia." So, he had a plan in mind which, of course, would have worked, because he's the smartest man in the world. Incidentally, and irrelevantly, I just noticed Moore's Brittishness seeping through in that Veidt says "towards" and not "toward" above, even though the latter is prefered in the U.S., the former in England. But ignore that. It's not the point of this article. Don't let it stay in your minds. To recap: Veidt was right because he was the smartest man in the world, not because he was lucky; he had a plan for the next 60 years. --David Danzig "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes." -Juvinal ----- From: kscott@cca.ucsf.edu (Kevin Scott) Subject: Re: Central issue of WATCHMEN Date: 3 Nov 89 22:14:57 GMT In article <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the >villain or the hero of the book? > > If you feel that he was the hero, you've condoned the murder of >millions in New York. > > If you feel that he was the villain, you've condemned the Earth to >death by nuclear holocaust-- billions of people. Possible condemnation - there are still other ways out (I hope, because we are still in the same dilemma and have no Veidt :-). Veidt had a solution that he felt was worth the risk, particularly because time is of the essence in solving this dilemma, every day that goes by we have to worry about an accident, terrorism, or malicious intent triggering world war three (military command is the most unlikely reason I see, even as a liberal). Veidt did push the world a little closer by removing manhattan (pun intended), wether he was just one man or more than a man the fact remains that so much hinged on him and Veidt took the risk. Personally I find Veidt to be more of a bad guy than a good guy simply because he took the responsibilty for a risk of other peoples lives. These people were not even the enemy in some war. ___ Kevin Scott kscott@cca.ucsf.edu America lost world war II. Fascism is rampant and the Japanese own the US. 1/2 :-) ----- From: cs127050@brunix (Garrett Fitzgerald) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 3 Nov 89 23:11:38 GMT Margaret Pai made some detailed comments about the unbelievability of Veidt's solution to the problem of world peace. This may be a cheap cop-out, but-- IT'S NOT OUR WORLD! It seems to be much drearier, in general. In a world where super-humans walked among us, and alien invasion was a definite possibility, who knows? Veidt may have done the right thing. Just a comment on the backgrounds-- did anyone else notice that sign for "Enola Gay and the Little Boys?" ----- From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 3 Nov 89 23:16:24 GMT In article <2136@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt >got rid of Dr. Manhattan. > /r$ It's not that simple. Dr. M, by his very presence, had dangerously tipped the balance of power to put the Russians in a desparate position (remember the US invasion of Afghanistan). Veidt's analysis-- probably correct, from what we saw of where things were headed-- was that the world would be on the brink soon enough anyway. The Comedian had basically arrived at the same conclusion. Veidt simply accelerated the process and triggered a crisis that he was able to stage manage, rather than trying to deal with the "natural" course of events, which even he could not have completely predicted. I'll grant you that it's not the most morally defensible position, but it's plain that he wasn't simply a villain. ----- From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) Subject: Re: Central issue of WATCHMEN Date: 3 Nov 89 23:35:58 GMT In article <2549@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu> kscott@cca.ucsf.edu.UUCP (Kevin Scott) writes: >In article <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: >Possible condemnation - there are still other ways out (I hope, because we are >still in the same dilemma and have no Veidt :-). We are not "living in the shadow of Manhattan" in the same way that the world of Watchmen was. Dr. Manhattan was not of necessity a destabilizing influence-- witness the unwillingness of Kennedy to play Dr. M. as a trump card in the Cuban Missile Crisis. But in the role that Nixon had pressed him into (more of Moore's politics at work), he had become the biggest threat to world peace by encouraging US military aggression. Notice how the invasion of Afghanistan came apart as soon as Dr. M. left Earth. > Veidt had a solution that >he felt was worth the risk, particularly because time is of the essence in >solving this dilemma, every day that goes by we have to worry about an >accident, terrorism, or malicious intent triggering world war three (military >command is the most unlikely reason I see, even as a liberal). Again, see above. Our situation is very different; if we had this sense of invincibility about us militarily, how different would our conduct be? Dr. M., source of US confidence as a nation, made the country very dangerous. >Veidt did push the world a little closer by removing manhattan (pun intended), >wether he was just one man or more than a man the fact remains that so much >hinged on him and Veidt took the risk. If anything he defused the bomb that was Manhattan-- sooner or later we would have pushed the Russians too far, feeling as though we could handle anything. I'll grant you that the world came within a hair's breadth of going over before the "alien" menace appeared; but this was all necessary, and he did have the whole thing pretty well stage-managed. ----- From: 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 4 Nov 89 09:57:14 GMT In article <16368@netnews.upenn.edu> danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (David Danzig) writes: > > >Okay; It doesn't seem like it would work to me, either. But I'm not the >smartest man in the world, and obviously neither is Moore. The results >don't seem any less plausable to me than the method. Stealing the psychic's >head and hiring a writer and artist to fill it with ideas seems kind of >absurd, too. The plan worked, not by chance (and certainly not by >probability), but because, as you said, Moore wanted it to work. Why? >Because Veidt is the smartest man in the world. But Moore isn't. So how >can Moore record the actions of the world's smartest man? He can't have >him spew formulae that Moore doesn't know. He can't analyze and provide a >solution to the problems of the real world that Moore can't solve. All Veidt >can do is predict things accurately, because Moore *does* know what's going >to happen next. My point is that Veidt was right. It was destined to work, >and nothing could have stopped it, because Veidt knew what he was doing, >even if we don't know what he was doing. i.e. it's just a story. > It seems to me that what you are saying here (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that since Moore, being the writer, knew what would happen if Veidt dropped the alien, he made sure that Veidt, as Smartest Man in the World knew too. That is, rather than Veidt, in his character as Smartest etc., plotting his plan and knowing it will work, Moore, in his capactiy as writer, knowing the plot and having billed Veidt as the Smartest etc., imposed the plan upon him. Sorry, I like Moore as much as the next guy, but this seems to me to be rather poor writing. >As to 60 years later: Veidt said (#12, p. 20, 1st panal), "I saved earth >from Hell. Next, I'll help her towards utopia." So, he had a plan in >mind which, of course, would have worked, because he's the smartest man in >the world. > I don't agree that the Smartest Man in the World is infallible. He is the Smartest, but he is not omniscient. He is not omnipotent. He is still just a man, and one who will probably be dead in 60 years, and certainly in 100. I don't think anyone, however smart, can move an entire planet, until recently on the verge of destroying itself, towards utopia (if such a thing is possible at all) in that short a time. I think anyone, however smart, who thinks he can, is pretty damn arrogant. And I begin to wonder about this "Smartest Man" deal. That in itself sounds pretty arrogant to me. Who, by the way, is the smartest person in our world? The woman with the highest IQ (215, or somewhere around there), bids fair to be one of the biggest underachievers I have ever heard of. You see her periodically on talk shows or in newspaper interviews, bragging about how smart she is, and telling how she judges what the IQ is of everyone she meets. But what has she done with this great brain of hers? She writes a question-and-answer column for the New York Times Magazine and spends her spare time looking down her nose at the rest of us idiots. I tend to get really suspicious of anyone who bills him/herself as the "Smartest *blank* in the World." I repeat, "smartest" does not mean "omniscient". How can Veidt possibly predict with perfect accuracy how people will react? How people will react 60 years down the line, with all possible variables accounted for? Does he know everything everyone else in the world knows, and more, that he doesn't seem to need to do research or gather any sort of information whatsoever on whatever it is he's planning at the moment. I don't recall ever seeing him studying, but what good is intelligence without knowledge? And how can he account for any variables in his plan? How can he predict what will happen 60 years from now, when he is dead, and isn't around to guide people to utopia? What if, in panic, people, now convinced of the existence, and hostility, of alien life-forms, begin to turn on each other, in the fear that hostile aliens are moving among us, diguised as normal humans? What if a real alien appears, and decides to sow seeds of trouble in the newly-formed US-Soviet alliance? Or has the sSmartest etc. already determined what the rest of us haven't, that there IS no other life in the universe? Further, just because we intellectual low-lifes cannot see the beauty of a plan before it is executed, doesn't mean that a truly logical and correct plan is incomprehensible even after the fact. Hindsight is 20-20, as they say. But looking back on this one, I could only think, Gee, wasn't Veidt lucky that Moore was on his side..... >Incidentally, and irrelevantly, I just noticed Moore's Brittishness seeping >through in that Veidt says "towards" and not "toward" above, even though >the latter is prefered in the U.S., the former in England. But ignore >that. It's not the point of this article. Don't let it stay in your minds. > Irrelevantly, I actually find myself preferring "towards". "Toward" always sound to me unfinished, and used only in constructions as "What's toward?" But then again, I always did prefer "theatre" and "grey"..... >To recap: Veidt was right because he was the smartest man in the world, not >because he was lucky; he had a plan for the next 60 years. > >--David Danzig > >"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes." >-Juvinal To recap, I don't agree that intelligent means infallible. And the very fact that you must bring forward such an argument to defend the plan indicates to me very poor writing on Moore's part.... --Margaret Pai 193pai@qal.berkeley.edu It's about this dumpy little bear that wanders around asking silly questions, making up songs, and going through all kinds of adventures, without ever accumulating any amount of intellectual knowledge or losing his simpleminded sort of happiness....