Subject: (urth) WATCHMEN (spoilers)

From: Alex David Groce <alex_groce at gs246.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:07:17 +0000

I finally got around to reading Moore's WATCHMEN yesterday, and this morning
got an email from a friend 2/3 through CLAW asking if the House Absolute is
the "Satan's castle."

This brought to mind a comparison I made last night.  Veidt's plan, I think,
marks him as a diabolical monster, arrogant and "evil" (not in the comic book
sense of a man who thinks of himself as evil and glories in it, but in the
sense that one might call Mao or Hitler evil).  The others who say "well, it
wasn't nice but it did the job" seem similarly tarred.  However, Severian's 
similar "renewal of the Earth" from (apparently) less immediately threatening 
circumstances kills far more people but doesn't bother me morally.  Severian
is still very much a good guy, in my book.

Does anyone else who's read WATCHMEN agree with my assessment of Veidt, and
if so, what precisely (I think I can say in general) make Severian's case so
different?  (Or, since I know there are some on the list who see things
differently, what makes Severian the same?)

Also, I'm assuming that between the TALES OF THE BLACK FREIGHTER and the 
Ozymandias comparison, Moore at least strongly implies the same judgment,
although I think it's (nicely) ambiguous.

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
--
Alex David Groce (agroce+ at cs.cmu.edu)
Ph.D. Student, Carnegie Mellon University - Computer Science Department
8112 Wean Hall (412)-268-3066
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~agroce

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Jim Henley <jlhenley at erols.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 21:03:15 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: urth-errors at lists.best.com [mailto:urth-errors at lists.best.com]On
> Behalf Of Alex David Groce
>

I completely agree. Veidt's a rotter. The rest of them are indeed culpable
for going along with it.

As for what makes Severian different? Um, excellent question! And I'd tell
you but... it would spoil the satisfaction of working it out for yourself!
Yes, that's it!

Um, actually, I can think of about three very equivocal things in
Severian's favor. I am not prepared to say they add up to a justification:

1) Severian knows he's doing "wrong" in addition to doing good. "Yes, he
[Baldanders] is a bad man, as I am and you are." (From memory, please don't
shoot me over variations.) Merits: Eh.

2) If you buttonholed random Urth citizen number 43,256 and said, "The New
Sun you wish for may come, but it will definitely mean your - and I mean
your - death," maybe most of them would say "okay." Merits: Eh. Most of the
sailors were against it, although we can suspect that many of them are from
times before the Old Sun had cooled so much as it has in - given S's
problems with temporality, let's say Agila's - time. Also, should majority
rule apply on this one anyway? I doubt it. Also, we could always ascribe
any favorable responses to "conditioning" - been raised in that faith from
birth and all that.

3) The Universe of the New Sun really works that way. That is to say, there
really is a God and it really is his plan. Merits: Good work if you can get
it.

> although I think it's (nicely) ambiguous.

The last page of Watchmen puts the line "Nothing beside remains" into my
head. It seems unlikely that Veidt's scheme will last because his deception
seems perishable. In some ways this dodges the harder question which is,
"Well, what if he _could_ have perfectly deceived everyone?" For me the
answer is easy - he's still a bastard. But that won't be true for everyone.

Note: The foregoing bloviation on matters of ethical opinion was loosed
solely because precisely that was requested. <g>

Best,

Jim
 *****************************************
"These are the days of empty kitchens"
              -- Sheryl Crow

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:47:54 +0000

A few more tidbits about Watchmen/Severian (plenty o' spoilers)

It's been pointed out in newsgroup discussions, that Veidt's plan is
particularly suspect because he gets his information about the world
by...watching television!  Perhaps Moore is saying, yeah this daft plan
could work if the real world was the world you see on TV.

Veidt has been accused of sadism, from the murder of the Commedian and his
secretary to coming up with a plan to "save the world" that requires
killing so many people.  If he were genuinely interested in saving the
world, you'd think he'd have put his energy into getting Dr. Manhattan to
step in and fix things, rather than driving him off.  

For that matter, his efforts to hide from Manhattan show his
misunderstanding of how Jon sees the future.  Jon doesn't look into the
future in order to change it.  

Does Severian even know what bringing the New Sun will do to the Urth
before he does it?  Somehow I thought he was suprised by all the
destruction it caused.  If so, he seems not at all comparable to Veidt. 

-Rostrum