--from _The Tao of Pooh_ ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 4 Nov 89 10:30:18 GMT In article <1989Nov4.095714.1582@agate.berkeley.edu>, 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) writes... } And I begin to wonder about this "Smartest Man" deal. That in itself } sounds pretty arrogant to me. You've hit the nail on the head, and I think is exactly what Moore wanted all along. Those of us weaned on superhero comics with our Lex Luthors and our Reed Richardses and our Doctor Dooms and our Brainiacs take this concept of "the Smartest Man in the World" at face value. We say, hey, here is a bona fide supergenius. But is he? What is it that makes him the smartest? Did he bill himself as such from the very beginning, or did some journalist dub him thus? Does being literally the Smartest Man in the World give him an edge when it comes to morality or ethics? No, of course it doesn't. }} Veidt was right because he was the smartest man in the world, not }} because he was lucky; he had a plan for the next 60 years. No, Veidt was lucky. And that luck may well be undone. Note -- as some of us went over after the initial run of the series -- that Veidt's plan has a *very* good chance of being undone at the end. Once Seymour pulls Rorschach's journal out of that pile, all bets are off. ----- From: djo@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 3 Nov 89 21:05:56 GMT JM the B writeth: It's certainly the case that Moore wants us to speculate about whether the Comedian assassinated Kennedy. And WE Jones The Ronin respondeth: Well I think the clincher is one of the watchmen poster we see the comedian holding a rifle over a parade. To which this blattidaean would add: Remember the bit about the two reporters found dead in the garage? That was clearly intended to be Woodstein. It's fairly clear (to moi) that Moore was setting up the Comedian as Tricky's personal hatchet man, in the grislier sense of the word. Remember what the campaign nastinesses in '72 were called? "Dirty tricks." Just the sort of thing you'd expect a Comedian to be involved in. (One might add, in fact, that there seems to be a parallel between the Comedian and Liddy, but that may be stretching things *too* far, even for the "everything means something in WATCHMEN" game. Two other data: 1) *EVERYONE* who was (say) 7 or older in 1963 remembers where he was when Kennedy was shot -- or, at least, when they heard about it. Most of my friends can tell you what class they were in, what teacher, whether the teacher announced it or an administrator burst into the classroom in tears or it came over the P.A.... 2) Nixon was in Dallas the day before Kennedy bought the farm there. Some left-wing conspiracy theorists have made a great deal out of this, suggesting that Nixon was involved. Nixon himself says, in his autobiography: Months later, [J. Edgar] Hoover told me that Oswald's wife had disclosed that Oswald had been planning to kill me when I visited Dallas and that only with great difficulty had she managed to keep him in the house to prevent him from doing so. Which, of course, proves nothing; but there it is... Anyway, Moore, as a left-wing scholarly type, is probably aware of both these facts. ----- From: marc@cpsc.UCalgary.CA (Marc Schroeder) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 4 Nov 89 01:09:12 GMT Did The Comedian kill Kennedy? Well, I guess (judging from the quotes in <5871@shlump.nac.dec.com>) it's POSSIBLE.. But not guaranteed. It could simply be his odd sense of humour, instead of the mind of a braggart killer, that cause him to say this. I guess we'll never know. One thing, however. Watchmen is STILL the best comic I have *EVER* read (As opposed to the best comic currently in PRINT -- Grendel). ----- From: marc@cpsc.UCalgary.CA (Marc Schroeder) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 4 Nov 89 01:15:19 GMT Veidt could (I GUESS) be homosexual. But there's a letter to one of the old Minutemen (I can't remember which) which quite obviously (I believe) hints that Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were gay lovers. (I hope no one's allready mentionned this :-) ).. ----- From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 5 Nov 89 01:18:18 GMT In article <1989Nov4.095714.1582@agate.berkeley.edu>, 193pai@snowy.qal.berkeley.edu (Margaret S. Pai) writes... > And I begin to wonder about this "Smartest Man" deal. That in itself > sounds pretty arrogant to me. In article <5935@shlump.nac.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) writes: >You've hit the nail on the head, and I think is exactly what Moore wanted >all along. Those of us weaned on superhero comics with our Lex Luthors >and our Reed Richardses and our Doctor Dooms and our Brainiacs take this >concept of "the Smartest Man in the World" at face value. We say, hey, >here is a bona fide supergenius. But is he? What is it that makes him >the smartest? Did he bill himself as such from the very beginning, or >did some journalist dub him thus? Does being literally the Smartest Man >in the World give him an edge when it comes to morality or ethics? No, >of course it doesn't. I concur in both posters' skepticism. I was always very suspicious of Veidt's claims that his mediocre grades in school were a deliberate attempt to avert undue attention. Though I have no doubt that he *does* remember it that way.... -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com FROM THE FOOL FILE: "Women's wages are 56% of men's -- but that's not necessarily evidence of discrimination in employment." -- Clayton Cramer in news.groups and soc.women ----- From: cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 3 Nov 89 20:24:28 GMT In article wjones@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Wendell E Jones) writes: > **} #9, p. 20, center panal: "Just don't ask where I was when I heard about > **} J.F.K." > > Well I think the clincher is one of the watchmen poster we > see the comedian holding a rifle over a parade. Oh! I see! We're talking about the Latin American dictator Jose' Fernandez de Kennedy! Gee, I thought it was *John Fitzgerald* Kennedy he was rumored to have killed. "Never mind." ----- From: shippert@tybalt.caltech.edu (Tim Shippert) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 5 Nov 89 02:13:10 GMT In article <2136@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >In <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: >> We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the >>villain or the hero of the book? > >> If you feel that he was the hero, you've condoned the murder of >>millions in New York. > >> If you feel that he was the villain, you've condemned the Earth to >>death by nuclear holocaust-- billions of people. > >He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt >got rid of Dr. Manhattan. In an odd sort of way I agree partially with this. I for one do not believe nuclear war is inevitable. Even given the deteriorating world situation presented in _Watchmen_ it seems to me that it would be possible to pull away from the edge. After all, we have had really hairy international crises before and come away without nuking the living shit out of the planet. In some cases, both superpowers have shown a remarkable ability to accept and deal with bizzare anomolies (i.e. Cuba near the U.S., West Berlin in the GDR, etc.) in their spheres of influence without resorting to uncontrollable escalation. I am not convinced that _any_ crisis you can imagine will lead _inevitably_ to nuclear devastation. On the other hand, I certainly believe a nuclear war is possible. It is probably not totally wrong to attribute our continued existence to dumb luck. So I feel the real question you have to think about when deciding on the ethical nature of Veidt is: Is it right to kill millions of New Yorkers to prevent the _possible_ deaths of billions in a nuclear war? I personally disagree with Veidt's methods because I don't believe even the "Smartest Man in the World" can predict the future well enough to be fit to make such a decision. ----- From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 5 Nov 89 14:13:05 GMT caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <2136@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt >>got rid of Dr. Manhattan. >It's not that simple. Dr. M, by his very presence, had dangerously >tipped the balance of power to put the Russians in a desparate position >(remember the US invasion of Afghanistan). Veidt's analysis-- probably >correct, from what we saw of where things were headed-- was that the >world would be on the brink soon enough anyway. The Comedian had >basically arrived at the same conclusion. Hmmm? I have a real hard time with this. Can you (a) lay out Veidts analysis for us, and (b) show it from the book? >Veidt simply accelerated the process and triggered a crisis that he was >able to stage manage, rather than trying to deal with the "natural" >course of events, which even he could not have completely predicted. Disagree radically. Veidt *deliberately* pushed the world to the brink, then risked everything on how people would react? Nooo, too many unknowns: How about the Soviet Premier gets a heart attack, and his successor ways "Look, Manhattens gone and Manhatten's been destroyed by an alien. Now is the time to attack -- they're weaker than they've ever been." Result: nuclear war. What if Dr. M decided to simply stay and tell the truth? Result: no net change. Or what if, as we actually see happening, Rorsharks diary is found and the entire conspiracy is unmasked? Result: Veidt has removed the stabilizing presence of Dr. M, and otherwise we're back where we started. The world was in a bad place all right, but Veidt made it much much worse while attempting to fix it. The crisis was there, but Veidt removed the stabilizing influence. As long as Dr. M was around, there wasn't going to be a nuclear war. The crisis was not Dr. M. It was how he was being used. >I'll grant you that it's not the most morally defensible position, but >it's plain that he wasn't simply a villain. It's not defensible in any way. Veidt decided to kill many (millions?) and risk the world based on his own egoism. How about he tries a more reasonable approach: Clearly Dr. M is the keystone. Go to Dr. M, let him know the situation. Suggest he inform Nixon on the quiet that he will not support expansionism. Veidt, as the smartest man in the world (the sarcasm lamp is now lit) should be persuasive enough to do this. Result: Dr. M is standing down *all* agression, world becomes safest place of all. Veidt couldn't think of this? Veidt felt unconfident in doing it? Pshaw. It didn't match Veidts ego, that all. Veidt wanted a situation where he could stand in front of his TVs and scream "I did it!". Not one where he'd have to say 'we did it'. To forestall the arguements on his not trusting anyone else: if he didn't, he wouldn't have left Dan and Laurie alive. Change of topic: it's pretty sad that the best threads we've had lately (the Black Freighter, Veidt: Hero/Villan, Veidt: Homo/Hetero) are analysing a book that finished up long ago. Also, kudos to whoever recognised the physical symmetry of issue 5. Leafing backwards and forwards it's stunning. ----- From: operator@marque.mu.edu Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 6 Nov 89 02:39:16 GMT In article <19792@brunix.UUCP> cs127050@cs.brown.edu (Garrett Fitzgerald) writes: >Margaret Pai made some detailed comments about the unbelievability of Veidt's >solution to the problem of world peace. This may be a cheap cop-out, but-- >IT'S NOT OUR WORLD! It seems to be much drearier, in general. In a world where >super-humans walked among us, and alien invasion was a definite possibility, >who knows? I disagree. It seemed to me that Moore made the world of the book as similar as he could to our world, with the exception of the existance of "super-heroes" (only 1 real super-human). All, or most, of the differences were CAUSED by the existance of the superheroes, or vigilantes. I got the impression that the world was so dreary because 1) that's all we were shown, and 2) The world was so close to WWIII. The political situation was caused for the most part by Dr. M. (somewhat apparently by the Comedian). But if you think about it, if someone (the smartest person in the world?) somehow created a moster and did what happened in the book, what WOULD we think? Welll, ok, my first guess would not be an alien from another dimension, but who knows. If you're saying that making a monster and teleporting it would be impossible anyway, they had the "Dr. Manhattan spinoff technology" or whatever. >Campus Crusade for Cthulhu--when you're tired of the lesser of two evils. >cs127050@cs.brown.edu ----- From: moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (The Napoleon of Crime) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 6 Nov 89 05:11:36 GMT The point WATCHMEN so nicely expresses is that "heroes" and "villains" are absolutes, like good and evil; human actions generally fall within both provinces (often at the same time). What made Veidt stand out is the scope of his actions, rather than their motivation or moral coloring. ----- From: sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Stephen White) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 6 Nov 89 19:09:33 GMT In article <4368@itivax.iti.org> scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > >Disagree radically. Veidt *deliberately* pushed the world to the brink, >then risked everything on how people would react? Nooo, too many unknowns: > >How about the Soviet Premier gets a heart attack, and his successor ways >"Look, Manhattens gone and Manhatten's been destroyed by an alien. Now >is the time to attack -- they're weaker than they've ever been." Result: >nuclear war. > Do you really think that this type of reasoning is used in international politics? Do you think the U.S. was _more_ likely to make military advances after Chernobyl? On the contrary, I'm of the belief that it was partially this tragedy which warmed U.S.-Soviet relations slightly, and allowed Glasnost to be more widely accepted in the U.S. Please don't flame me for comparing "this reality" to Watchmen reality; I realize they're different, and note also that I'm an admitted neophyte when it comes to geopolitics, so this is my own (grossly oversimplified) interpretation. ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 6 Nov 89 20:11:35 GMT Well, after careful review of the materials at hand, I can only conclude that I dunno. All we know about Veidt is what he chose to tell us, via the _Nova_Express_ interview and his long mono- logue to his dead (or were they only dying at the time?) ser- vants. I can't imagine him telling lies to dead people (who, after all, tell no tales), but who knows (1) what Veidt says is truth and (2) how much Veidt buys into Egyptian ideas of death? But overall, this is an interesting point: while he claims to be the most open of the crowd (having gone public first, etc.), Veidt does in fact have great control over information about himself, and he emerges as the character that we (the reader) know the least about. If we postulate that he is gay, this would make sense. Consider it an elaborate way for him to stay in the closet. Since the net effect of having superheroes has been to maintain the right-wing power elite, the pressure for Veidt to stay in the closet would be great. Veidt didn't have to be gay to admire Alexander the Great, though he (Alexander) shows up frequently on lists of famous gay people (Ozymandias doesn't, though). Veidt's interest in Hooded Justice and comforting of Captain Met- ropolis are more provocative, as is the purple triangle in the "Fearful Symmetry" issue. While the pink triangle used by gay groups today was Hitler's idea of a gay color, historically and in a number of different cultures, purple is considered the gay color. (I have no idea why, though some suggest that lavender---pink mixed with blue---suggests androgyny.) All in all, though, I still contend that nobody but Veidt could possibly be good enough for Veidt. :-) "Run for . . . the shadows. But the shadows . . . are so very far away." (20) ::::.-----.:::::<_Jym_>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::/ | \::::.-----.::::::::::::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer :::::::: ::/ | \::/ o o \::::::: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu :::::::: ::\ /|\ /::\ \___/ /::::::::: Berserkeley, California :::::::: :::\ / | \ /::::`-----'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::`-----'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: P.S.: "In defense of Alexander the Great" does smack of homophob- ia, but I'll give Mr. Grant the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he was defending Alexander from historical inaccuracy. It is quite true that lists of famous gay people almost always list bisexuals, and rarely acknowledge that throughout most of history people didn't even use labels for other's sexual orientations. ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 6 Nov 89 20:30:29 GMT The Comedian was watching Nixon in Dallas that day. He didn't kill Kennedy, but I'd bet the farm that he killed Woodward and Bernstein. (Reasoning: In the parallel universe, the only differences are those resulting from superheroes. There are different fashions, different technologies, and different weather patterns (a result of the different technologies, and the reason there's been famine in India), but presumably none of these would kill Woodward and Bernstein.) The Comedian would, though. (Fun facts. Nixon really *was* in Dallas that day, JFK really *was* going to read a speech about "the watchmen," and George Bush really *was* going to have lunch with John Hinckley's brother the day Hinckley shot Reagan.) Kennedy's murderer is revealed in _V_for_Vendetta_. V sez, "Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste." As we all know, this is the person who killed both JFK and RFK. :-) :-) :-) ----- From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) Subject: "Adrian Veidt, Super-Genius. I like the sound of that..." Date: 6 Nov 89 20:25:35 GMT In article <4368@itivax.iti.org> scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >>In article <2136@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>>He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt >>>got rid of Dr. Manhattan. >>It's not that simple. Dr. M, by his very presence, had dangerously >>tipped the balance of power to put the Russians in a desparate position >>(remember the US invasion of Afghanistan). Veidt's analysis-- probably >>correct, from what we saw of where things were headed-- was that the >>world would be on the brink soon enough anyway. The Comedian had >>basically arrived at the same conclusion. >Hmmm? I have a real hard time with this. Can you (a) lay out Veidts >analysis for us, and (b) show it from the book? Well, I don't remember the excat chapter/verse reference, but I think it would be in #11. Also, remember the Comedian's "Smartest Man on the Cinder" crack at the Crimebusters meeting. Veidt is shown thoughtfully looking at the burning map of the US; I think this is the moment when he realizes that something needs doing... >>Veidt simply accelerated the process and triggered a crisis that he was >>able to stage manage, rather than trying to deal with the "natural" >>course of events, which even he could not have completely predicted. >Disagree radically. Veidt *deliberately* pushed the world to the brink, >then risked everything on how people would react? Nooo, too many unknowns: [your scenarios deleted] >Or what if, as we actually see happening, Rorsharks diary is found and >the entire conspiracy is unmasked? Result: Veidt has removed the stabilizing >presence of Dr. M, and otherwise we're back where we started.... >The crisis was there, but Veidt removed the >stabilizing influence. As long as Dr. M was around, there wasn't going to >be a nuclear war. The crisis was not Dr. M. It was how he was being >used. You are at least right in saying that how Dr.M. is used is a big part of the problem; I just don't think there is a good use for him. Dr.M. is not a stabilizing presence. I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. A Dr.M. who was at all concerned with human affairs would possibly be a stabilizing presence; but given the direction he's drifting in-- less and less in touch with the rest of humanity-- he's either useless (Kennedy's approach-- not using him in the Cuban Missile Crisis) or dangerous (Nixon's approach-- use him as long as he doesn't bug out completely). Given that that US would have had troops on Soviet borders if the Afghanistan invasion had succeeded, I don't think the situation was what you could call stable... I'll grant you it was heavily in the US's favor, but I think the Soviets were as ready to go to a "use them or lose them" strategy as they were to remain cowed before US might, under those circumstances. I'm assuming that these were the premises of Veidt's conclusion that it was time to play his best trick. >>I'll grant you that it's not the most morally defensible position, but >>it's plain that he wasn't simply a villain. >It's not defensible in any way. Veidt decided to kill many (millions?) >and risk the world based on his own egoism. But still, while a lot of his intention was to feed his own ego, he did see a high probability of the world going over the edge if he didn't act. The notion that _only_ he could save the world was certainly wrongheaded, but still, his motives were not entirely malign. >How about he tries a more >reasonable approach: Clearly Dr. M is the keystone. Go to Dr. M, let >him know the situation. Suggest he inform Nixon on the quiet that he >will not support expansionism.... But the problem, again, is that Dr. M. has become noticeably abstracted from human affairs. He'd support expansionism or not, as long as he can look for neutrinos, if that's what he wants to do today. > It didn't match Veidts ego, that all. Veidt wanted a situation >where he could stand in front of his TVs and scream "I did it!". Granted. A very good point. >Change of topic: it's pretty sad that the best threads we've had lately (the >Black Freighter, Veidt: Hero/Villan, Veidt: Homo/Hetero) are analysing a book >that finished up long ago. How'd we wind up on this, anyway? I've forgotten now... I just had another thought: Could someone who remembers well the Outer Limits episode "Architects of Fear" (in which a fake alien is used to unite the nations of the world which are on the brink of nuclear war) see if any stills from it show up on Veidt's television sets? We know the show existed; it was in the background in Sally Jupiter's room at the nursing home, when Dan and Laurie came for a visit. Maybe his brilliant strategy to save the world is unconsciously drawn from the TV programs he watched all the time. (I'd hate to think that that one got by the combined critical/investigative eyes of the whole 'net...) ----- From: harrison@darkside.com (Harrison) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 6 Nov 89 07:20:47 GMT > From: danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) > > In two places which a friend (Chuch Gillman, U of P, no account) just showed > me in Watchmen, the Comedian makes reference, we think, to having assasinated > Kennedy. I don't play fantasy role-playing games, probably due to the lack of time on my hands, but I did buy a DC Heroes Role Playing Module featuring characters from Watchmen. There were two items in this package that caught my eye: one was an essay by Alan Moore and Ray Winninger called "The World of the Watchmen" and the other was a Watchmen Chronology. Two very interesting items appear in this timeline: the fact that John F. Kennedy was assassinated and that (in the Watchmen world, of course) Woodward and Bernstein were assassinated after uncovering evidence of the Watergate break-in. I seem to remember the Comedian making an offhand comment about "those two reporters found dead in a warehouse" during a party scene, early in the Watchmen series. The role-playing module continues to talk about The Comedian's role with President-for-life, Richard Nixon: "..The Comedian continued as a special government operative and bodyguard to Findlay South, who employed Blake's abilities to spy on his rivals and remove anyone that got between him and the presidency." You can use your imagination and decide whether The Comedian was "the second man" in the Kennedy shootings, or if he was responsible for the fate of Woodward and Bernstein ..? I'm not sure if this addition to the Watchmen series was from Alan Moore or the author of the game, Ray Winninger. If somebody would like me to mail or post the Watchmen Chronology, that can be arranged .. ----- From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 01:30:38 GMT sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Stephen White) writes: >In article <4368@itivax.iti.org> scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >> >>Disagree radically. Veidt *deliberately* pushed the world to the brink, >>then risked everything on how people would react? Nooo, too many unknowns: >> >>How about the Soviet Premier gets a heart attack, and his successor ways >>"Look, Manhattens gone and Manhatten's been destroyed by an alien. Now >>is the time to attack -- they're weaker than they've ever been." Result: >>nuclear war. >Do you really think that this type of reasoning is used in international >politics? Well, bearing in mind this is not rec.arts.comics.geopolitics, I promise to be brief. Reasoning? No. Actually happens? Yes. Sometimes massive decisions are made on whim or spur of the moment. Carpe diem, sort of. I believe that Schevernadzhe's (or however the heck you spell it) description of the plan to invade Afghanistan amounted to a few generals and Brezhnev cooking it up in secret, doing it, then (effectively) daring the Politboro to reverse them. Look at Kennedy cutting of Bay of Pigs. In a crisis, decisions get made by the leader who happens to be on the scene and are based on incomplete information. My point is not that it was *likely* that the Russians would attack, but that there were too many unpredictable things for Veidt to risk the world on one throw of the dice. If the world had actually been on the edge, it would be one thing. But Veidt *pushed* it there, and that's quite another. >Do you think the U.S. was _more_ likely to make military advances after >Chernobyl? On the contrary, I'm of the belief that it was partially >this tragedy which warmed U.S.-Soviet relations slightly, and allowed >Glasnost to be more widely accepted in the U.S. Not a good comparison. Suppose Russian troops had been in Cuba and the Chernobyl disaster took out 85% of their nuclear capability. Wouldn't that look like a ripe time to attack Cuba? But the implications of the attack are we finally have a face-to-face war with Russia, and god knows where that will escalate to. With a paranoid Nixon in the White House, would he sieze the day? I'm all too sure of it. >Please don't flame me for comparing "this reality" to Watchmen reality; I >realize they're different, and note also that I'm an admitted neophyte >when it comes to geopolitics, so this is my own (grossly oversimplified) >interpretation. My flamethrower shall remain holstered out of respect for you, sir. With the exception of a couple of chuckleheaded morons, flaming is rare in this group. Do I need a smiley? ----- From: daq@hpfcso.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) Subject: Re: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 6 Nov 89 23:07:03 GMT >The world was in a bad place all right, but Veidt made it much much worse >while attempting to fix it. The crisis was there, but Veidt removed the >stabilizing influence. As long as Dr. M was around, there wasn't going to >be a nuclear war. The crisis was not Dr. M. It was how he was being >used. Didn't one of the ending articles, "Super powers and the Superpowers", try to explain how nuclear war was considered possible even though Dr. M. was on the American side? >Change of topic: it's pretty sad that the best threads we've had lately (the >Black Freighter, Veidt: Hero/Villan, Veidt: Homo/Hetero) are analysing a book >that finished up long ago. I agree with your point. I keep trying new comics that people suggest as their favorite, but I am pretty consistently dissapointed. If only comics of Wathmen depth and quality were more common. >Also, kudos to whoever recognised the physical symmetry of issue 5. Leafing >backwards and forwards it's stunning. I never would have picked up on this myself. ----- From: dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 6 Nov 89 16:27:24 GMT In article <4368@itivax.iti.org>, scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > Or what if, as we actually see happening, Rorsharks diary is found and > the entire conspiracy is unmasked? Result: Veidt has removed the stabilizing > presence of Dr. M, and otherwise we're back where we started. Jerry also pointed out that "all bets are off" in that case. Just for arguments sake, I would like to point out: a) The "New Frontiersman" did not seem to present a very popular point of view. It certainly wasn't taken as seriously as, say, The Times. b) The journal is Rorschach's; not exactly a highly accepted public figure. c) Rorschach's journal was mailed *before* he got all the facts. When it was sent, it contained suspicions of a "mask-killer", and said that Veidt himself might be this "mask-killer." Personally, I don't think that "New Frontiersman" will make a connection between mask- killer-Veidt and teleporting-aliens-Veidt. As I say, just fuel for the fire. ----- From: mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (ryan d mathews) Subject: Watchmen's Nixon (was Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the comedian kill Kennedy?) Date: 7 Nov 89 05:32:53 GMT In article <2b30286b7@darkside.com> harrison@darkside.com (Harrison) writes: >The role-playing module continues to talk >about The Comedian's role with President-for-life, Richard Nixon: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > - harrison President-for-life?? Yeesh! Could someone tell where, if anywhere, in Watchmen it explains how Nixon is still President? That's one thing I never quite got during the series. ----- From: justin@inmet.inmet.com Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Vill Date: 6 Nov 89 18:23:00 GMT /* Written 11:10 am Nov 3, 1989 by rsalz@bbn.com in inmet:rec.arts.comics */ /* ---------- "Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Vill" ---------- */ [...] He was a villain. The planet wasn't on the verge of destruction until Veidt got rid of Dr. Manhattan. /r$ /* End of text from inmet:rec.arts.comics */ Pat answers like that just don't work with Watchmen. It's clear that Dr. Manhattan was a time bomb waiting to erupt; if Veidt hadn't pushed him over the edge, something else would have. As it was, Veidt made the critical moves in a controlled (or so he believed, possibly justifiably) way, so that he could ease (well, maybe not the best choice of word) the world out of the crisis that would inevitably ensue when Dr. M split. Which doesn't necessarily justify what Veidt did. My point is, *he* truly believed that what he was doing was necessary, in order for the world to survive the next few years... ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 07:54:54 GMT In article <580@unix386.Convergent.COM>, dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran) writes... } Jerry also pointed out that "all bets are off" in that case. Just } for arguments sake, I would like to point out: } a) The "New Frontiersman" did not seem to present a very popular point } of view. It certainly wasn't taken as seriously as, say, The Times. } b) The journal is Rorschach's; not exactly a highly accepted public figure. } c) Rorschach's journal was mailed *before* he got all the facts. When } it was sent, it contained suspicions of a "mask-killer", and said } that Veidt himself might be this "mask-killer." Personally, I don't } think that "New Frontiersman" will make a connection between mask- } killer-Veidt and teleporting-aliens-Veidt. Which is exactly why I said "all bets are off". There's no evidence that the publishing of Rorschach's journal in THE NEW FRONTIERSMAN would upset Veidt's carefully laid plans, but it's quite possible that it would cause enough doubt in the right places for someone to start a new investigation. ----- From: caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) Subject: Re: Watchmen's Nixon (was Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the comedian kill Kennedy?) Date: 7 Nov 89 11:02:12 GMT In article <12858@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> mathews@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU.UUCP (ryan d mathews) writes: >In article <2b30286b7@darkside.com> harrison@darkside.com (Harrison) writes: > >>The role-playing module continues to talk >>about The Comedian's role with President-for-life, Richard Nixon: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> - harrison > >President-for-life?? Yeesh! Could someone tell where, if anywhere, in >Watchmen it explains how Nixon is still President? That's one thing I >never quite got during the series. > Can't give chapter/verse these days, but basically Nixon, after the decisive victory in Vietnam, became so popular that he was able to repeal the amendment to the Constitution limiting the number of terms, and therefore was able to stay in office, re-elected time after time by an adoring public thrilled by the nation's military victories. This may be in the Dr.M. biography issue, or in Veidt's biography issue. Look for some mention of the Comedian's role in rescuing the Iranian hostages. ----- From: rwilley@eagle.wesleyan.edu Subject: dr manhattan and stability Date: 7 Nov 89 09:09:55 GMT I have always felt that the "removal" of Dr. Manhattan was a very dangerous and destabilizing act. International affairs are most stable when when there is an equilibrium. This manifests itself as a perceived military bias for the defense over the offense. When all the various sides in a conflict have reached some point where they can no longer expand (in turn, all important actors are capable of defending "their" territory), one has a stable world situation. World War I and II were both a result of a perceived offensive superiority. The belligerents believed they had something to gain from military action. In the world of the Watchmen, the United States was reaching the limits of its expansion even with the help of Dr Manhattan. If he were suddenly removed, the US would suddenly be seriously over extended, and one would expect that the Soviets would try to take advantage of this situation. I think that conventional or even nuclear war would be far more likely if Dr Manhattan were suddenly removed. Naturally, this is open to debate. ----- From: dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Douglas R. Oosting) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 14:46:50 GMT Well...I think a point here that should be made is that the ordinary terms of "hero" and "villian" DONT APPLY in this story...EVERY character (except Manhattan, who is totally amoral anyway) is a shade of "grey" Is the comedian a hero or a villain? Rorshach? Nite Owl II? Every one of them used questionable methods towards a goal defined as "justice" ... Im just of the opinion that the two tags dont apply here because of this very ambiguity...there IS no black and white definition of what happens in WATCHMEN. Moore didnt intend there to be. I wouldnt want to have the duty of Veidt's conscience though... [IMHO, he *could* have turned up something a bit less Machivellian] Doug [PS -- pardon any strange errors, the line noise kicks in as soon as I enter the editor...] ----- From: haste+@andrew.cmu.edu (Dani Zweig) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 16:14:39 GMT dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran): >Jerry also pointed out that "all bets are off" in that case. Just >for arguments sake, I would like to point out: >a) The "New Frontiersman" did not seem to present a very popular point > of view. It certainly wasn't taken as seriously as, say, The Times. >b) The journal is Rorschach's; not exactly a highly accepted public figure. >c) Rorschach's journal was mailed *before* he got all the facts.... There is a solid trail leading from that journal to Veidt. In particular, the journal points to the island where the 'alien' was made. A very important clue survived on that island: A painting of the alien, signed by an artist known to have disappeared not long before, and *dated* shortly before the alien's alleged first appearance. For the reasons you give, and others, it is quite possible that the trail will not be followed, or will be ignored. But it is also possible that the Comedian *will* have the last laugh. ----- Dani Zweig haste+@andrew.cmu.edu The surface of the strange, forbidden planet was roughly textured and green, much like cottage cheese gets way after the date on the lid says it is all right to buy it.--Scott Jones ----- From: peg@brunix (Pete Granger) Subject: Re: dr manhattan and stability Date: 7 Nov 89 17:21:11 GMT In article <3303@eagle.wesleyan.edu> rwilley@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes: > I have always felt that the "removal" of Dr. Manhattan was a very >dangerous and destabilizing act. Yes, that's right. From my own reading (gosh, I haven't read Watchmen in at least a year), and from what everyone here has said, it seems to me that Veidt had to push things out of equilibrium to set the stage for his final coup. He certainly wasn't trying to make things more stable. Adrian Veidt: The Smartest Man in the World...so far... What happens when someone smarter comes along and mucks with his utopia? Struggling valiantly, and finally failing, to keep my mouth shut on an issue so old it hardly merits attention... -------- Pete Granger ...!brunix!peg Grad School: It's not just a job. peg@cs.brown.edu It's an adventure. ----- From: peg@brunix (Pete Granger) Subject: Shades of Gray and Blue (more Watchmen) Date: 7 Nov 89 17:32:22 GMT In article <21182@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Douglas R. Oosting) writes: >Well...I think a point here that should be made is that the ordinary >terms of "hero" and "villian" DONT APPLY in this story...EVERY character >(except Manhattan, who is totally amoral anyway) is a shade of "grey" And Manhattan, of course, was a shade of blue. Actually, at the risk of starting YAUT (yet another useless thread), why was he blue? There are two views to be considered. Why did Moore make him blue, and why did he make himself blue? For Moore, I see two reasons. First, to emphasize his complete strangeness to humanity (blue, bald, naked, no pupils or irises). Second, because Manhattan was originally derived from Captain Atom, and the color just stuck. I suppose we could get into something about the placement of blue in the spectrum, but it isn't really near enough to the center. Or, the original poster may have had the right idea. Since no standard of morality can be applied to Manhattan, he has to fall outside of the black-grey-white scale, so he's got his own color. For Manhattan, we know that he could change shades. Presumably, since he controlled his own projection into this dimension, he could've been any color, or chosen any appearance, that he wanted, even retaining the Jon Osterman look. As he grew further and further from his humanity, it would make sense for him to take less trouble to appear human, but I would think that at first he would've wanted to appear normal. So, since "everything means something" in Watchmen, what does Manhattan's color mean? ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 21:58:37 GMT In-reply-to: haste+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 7 Nov 89 16:14:39 GMT > In particular, the journal points to the island where the > 'alien' was made. They didn't know where the island was, though. We (and Rorshach) found out that it was somewhere "on the way back from Central America" after the journal had been delivered. On the other hand, there is mention of artists and writers on an island. The _New_Frontiersman_ had already been working on a conspiracy theory regarding missing artists and writers. And if Ms. Manish's drawing is ever found . . . yikes! "And will there be blood? I like to imagine so. Yes, I rather think there will be blood. Lots of blood. Blood in extraordinary quantities." (21) ----- From: dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 7 Nov 89 18:55:02 GMT In article <5971@shlump.nac.dec.com>, boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Professor I.Q. Hi) writes: > In article <580@unix386.Convergent.COM>, dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM (Doug Moran) writes... [my points deleted] > > Which is exactly why I said "all bets are off". There's no evidence that > the publishing of Rorschach's journal in THE NEW FRONTIERSMAN would upset > Veidt's carefully laid plans, but it's quite possible that it would cause > enough doubt in the right places for someone to start a new investigation. Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant by "all bets are off." Point taken. ----- From: porges@inmet.inmet.com Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Vill Date: 7 Nov 89 21:17:00 GMT >/* Written 11:27 am Nov 6, 1989 by dougm@unix386.Convergent.COM in inmet:rec.arts.comics */ >Jerry also pointed out that "all bets are off" in that case. Just >for arguments sake, I would like to point out: >a) The "New Frontiersman" did not seem to present a very popular point >of view. It certainly wasn't taken as seriously as, say, The Times. >b) The journal is Rorschach's; not exactly a highly accepted public figure. >c) Rorschach's journal was mailed *before* he got all the facts. When >it was sent, it contained suspicions of a "mask-killer", and said >that Veidt himself might be this "mask-killer." Personally, I don't >think that "New Frontiersman" will make a connection between mask- >killer-Veidt and teleporting-aliens-Veidt. In addition, the journal may well be unreadable! When Rorschach was arrested, the police/psychiatrist's report says that there was something like a journal found, but it was in some illegible scrawl, "possibly a code." ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Secretary of the Stratosphere) Subject: Re: "Adrian Veidt, Super-Genius. I like the sound of that..." Date: 8 Nov 89 08:13:08 GMT In article <11333@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes... } I just had another thought: Could someone who remembers well the Outer } Limits episode "Architects of Fear" (in which a fake alien is used to } unite the nations of the world which are on the brink of nuclear war) } see if any stills from it show up on Veidt's television sets? We know } the show existed; it was in the background in Sally Jupiter's room at } the nursing home, when Dan and Laurie came for a visit. Maybe his } brilliant strategy to save the world is unconsciously drawn from the TV } programs he watched all the time. (I'd hate to think that that one got } by the combined critical/investigative eyes of the whole 'net...) I just checked. No, it doesn't appear in any of Veidt's screens. That doesn't really surprise me, given that the only time we see him watching his screens is well after he's put his plan in motion. I'm glad you brought this up, since the fact that it *was* playing on Sally's tv when Dan and Laurie were visiting indicates that a number of folks also watching it may well notice the connection. (Yes, this item was noticed and mentioned in the Great Watchmen Discussion here back when.) "Gentlemen, gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the WAR ROOM!" ----- From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 8 Nov 89 17:10:34 GMT dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Douglas R. Oosting) writes: >Well...I think a point here that should be made is that the ordinary >terms of "hero" and "villian" DONT APPLY in this story...EVERY character >(except Manhattan, who is totally amoral anyway) is a shade of "grey". Disagree. Dr. Manhatten, because he sees the future, is a fatalist. His fatalism has lulled him into inactivity (no, I won't get into the pre- destination/free will debate here) but that does not mean he is amoral. His epiphany, flawed tho it is, happens on Mars and precipitates his moving in a moral fashion. He struggles with Veidt even though he knows the outcome, and clearly is enjoying his foreknowledge of Veidts ultimate failure. ----- From: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU (USENET Master) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 8 Nov 89 17:37:43 GMT In article <4388@itivax.iti.org> scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >fl.EDU> >Organization: Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. >Lines: 16 > >dor@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Hey, that's ME!) writes: > >>Well...I think a point here that should be made is that the ordinary >>terms of "hero" and "villian" DONT APPLY in this story...EVERY character >>(except Manhattan, who is totally amoral anyway) is a shade of "grey". > >Disagree. Dr. Manhatten, because he sees the future, is a fatalist. His >fatalism has lulled him into inactivity (no, I won't get into the pre- >destination/free will debate here) but that does not mean he is amoral. >His epiphany, flawed tho it is, happens on Mars and precipitates his >moving in a moral fashion. He struggles with Veidt even though he >knows the outcome, and clearly is enjoying his foreknowledge of Veidts >ultimate failure. >-- Hmm. Perhaps my point was a bit mangled. My use of "amoral" was meant to indicate that Manhattan was above (at least, in his perception. Or would that be His perception?) the "normal" morals of mankind. His attitude was certainly as fatalist as only a perfect seer can manage. ("How does it end? Someone pushes a button and blows up the sun." [Oops, wrong comic!]) His actions are not spurred by any form of morality, as far as I can tell, but by destiny. [Slaughterhouse 5, by Vonnegut, has a similar fatal thrust to it] He knows that he is (is now? will be? always has been? Does Manhattan perceive time as we perceive space--all at once?) going to do this, so he does. It doesn't seem very moral to just "follow a script." This is why I state he is Amoral, not IMmoral. It (like many other definitions that are used by humans to tag other humans) just doesnt apply. Have I babbled enough now? ----- From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Possibly homosexual? Date: 8 Nov 89 17:58:19 GMT In article <41871@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cerebus@bucsf.bu.edu (Tim Miller) writes: > We've hit on the central dilemma in Watchmen-- i.e., was Veidt the >villain or the hero of the book? I know this is an old thread, but bear with me. I think it's pretty obvious that one of the central aspects of Watchmen is the ambiguity of it all - no one is "good" or "evil" or a "hero" or a "villain." There are just shades of gray, and different aspects to it. This, of course, bears a certain relationship to the themes he explored in "American Gothic" in _Swamp_Thing_. The thing that sticks in my mind most clearly is Alec's talk with the darkness in ST#50, where he's questioned about the nature of evil. He talks about one group destroying another because it was different, and was labeled as "evil." He talks about the cycle of nature, and birth from destruction, and how "good" and "evil" (in quotes since they are subjective) need each other. Duality, and the balance, is a recurring theme in Moore's writing, IMHO. With it comes ambiguity as well. ----- From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Did the Comedian kill Kennedy? Date: 8 Nov 89 18:00:48 GMT In article jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes: >Kennedy's murderer is revealed in _V_for_Vendetta_. V sez, > "Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and > taste." As we all know, this is the person who killed both > JFK and RFK. :-) :-) :-) Are you saying that Mick Jagger killerd JFK and RFK? :-) :-) :-) ----- From: cs173fba@sdcc8.ucsd.edu (Tod Kuykendall) Subject: WATCHMEN ... the future ... Date: 8 Nov 89 18:28:09 GMT The final frame of the novel is the stupid assistant from the NEW FONTIERSMEN reaching for Rorshach's journal. Now behind this we also see his smiley face shirt has a big glop of across the eye. This is the single most consistant symbol that runs through the novel that signifies that something big is going to/has happened. (The smoke over the eye of the owl craft, the pumpkin when the original night owl is killed...) This combined with Dr. M's comment that "nothing ever ends" is a pretty good indication that the truce will break up and all of Adrian's work will be undone. After this, of course, he has proved that we can all live together in peace, love and understanding and perhaps the human race will work toward that state in a true way rather than having to scared into it. In which case Adrian will have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams... after all, nothing ever ends.... *8^} -tk Rebel w/o a clue... ----- From: V100HJY8@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Watchmen ending Date: 8 Nov 89 18:45:00 GMT Just a 2-center by me: I think Moore was clearly implying at the end of the novel that Veidt's plan's were going to fail. 4 reasons: 1) Doc M's final line to Veidt about nothing being at an "end" yet. i.e it DIDN'T work out in the end because it's not over. 2) (more obvious) The fact that Rorscach's journal is about to be discovered juxtaposed with the bloody smiley of the Comedian. 3) The Newspaper headline on the penultimate page: RR for President. It meant Robert Redford here. But if I recall my history correctly, the last Actor President which WE had was considered by most people to be a Hawk rather than a Dove- especially in Moore's eyes- Bad Times are coming. 4) In a book which exploded comic cliches right and left, how could the main hero/villain (whatever)'s master plan Really work?? ----- From: jdnicoll@watyew.waterloo.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 8 Nov 89 16:14:23 GMT I suspect that Veidt has effective methods to ensure that his part in the Manhatten massacre won't get revealed soon after the end of Watchmen. The impression I got in issue twelve was that, while nuclear war had been put off for the moment, the USA suffered some unfortunate side effects from Veidt's peace. The editor of the New Frontiersman complained about censorship re the Russians, so the current regime may have a comprehensive censorship program going. After all, the President is good old Tricky himself, and he certainly used to keep enemy lists and has -no- reason to like freedom of the press. (Remember his "They won't have Nixon to kick around" speech?) The government has no benefit from Veidt's plot being blown (Governments -hate- to admit they were tricked or made a mistake.) and a fair bit to loose if it is. Nixon in issue three was willing to start WW III, but he did not seem at all enthusiasic about the idea. (Even Nixon might draw the line at causing several hundred million deaths.) Veidt, whether or not he is actually the 'World's Smartest Man'is a champion manipulator of events. Powerful businesses often contribute to political coffers to ensure future favours from the government,, and I would be very suprised if Veidt had not contributed to the Republican Party very heavily. (Perhaps that's another reason why the Republicans are still in power. Veidt may find it easier to manipulate one person that he is very familiar with, so he uses his PR expertise to King Richard in the White House.) Exosing Veidt has both short and long term bad consequences for the government, and they might just cover it up to avoid the scandal. Another consideration is that there has to be the right circumstance for a major scandal to grow out of control; look at the diffence in public rection to Watergate and the Contra arms deal. Veidt is a very popular man, as Bernie the newsvender's commoents about V. show. I don't think the public would want to listen to bad news about Veidt. Veidt may have another resource. Killing three million people in what is still ( I think) the financial center of the US should have had economic side effects. There is a good chance that the deaths included a fair number of company executives and the like, so a massive drop in the stock market is not out of the question. Veidt had both wealth and knew about the disaster before hand. He had a good chance to pick up a lot of companies for a song (And I wouldn't put it past him to have arranged a large meeting of economic VIPs near ground zero to facilitate post-death take overs.) When you control an economy, it is easy to squash enemies, real or perceived. None of this means that Veidt has perfect security, of course, but I think that he is in a very strong position, at least in the short run. I have always suspected that Osterman's final comment was just his way of pissing in Veidt's soup before Mr M. left for good. He wouldn't risk billions of death just to punish Veidt, but he didn't have to leave Veidt any peace of mind, so he didn't. The way that I think Veidt's role will be revealed in in a future autobiography. V is very egotistical. I can't imagine he would not leave at least a postmortum account of how he saved the world all by himself. James N. ----- From: danzig@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Danzig) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Vill Date: 8 Nov 89 18:38:33 GMT In article <10500046@inmet> porges@inmet.inmet.com writes: > In addition, the journal may well be unreadable! When Rorschach was >arrested, the police/psychiatrist's report says that there was something >like a journal found, but it was in some illegible scrawl, "possibly a >code." I don't have my book on me (I'm in the CS lab and not on my modem-enhanced Mac IIci), but I do remember very vividly that Rorschach says that the cops only found his rough draft. I think he made a special trip just to get the Journal (and ran into his prostitute landlord). At the end, the editor of the New Frontiersman was reading part "Burst dog stomach [or something]" Put it in the crank file! Additionally, The New Frontiersman was very sympathetic to Rorschach. I have no doubt that they would make a big deel about the Journal. Personally, I like to think that the Journal would be enough to destroy the newfound peace, but that we can't be sure what he's reaching for. It makes a nicer ending. Besides even Veidt conceded that if they told anybody about their suspicions it would undo the peace that millions died for. One of my favorite parts of Watchmen, incidentally, is where everyone gets nervous and then everything starts to fade to whit (end of #11). I must have seen that a dozen times (e.g. Crisis), but you always know that everything is going to be all right because it's to be continued next month. And it always turns out that everyone is okay, but everything is subtly (or monumentally) different. I love the contrast between the next issue of Crisis after the fade to black (...To be continued?) issue and WM #12. In Crisis, everyone is all confused and being addressed by Harbinger. In WM, Everyone is all bloody and dead. I think one of the strongest points of WM (and maybe this has more to do with Gibbons than with Moore) is that no matter how many people die, we still feel each persons death. When, again in Crisis, the White cloud thing would devour a world, it didn't really mean much. But every person in New York seemed to have a personality even in death. I remember Laurie's comments about how one couple just went to get take-out food. And also looking at the people over the clock, I can really see pain in each of their faces. I was also very moved by the pictures of the people watching Kitty Genovese. The wife clinging to her husband, the uncaring in their faces. It all seemed so real. --David Danzig "No, honey, that's just an expression. You don't actually 'blow' on it." ----- From: rawdon@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Michael Rawdon) Subject: Re: Watchmen ending Date: 8 Nov 89 20:29:03 GMT In article <8911081845.AA14837@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> V100HJY8@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU writes: >I think Moore was clearly implying at the end of the novel that Veidt's >plan's were going to fail. 4 reasons: > > {Reasons 1-3 deleted} > >4) In a book which exploded comic cliches right and left, how could the >main hero/villain (whatever)'s master plan Really work?? Well, if Veidt was a VILLAIN, then his plan *would* work, since in "traditional" comics the villain always (or nearly always) fails, If he's a HERO, on the other hand, usually, for tension, the hero's "master plan" (usually invoked to cleverly capture the villain) works, but not the way it was originally intended to, so maybe Veidt's plan will work, but in some screwy way? IMHO the whole plan was a bit screwy anyway, but it made an enjoyable story, eh, wot? ----- From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) Subject: Re: Watchmen ending Date: 8 Nov 89 23:16:06 GMT In article <8911081845.AA14837@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> V100HJY8@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU writes: }Just a 2-center by me: } }I think Moore was clearly implying at the end of the novel that Veidt's }plan's were going to fail. 4 reasons: } [good reasons deleted] } e }L nny What finally convinced me on this topic was the last three lines of Shelley's poem. (Actually, I think it's ambiguous, but...) Moore quoted: 'My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; 'Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!' Which is relevant, right? And then the poem concludes: Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. There's quite a bit of irony to Veidt's plan. In his _Nova Express_ interview, he says that he retired as a superhero because he tired of 'the whole Contac-400 approach' --i.e. treating the symptoms of societal problems without addressing the underlying causes. Yet Veidt's plan to bring about a world order does no more than cause the US and the USSR to profess friendship -- it does nothing to remedy the causes of conflict. ----- From: ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 8 Nov 89 21:59:30 GMT In article <4368@itivax.iti.org>, scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: > > >It's not that simple. Dr. M, by his very presence, had dangerously > >tipped the balance of power to put the Russians in a desparate position > >(remember the US invasion of Afghanistan). Veidt's analysis-- probably > >correct, from what we saw of where things were headed-- was that the > >world would be on the brink soon enough anyway. The Comedian had > >basically arrived at the same conclusion. Why quibble about it? Why not just ask Doc M? I mean, if you have a god walkin' around on your side, why not just ask him? It doesn't take the smartest man in the world to think of that one... "Hey, Dr. Manhattan, is there going to be a nuclear war soon?" "No." "Thanks, Jon" And go back to leading your life? I'll tell you why... EGO! Veidt WANTED to believe that he was the only one who could save the world. You can be as smart as you want, but if you have emotions in the way, it does no good. ----- From: alas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (David Alas) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Vill Date: 8 Nov 89 23:03:26 GMT In article <10500046@inmet> porges@inmet.inmet.com writes: > > > In addition, the journal may well be unreadable! When Rorschach was >arrested, the police/psychiatrist's report says that there was something >like a journal found, but it was in some illegible scrawl, "possibly a >code." > -- Don Porges > porges@inmet.inmet.com > ..uunet!inmet!porges No, because the police only found Rorschach's rough draft and notes. After he breaks out of prison, he retrieves his final draft that he kept hidden, which is the journal in the hands of the New Frontiersman ----- From: esti@tank.uchicago.edu (Paul Andrew Estin) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 9 Nov 89 03:44:18 GMT In article <1279@cb.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes: >In article <4368@itivax.iti.org>, scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >> caromero@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (C. Antonio Romero) writes: >> >> >It's not that simple. Dr. M, by his very presence, had dangerously >> >tipped the balance of power to put the Russians in a desparate position >> >(remember the US invasion of Afghanistan). Veidt's analysis-- probably >> >correct, from what we saw of where things were headed-- was that the >> >world would be on the brink soon enough anyway. The Comedian had >> >basically arrived at the same conclusion. > > Why quibble about it? Why not just ask Doc M? I mean, if you have a god >walkin' around on your side, why not just ask him? It doesn't take >smartest man in the world to think of that one... > > "Hey, Dr. Manhattan, is there going to be a nuclear war soon?" > "No." > "Thanks, Jon" Laurie: "There's gonna be a *war*? A *real* war? Oh god..." Dr. M: "I'm not sure. There's some sort of static obscuring the future, preventing any clear impression. The electromagnetic pulse of a mass warhead detonation might conceivably cause that... Beyond that, events grow even sketchier: I am standing in deep snow... I am killing someone. Their identity is uncertain." - Watchmen #9, pp. 17-18 Aside from Veidt-caused anomalies, Dr. Manhattan seemed to have clearer impressions about the past and near-future than the distant future, despite generalized claims to the contrary. So, asking him about things *too* far in the future might not be possible. - - - - - - - - - "I don't think there *is* a god, Janey. If there *is*, I'm not him." - Dr. Manhattan, Watchmen #4 ----- From: rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) Subject: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 9 Nov 89 15:34:21 GMT > The final frame of the novel is the stupid assistant from the NEW >FONTIERSMEN reaching for Rorshach's journal. Now behind this we also see >his smiley face shirt has a big glop of across the eye. This is the >single most consistant symbol that runs through the novel that signifies >that something big is going to/has happened. (The smoke over the eye of >the owl craft, the pumpkin when the original night owl is killed...) This I never did figure out what the smiley face was supposed to mean. I'm new to this newsgroup, so please excuse me if all of this stuff has been covered before, but one of the things that impressed me about Watchmen was the imagery, such as the recurring smiley-faces. The problem is, I knew full well I wasn't getting all of it, or even most of it. There were obvious things, such as dialogue in one scene corresponding to action from another, but aside from all of that, I think the only thing I noticed was the smiley face on Mars (with the debris over the right eye) just before Doc Manhattan returns to Earth. Could someone post or e-mail me a list of occurrences of the smiley face, as well as point out other recurring symbolism? In particular, what (if anything) do the following mean? The floating elephant in issue 5. The sign in issue 5 (the one that looks like two b's over an x) The use of reflections in issue 5 and the Nite Owl issue (number 7) Those are the only questions I can think of so far. Like I said, I think I missed a lot. Someone asked why Doc Manhattan was blue. I don't know if this is relevant, but in issue 3 and issue 4 the phrase "tangled up" is used to describe Jon. Since I was listening to Bob Dylan while reading issue 3, I immediately thought of the Dylan song "Tangled Up in Blue". Of course, it could be a coincidence, but then Moore quoted Dylan in one of the later issues. ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: Watchmen ending Date: 10 Nov 89 00:07:31 GMT > Doc M's final line to Veidt about nothing being at an "end" yet. What he said was that nothing ever ends. That could mean that WWIII has been averted, but the world could end some other way. Case in point: the real world. Most people's fears about WWIII have been calmed thanks to a man whose smiling face bears a red stain above the right eye. But there's still the hole in the ozone, the greenhouse effect, the rise of the various diseases affecting the immune system, etc. > [T]he last Actor President which WE had was considered by most > people to be a Hawk rather than a Dove- especially in Moore's > eyes- Bad Times are coming. Redford is a liberal and a dove. I think the point here is that while the liberals probably benefit from the new political situ- ation, certain problems still remain. Like an actor mounting a successful campaign for the Presidency. ----- From: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Secretary of the Stratosphere) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 10 Nov 89 11:19:38 GMT In article <3888@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) writes... } I never did figure out what the smiley face was supposed to mean. It means whatever meaning you want to attach to it. For me, it's a motif for the Comedian's basic belief that "the Universe is laughing behind your back". } ...one of the things that impressed me about Watchmen was the imagery, } such as the recurring smiley-faces. The problem is, I knew full well I } wasn't getting all of it, or even most of it. Don't worry about it. No one gets everything right away, or even after any given number of readings. That's one of the great things about the series: that you see something new in it each time. } The sign in issue 5 (the one that looks like two b's over an x) } The use of reflections in issue 5 and the Nite Owl issue (number 7) Just about everything in #5 should be looked at in light of the title of the issue: "Fearful Symmetry". Symmetrical images abound in the issue, including the page/panel layouts. } Someone asked why Doc Manhattan was blue. I don't know if this is } relevant, but in issue 3 and issue 4 the phrase "tangled up" is used } to describe Jon. Since I was listening to Bob Dylan while reading } issue 3, I immediately thought of the Dylan song "Tangled Up in Blue". } Of course, it could be a coincidence, but then Moore quoted Dylan in } one of the later issues. Now that's one I don't think anyone brought up before. It *could* be a coincidence, but I'm inclined to think that it's another of Moore's subtlies. Some of the small things in the series -- like the various allusions -- are there to find for those who are inclined to play the game, but they are not necessarily significant. (Aside: As a number of people -- myself included -- are fond of quoting, Moore has said of the series, "Everything means something, but not everything means a lot.") So, for instance, I don't think that Dr. M's color, the use of "tangled", and the Dylan song mean anything more than just an amusing bit of word and imagery play on Moore's part. Some things are just caught by accident. For instance, the movie showing at the Utopia Theater at the end of the series was Andrei Tarkovsky's THE SACRIFICE. I hadn't seen the film at the time, and didn't take much notice of the reference, other than the suggestiveness of the title, but not long afterwards, I happened to be flipping through an old issue of CINEFANTASTIQUE that had a review of that movie, and the plot in it shares a lot of resonances with WATCHMEN. The theme of the film, and one of the sub-themes in WATCHMEN, is a line of dialogue from one of the characters (here paraphrased): "Of what value is a gift if there is no sacrifice in the giving of it?" (Yes, I did eventually -- just a few months ago, in fact -- get a copy of the film.) So don't worry if you don't get everything. Each time you pick it up, you'll find something you didn't notice before that will add to your appreciation. ----- From: ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN -- Veidt: Hero or Villain? Date: 10 Nov 89 05:59:38 GMT In article <6199@tank.uchicago.edu> esti@tank.uchicago.edu (Paul Andrew Estin) writes: >In article <1279@cb.ecn.purdue.edu> ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) writes: >> Why quibble about it? Why not just ask Doc M? I mean, if you have a god >>walkin' around on your side, why not just ask him? It doesn't take >>smartest man in the world to think of that one... > >Laurie: "There's gonna be a *war*? A *real* war? Oh god..." >Dr. M: "I'm not sure. There's some sort of static obscuring the future, > preventing any clear impression. The electromagnetic pulse of > a mass warhead detonation might conceivably cause that... > Beyond that, events grow even sketchier: I am standing in > deep snow... I am killing someone. Their identity is uncertain." >- Watchmen #9, pp. 17-18 > > Aside from Veidt-caused anomalies, Dr. Manhattan seemed to have >clearer impressions about the past and near-future than the distant future, >despite generalized claims to the contrary. So, asking him about things >*too* far in the future might not be possible. Well, it seemed that the ONLY times he couldn't see were the ones that Veidt caused. All the other times, he was totally correct. Also, AS FAR AS VEIDT KNEW he did have perfect fore-knowledge, i.e. all the predictions he had made at that time had come true. Anyway, this gets into a chicken-egg predestination argument, too bad.. ----- From: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 10 Nov 89 18:18:45 GMT boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Secretary of the Stratosphere) writes: >In article <3888@sbcs.sunysb.edu>, rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) writes... >} Someone asked why Doc Manhattan was blue. I don't know if this is >} relevant, but in issue 3 and issue 4 the phrase "tangled up" is used >} to describe Jon. Since I was listening to Bob Dylan while reading >} issue 3, I immediately thought of the Dylan song "Tangled Up in Blue". >} Of course, it could be a coincidence . . . >Now that's one I don't think anyone brought up before. It *could* be a >coincidence, but I'm inclined to think that it's another of Moore's >subtlies. Some of the small things in the series -- like the various >allusions -- are there to find for those who are inclined to play the >game, but they are not necessarily significant. Let's not write it off as amusing but not significant yet. Moore quotes Dylan for titles and some dialog (I think!); remember that Dylan wrote All Along the Watchtower ("Two Riders Were Approaching") and that most of the titles were significant. My copy of 'Blood On The Tracks' is long gone so I don't recall the full lyrics, but phrases from it like "Helped her out of a jam, I guess, but used a little too much force" sound like of applicable. Anybody whose got the full lyrics (and is a better Dylanophile than I) want to take a swat at it? >So don't worry if you don't get everything. Each time you pick it up, >you'll find something you didn't notice before that will add to your >appreciation. So true. ----- From: SCM6482@OCVAXA.OBERLIN.EDU Subject: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna Date: 12 Nov 89 00:46:00 GMT A recent article asked why Dr. Manhattan is blue. I have a theory: Dr. Manhattan is an avatar of Vishnu. For those whose lives have not yet been touched by Krishna Consciousness, :-' I should explain. According to myth, when the world is in great turmoil and chaos threatens humankind, the god Vishnu incarnates among mortals to set things right. His avatars include Krishna and Rama. They are always rendered blue in paintings. Okay, so what evidence do I have, other than the color and the setting? Well, there's that "third eye" on his forehead. (Yeah, I know, it's just a mark he made so they wouldn't make him wear a helmet, but we're talking symbolism here. There's his obvious divinity. But mostly it's his philosophy. The whole scene on Mars with Laurie reminds me of the Bhagavad-Gita, where Krishna talks Arjuna into going into battle (only with the roles switched.) There's another scene too, where Doc is making love to Laurie and also off in his lab, that reminds me of a certain legend: Krishna went dancing with a whole bunch of women, you see, and made duplicates of himself so everyone could dance with him at once, but the real Krishna was just standing aside watching. But mostly it's the attitude of detachment. Of being apart from the world, yet in it, just like Krishna told Arjuna to do. That's what convinces me. I really think Alan Moore intended the connection. Perhaps someone who knows more about Hindu mythology than myself can find further evidence. ----- From: aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) Subject: Re: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna Date: 12 Nov 89 01:24:48 GMT In article <8911120051.AA03705@jade.berkeley.edu> SCM6482@OCVAXA.OBERLIN.EDU writes: >A recent article asked why Dr. Manhattan is blue. I have a theory: I am not familiar with Dr. Manhatten. Wanna enlighten me? >blue in paintings. >Okay, so what evidence do I have, other than the color and the setting? Well, Actually, Shiva is the one with the third eye. When he gets pissed (I mean seriously pissed) its opens up and pretty much incinerates whoever was pissing him off. (ie the God of Love) Boy, wouldn't that be interesting if he was on the net. :) :) >I really think Alan Moore intended the connection. Perhaps someone who knows >more about Hindu mythology than myself can find further evidence. Can't tell ya until I read the book. I am only moderately into Hindu mythology. I know most of the stories. I like celtic mythology better, although both of these have parallels. (Whew, almost got sidetracked! :) ----- From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 12 Nov 89 21:12:03 GMT I believe the smiley face was Moore's symbol for the widespread belief in Western society that one actually improves the world simply by putting a happy face on things. ----- From: rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) Subject: Re: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna (and smiley faces) Date: 13 Nov 89 00:53:36 GMT In article <8911120051.AA03705@jade.berkeley.edu> SCM6482@OCVAXA.OBERLIN.EDU writes: >A recent article asked why Dr. Manhattan is blue. I have a theory: >Dr. Manhattan is an avatar of Vishnu. >For those whose lives have not yet been touched by Krishna Consciousness, :-' >I should explain. According to myth, when the world is in great turmoil and >chaos threatens humankind, the god Vishnu incarnates among mortals to set >things right. His avatars include Krishna and Rama. They are always rendered >blue in paintings. I don't think Moore would intend that Dr. Manhattan be a literal avatar of Vishnu. For one thing, avatars seem to be aware of their divinity, and Manhattan has been known to say "I don't think there is a God. If there is, I'm not him." (issue 4). It is very possible, perhaps likely, that Manhattan fills the function of the avatars of Hindu mythology. Dr. Manhattan is most likely Jon Osterman, and I don't see any reason to doubt it. I know very little about Hindu mythology, but wasn't there an avatar who merged with a human woman and became androgynous? I think it was Krishna. In any case, I think the poster in issue #5 is of him/her. I don't know what it means, but it is a smiley face with blood over the right eye. Having looked over back issues of Watchmen, I've noticed that many of them do have the smiley face (which I never noticed until I saw the crater on Mars.) It seems to symbolize the arbitrary, bizarre, almost malevolent nature of the universe, so I can't imagine why there would be none in the Dr. Manhattan or Rorshach origin issues! Anyway, here is my list and if anyone has found the face in issues 4 or 6 I would appreciate knowing where they are. #1. The comedian's badge #2. The same badge, when the Vietnamese woman hits the Comedian in the face with a bottle. Amazing how blood only hits that badge in one place! #3. None found so far. #4. None found so far. #5. The poster of the avatar (in the home where the man kills his children). #6. None found so far. #7. Last panel, notice the moon, owl ship, and the smoke (although I don't know how this fits in with the arbitrary nature of the universe, the rest of them do.) #8. The Jack O'Lantern in Hollis Mason's apartment. #9. The crater on Mars, toward the end. #10. Front cover (this might be reaching, but look at the reflections.) #11. Comedian's badge again (might not count, because it is actually in a flashback to events of the first issue). #12. Seymour's shirt. That's all I found. I have a theory that there is at least one in every issue, though. Can anyone add to this list? ----- From: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) Subject: Re: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna (and smiley faces) Date: 13 Nov 89 09:30:54 GMT Funny thing: the "smiley face" crater in _Watchmen_ was discovered *after* they book had been started. Once they found out about it, they *had* to put it in. I think the "Gordian Knot" piece of Mars geography was put in for the same reasons . . . "If there's one thing I despise, it's the sound of steak sobbing." (22) ----- From: captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 13 Nov 89 19:31:42 GMT In article <8972@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >I believe the smiley face was Moore's symbol for the widespread belief in >Western society that one actually improves the world simply by putting a >happy face on things. At the risk of sounding really stupid... Why do you believe that? I really don't see any basis for that from the story. ----- From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Subject: Re: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna (and smiley faces) Date: 13 Nov 89 21:57:30 GMT In article <8911120051.AA03705@jade.berkeley.edu> SCM6482@OCVAXA.OBERLIN.EDU writes: >A recent article asked why Dr. Manhattan is blue. I have a theory: >Dr. Manhattan is an avatar of Vishnu. >For those whose lives have not yet been touched by Krishna Consciousness, :-' >I should explain. According to myth, when the world is in great turmoil and >chaos threatens humankind, the god Vishnu incarnates among mortals to set >things right. His avatars include Krishna and Rama. They are always rendered >blue in paintings. True enough, though I don't think turmoil is a prerequisite to the incarnations. However, I have a hard time fitting Osterman into this. First, he was unremarkable before his apotheosis; this is not true of any other avatar. Second, he does not manifest the chief attributes of Vishnu, which are compassion and joy. In my opinion, Manhattan is blue simply because Cherenkov radiation, the only visible form of nuclear radiation, is blue. Moore may have also been making a slight tip of the blasphemy hat to Hindu conventions to underscore Manhattan's "godhood", but it's pretty obvious that he didn't intend any such extreme conclusions as yours to be drawn. In article <3919@sbcs.sunysb.edu> rmiller@sbgrad12.UUCP (Robert Miller) writes: >I don't think Moore would intend that Dr. Manhattan be a literal avatar of >Vishnu. For one thing, avatars seem to be aware of their divinity, and >Manhattan has been known to say "I don't think there is a God. If there >is, I'm not him. (issue 4). On the other hand, the Sufis say that "God is an atheist", and I'd be surprised if Moore didn't know this. I think it's reasonable to assume that Moore *did* intend to engage the philosophical issues pertaining to God through his treatment of Dr. Manhattan. His conclusion: A God, if one did exist, would be so far above us that our welfare would be of little interest to him; he would seem at best amoral, egotistical, and detached. >I know very little about Hindu mythology, but wasn't there an avatar who >merged with a human woman and became androgynous? I think it was Krishna. Krishna did indeed delight in merging with human women, particularly the Gopis, but on a rather mundane plane accessible to any functioning human male. (Though I'm sure he was better at it than any of us.) I'm not aware of any androgynous avatar of Vishnu, and to some extent such a legend seems unlikely in the highly sexually segregated Indian culture; but it may exist. >In any case, I think the poster in issue #5 is of him/her. I don't know >what it means, but it is a smiley face with blood over the right eye. No, that's Gautama Buddha, who was declared one of the ten avatars of Vishnu in a partial reconciliation of Buddhism and Hinduism. Definitely male and not an androgyne. Buddha was pleasingly plump, while Krishna was slim and virile. The obesity of Buddha is a consequence of his renunciation of fasting, a common monastic practice which he felt merely confused the mind. As for the smiling face smeared with blood, it has a number of interpretations. One of these, I stated yesterday -- it concerns the common Western idea that no matter how bad a situation may be, just put a happy face on it and it's actually better. On a deeper level, it's an expression of the positive face of nihilism. Looking at the manifest meaninglessness and absurdity of human life, one may react with nausea or with laughter. Moore seems to be endorsing the latter, though the "endorsement" is somewhat abstract and weak; perhaps it would be better to say he is paying tribute to it. The Buddha poster is one of the strongest manifestations of this. Moore also points out that this has some problems (of course! This is a treatment of nihilism, not a refutation of it!) A cognate symbol would be the toe-tapping crucifixion sing, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life", at the end of Monty Python's Life of Brian. -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Starting in a hollowed log of wood -- some thousand miles up a river, with an infinitesimal prospect of returning! I ask myself 'Why?' and the only echo is 'damned fool! ... the Devil drives!" -- Sir Richard Francis Burton in correspondence to Monckton Miles, 1863 ----- From: cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Chris Miller) Subject: Re: Shades of Gray and Blue (more Watchmen) Date: 13 Nov 89 23:18:25 GMT >From: orchard@tybalt.caltech.edu (John Orchard) > In article <6025@shlump.nac.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Secretary > of the Stratosphere) writes:>> > > In article <20030@brunix.UUCP>, peg@brunix (Pete Granger) writes... > > } Actually, at the risk of starting YAUT (yet another useless > > thread), } why was he blue? > I had always thought that Manhattan was blue as a sort of allusion > to the Hindu god Shiva the Destroyer, who is often represented as blue > in paintings. For the Hindus, this was to depict his disconnection with > anything human, to show his alienness and power. I dimmly remember from an anthropology class I took about four years ago that in Tibetan Buddhism (which has strong Hindu influences) the color blue is associated with adamantium (I guess as a concept rather than a mythical metal)-- and thus also with notions of invulnerability and power. It's not too far from that to the kind of psychological and emotional "invulnerability" and detatchment that Dr. Manhatten was experiencing . . . Interesting speculation. ----- From: zg03+@andrew.cmu.edu (Zafrir E. Gan) Subject: Re: Watchmen ending Date: 14 Nov 89 04:33:08 GMT from: jym@anableps.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) >> Doc M's final line to Veidt about nothing being at an "end" yet. >What he said was that nothing ever ends. That could mean that >WWIII has been averted, but the world could end some other way. >Case in point: the real world. Most people's fears about WWIII > have been calmed thanks to a man whose smiling face bears a red > stain above the right eye. But there's still the hole in the > ozone, the greenhouse effect, the rise of the various diseases > affecting the immune system, etc. huh? I think that he literally meant that "nothing ends." If you'll think back, one of Dr. Manhattans characteristics was his lack of understanding/care for human concerns. This includes the green house effect, world hunger, or human survival for that matter. I don't think he would view the destruction of the earth as an end. from: boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Secretary of the Stratosphere) >} I never did figure out what the smiley face was supposed to mean. >It means whatever meaning you want to attach to it. For me, it's a motif >for the Comedian's basic belief that "the Universe is laughing behind >your back". I don't think the symbol is really that abstract. The simplicity and innocence conveyed by a smiley face, and the shattering of such innocence as symbolized by a blood smear on it (that looks like a watch) in watchmen, or by a bullet hole through its center (more recent T-shirts) can be seen as one of the main themes in watchmen. from: scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) > Moore quotes >Dylan for titles and some dialog (I think!); remember that Dylan wrote >All Along the Watchtower ("Two Riders Were Approaching") and that most >of the titles were significant. My copy of 'Blood On The Tracks' is long >gone so I don't recall the full lyrics, but phrases from it like "Helped >her out of a jam, I guess, but used a little too much force" sound like >of applicable. Anybody whose got the full lyrics (and is a better >Dylanophile than I) want to take a swat at it? are you kidding me? When listening to "All along the watchtower" I could barely recognize "two riders were approaching." If you want to get the full lyrics for this song, you should listen to the Jimmy Hendrix version. As for other titles, I don't know???? ----- From: cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 14 Nov 89 17:12:45 GMT In article <15863@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) writes: > In article <8972@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > >I believe the smiley face was Moore's symbol for the widespread belief in > >Western society that one actually improves the world simply by putting a > >happy face on things. > > At the risk of sounding really stupid... Why do you believe that? I really > don't see any basis for that from the story. Actually, Veidt's whole plan embodies this belief. I have sincere doubts that this plan accomplished anything in the long run. Sure, we have a temporary detante, and Burgers 'n' Borsht stands, but the attitude of people like the guy running NEW FRONTIERSMAN hasn't changed. And I think this is why Doc M's comment at the end to Veidt how "nothing ever changes" reflects the shallowness of the change. Veidt's emulation of Alexander the Great also shows this. Cutting the Gordian Knot doesn't *solve* the problem as given, it simply redefines the problem and declares it solved. The problem wasn't to separate chariot and harness but to untangle the knot; the unspoken assumption is that the rope would be left intact at the end, for whatever reason. Similarly, the problem Veidt should have worked on was not the separation of US and USSR from deathgrips (which his solution *did* solve) but the end of the underlying differences that caused the animosities in the first place. The Comedian's use of the smiley button as a personal symbol was an ironic choice that embodies this. He (like all his "colleagues") went out and beat up criminals and declared the "crime problem" solved. He put a smiley face on an ugly business. What set him apart (and what ultimately made him so dangerous to Veidt) was that he *recognized* how superficial his actions were and would presumably have done the same for Veidt's plan. The stained smiley image is used like graffitti: a shocking image, on a placid facade, designed to make people look past the facade. ----- From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 14 Nov 89 21:10:10 GMT In article <8972@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >I believe the smiley face was Moore's symbol for the widespread belief in >Western society that one actually improves the world simply by putting a >happy face on things. In article <15863@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) writes: >At the risk of sounding really stupid... > >Why do you believe that? I really don't see any basis for that from the story. Maybe you're right. I think the other interpretation, involving the Buddha smiling blissfully down over the scene of carnage, is much more compelling. ----- From: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) Subject: Re: WATCHMEN: symbolism and imagery Date: 15 Nov 89 00:22:16 GMT In article cje@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Cthulhu's Jersey Epopt) writes: >... Similarly, the problem Veidt should >have worked on was not the separation of US and USSR from deathgrips (which his >solution *did* solve) but the end of the underlying differences that caused the >animosities in the first place. I was under the impression that in the world of Watchmen, there _were_ no underlying differences between the US and the USSR.... ----- From: magik@norby.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson) Subject: Re: Dr. Manhattan and Krishna Date: 15 Nov 89 05:14:46 GMT This thread suddenly reminded me of the scene in Watchmen where the two cops are in the apartment of the guy who had just killed his kids, then himself. Remember what they were talking about? The guy had been talking about "saving his kids from the war", and the scene kind of zooms in on this blood-spattered poster of Buddha (?) with the third eye above him. Hmmmm.... Doc Man looking over the shape of things to come? ----- From: daq@hpfcso.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) Subject: Re: Watchmen ending Date: 10 Nov 89 01:04:23 GMT > There's quite a bit of irony to Veidt's plan. In his _Nova Express_ >interview, he says that he retired as a superhero because he tired of >'the whole Contac-400 approach' --i.e. treating the symptoms of societal >problems without addressing the underlying causes. Yet Veidt's plan to >bring about a world order does no more than cause the US and the USSR to >profess friendship -- it does nothing to remedy the causes of conflict. >David Goldfarb goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer) > "Oh, no, foolish Jed, you have let out the verbal gerbils!" ---------- I really disagree with this. Throughout the book you get the feeling that Veidt had his hand in so many corporations that part of his plan was certainly to create an economic and cultural environment after his Victory. If he manages to create enough cooperation between the super powers that his economic/psychological scheme can work, then it may not matter if the super powers learn about the scheme. I am not saying this would work. All I am saying is that Veidt's scheme was not as simple as to merely create a military alliance. Certainly he realized that societies that have too many cultural differences are almost doomed to war eventually. ----- From: magik@norby.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson) Subject: More fodder for the "Everything in WATCHMEN means SOMETHING" list Date: 22 Feb 90 18:18:23 GMT I recently got a CD player and picked up the CD Bryan Ferry/Roxy Music: Street Life. This has a track on it that the Watchmen groupies may be interested in. There is a 1973 song done by Bryan Ferry, called "These Foolish Things" (off the album of the same name), with a chorus that goes like this: "Oh, how the ghost of you clings; These foolish things Remind me of you..." Anyone remember Adrian Veidt's Nostalgia ad campaign? Now, I'm not exactly sure if this is a Ferry original, or a cover he did of someone else's work. The documentation with the CD doesn't clarify it really well. But it is of definite use to those people who collect such trivia. Sorry if this has been pointed out before; our news server has been getting bozo feed for the last six months, and I'm not sure what all was covered in the Watchmen discussion. ----- From: pfeiffer@herve.cs.wisc.edu (Phil Pfeiffer) Subject: Re: More fodder for the "Everything in WATCHMEN means SOMETHING" list Date: 26 Feb 90 05:25:33 GMT In article <4201@accuvax.nwu.edu> magik@norby.acns.nwu.edu (Jeff Williamson) writes: > >I recently got a CD player and picked up the CD Bryan Ferry/Roxy Music: Street >Life. This has a track on it .... "These Foolish Things" ... with a chorus > > "Oh, how the ghost of you clings; > These foolish things > Remind me of you..." > >Anyone remember Adrian Veidt's Nostalgia ad campaign? >Now, I'm not exactly sure if this is a Ferry original ... Nice observation! I don't think it *was* pointed out. The tune is a standard. According to my sources, "These Foolish Things" (published in 1935) was written for a British musical, _Spread it Abroad_ (pub. 1935). It's been recorded by Benny Goodman (1936, w. Helen Ward vocal), the Dave Brubeck Quartet (_The Last Time We Saw Paris_), Art Pepper (_Art Pepper Today_), and probably lots and lots of other musicians. "How strange / how sweet / to find you still; These things are dear to me, They seem to bring you near to me. The scent of smould'ring leaves, the wail of steamers, Two lovers on the street who walk like dreamers. Oh, how the ghost of you clings! These Foolish Things remind me of you."