{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4378", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 4378, "subject": "OT: watchmen on trial", "messages": 15, "voices": 7, "first": "2005-03-22T08:06:55+00:00", "last": "2005-04-10T01:20:41+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<56805.209.167.159.20.1111507579.squirrel@webmail.vex.net>", "from": { "name": "zvi at vex.net", "address": "zvi at vex.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T08:06:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James Wynn said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Blattid said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No. [The Watchmen is] not a \"profoundly fascist\" work. It is a profound\nwork_about_fascism. Gaaaaah." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was \"about\" fascism rather\nthan founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not\n**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre\nin \"The Watchmen\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "James, you're right: Moore was interested in exploring the fascistic\nelements in comic books and wanted show how a world with real super-hero\ntypes in it might deform and react to their presence.\n\nHowever, Moore is playing with the conventions of superhero comic books,\nwhile still being internally consistent and informed by them. (Not to\nmention being a formally powerful work with great art.) This is why both\nthe fanboys and the critics hailed Watchmen as the milestone it is. This\nis also why the two of you have this difference of opinion: seen SOLELY as\nan internally-consistent comic book story, it's a triumph of the\nubermensch -- Ozy and Dr. M do 'save the world' from itself; and the\nmorally ambiguous Comedian and Rorschach are point-of-view anti-heroes.\nSeen from the outside, it reveals the core humanity of the superhero\nbehind the mask and their weakness; as well as the way the world deforms\naround superheroes: it is the fascist NATURE of the superhero/overman that\nchanges the world so that a war comes to be that the superhero saves it\nfrom. Dr Manhattan warps the world he comes to exist in: he wins the war\nin Vietnam, he acts as a deterrent to the Russians, and he helps prop up a\n(presumably) corrupt presidency (Nixon); this agression and power leads\nthe world into a world war.\n\nWatchmen belong in the company of Disch's _The Genocides_ and Russ's _We\nWho are About To..._ and and yeah, even Wolfe's Wizard Knight (yay, got it\nback): books that twist convention and really ask the question: what if it\nREALLY happened to the world-as-we-know-it: superheroes, alien invasion,\ncrash landing on an alien planet, giants and gods and knights.\n\nWhew.\n\n--Zvi" } ] }, { "message_id": "<003401c52efd$d168ff50$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T08:41:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<56805.209.167.159.20.1111507579.squirrel@webmail.vex.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Blattid said:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "No. [The Watchmen is] not a \"profoundly fascist\" work. It is a profound\nwork_about_fascism. Gaaaaah." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was \"about\" fascism rather\nthan founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not\n**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre\nin \"The Watchmen\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James, you're right: Moore was interested in exploring the fascistic\nelements in comic books and wanted show how a world with real super-hero\ntypes in it might deform and react to their presence.\n\nHowever, Moore is playing with the conventions of superhero comic books,\nwhile still being internally consistent and informed by them....This is why \nboth\nthe fanboys and the critics hailed Watchmen as the milestone it is. This\nis also why the two of you have this difference of opinion: seen SOLELY as\nan internally-consistent comic book story, it's a triumph of the\nubermensch" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Zvi, now there are *three* interpretations of \"The Watchmen\". Perhaps \nit ought to have its own list. Nevertheless, characters do what they will \nand stories often go beyond the strict contrivance of the authors, but the \none thing every author owns is the ending. And you and I *seem* to agree \nthat the ending of \"The Watchmen\" is the triumph of the ubermensch. What \nshall I make of that?\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370503220943d5b620a@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T09:43:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<003401c52efd$d168ff50$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[T]he ending of \"The Watchmen\" is the triumph of the ubermensch. What\nshall I make of that?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, even the ending is ambiguous.\n\nIt appears, in the final panel, that Rorschach's diary - which will expose\nVeidt's manipulations - is about to be published.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<008301c52f11$81432d20$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-03-22T11:01:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f7617370503220943d5b620a@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I said:\n[T]he ending of \"The Watchmen\" is the triumph of the ubermensch. What\nshall I make of that?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To which Blattid answered:\nActually, even the ending is ambiguous.\nIt appears, in the final panel, that Rorschach's diary - which will expose\nVeidt's manipulations - is about to be published." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since my copies are inaccessible to me right now, I'll have to defer to your \nrendition of that (and I would like it if it were true).\n\nBut my memory of the ending is more of an \nIndiana-Jones-The-Ark-Gets-Lost-In-A-Warehouse type ending. I remember the \ndiary was sitting on a reporter's desk and was in the process of being lost \nor thrown away." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Iorwerth said:\nRegarding TDK, I think the British sf magazine SFX had a feature on it in\nwhich Miller was of the opinion that most of Gotham's villains were as they\nwere due to the presence of Batman; the theory put forwards by the TV\npsychologist that Batman is the locus of the chaos (since criminals define\nthemselves against him) is in fact what is going on." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I find this to be the most discouraging, most morally vapid interpretation \nof TDKR that I can imagine. If I ever read it again, in order to find any \npleasure in it, I'll have rub out the memory Miller declaring that the ONE \ntruth teller in the graphic novel was one of his trivial TV commentators.\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705032211091ac54f82@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T11:09:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<008301c52f11$81432d20$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But my memory of the ending is more of an\nIndiana-Jones-The-Ark-Gets-Lost-In-A-Warehouse type ending. I remember the\ndiary was sitting on a reporter's desk and was in the process of being lost\nor thrown away." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Close but not quite -- it's already been placed in the kook file of the\n_New Frontiersman_ (the Bircher newspaper that's published out of\none corner of That Intersection). The NF has just had its lead article\nfor the current number censored (a clear sign, btw, that all is NOT \nwell in Veidt's brave new world - prior-restraint censorship of the \npress), and the editor tells his somewhat dimwitted aid to fill it\nin with something from the kook file. We see the aide's hand \nreaching for the file, where the diary is right on top.\n\n(Incidentally, the aide is wearing a smileyface shirt, with a drip\nof borscht on the smileyface forming That Logo one last time.)\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<24.6d41ec8c.2f71ca0d@aol.com>", "from": { "name": "Gryphoncrossing at aol.com", "address": "gryphoncrossing at aol.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T11:20:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705032211091ac54f82@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nIn a message dated 3/22/2005 2:02:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, \nurth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net writes:\n\n1] I suspect, if they're there, Herbet either is commenting on them in a \nnegative way, or they're space opera tropes that have snuck in without \nanyone noticing, which can happen if no one's careful." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My first post." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHerbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of \nMessiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow them. \nIllustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as condoning those \nactions.\n \nI feel the same way about Watchmen; I found it an illustration of the \nfascist underpinnings of the ubermensch supposedly serving the masses while in fact \nbeing above them (sort of like in a socialist country). \n \nThe only fascistic works I've seen in fantasy/sf, short of The Turner \nDiaries, have been unconscious ones, or at least unacknowledged ones. There are \nmany of these in post-Tolkien fantasy fiction. The tendency of these power \nfantasies to be so popular with supposedly liberal-minded fantasy fans is \nsomething I've always found curious.\n \nI do think Wolfe's books have a touch of this but I think Wolfe is more \ninterested in exploring a tradition that stretches back so far that one can't do \nso without including much of this material. I've never found the impulse \ntoward glorifying \"superior people\" that I've seen in much fantasy fiction.\n \nJohn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f761737050322124467cb1977@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T12:44:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<24.6d41ec8c.2f71ca0d@aol.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Herbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of\nMessiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow\nthem. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correct. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as condoning\nthose actions. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Also correct. However, it is a fascist book in that it is set in a world in\nwhich the basic assumptions of facism (and especially the leader\nprinciple) all turn out to be true. It does so to critique those \nassumptions - to show how badly things would turn out if they were \ntrue - but nonetheless, in the _Dune_ universe-of-discourse, they\nare true.\n\nPerhaps the problem is that when I say it is a fascist book people \nthink I'm dissing it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I feel the same way about Watchmen; I found it an illustration of the\nfascist underpinnings of the ubermensch supposedly serving the masses\nwhile in fact being above them (sort of like in a socialist country). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bingo. \n\nIt's interesting to read this in conjunction with Moore's other, more or\nless contemporary, works, _Miracleman_ and _V for Vendetta_, which\napproach the problem of heroes and facism from very different directions.\nMoore appears to be, inna final analysis, a libertarian-anarchist type.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "You probably do not want to know what that odor is." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240AC31.8050408@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T15:37:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<1f761737050322124467cb1977@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nHerbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of\nMessiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow\nthem. \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Correct. \n\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yep. There's pretty much a complete consensus about that, from Herbert, \nO\"Reilly and beyond." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as condoning\nthose actions. \n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also correct. However, it is a fascist book in that it is set in a world in\nwhich the basic assumptions of facism (and especially the leader\nprinciple) all turn out to be true. It does so to critique those \nassumptions - to show how badly things would turn out if they were \ntrue - but nonetheless, in the _Dune_ universe-of-discourse, they\nare true.\n\nPerhaps the problem is that when I say it is a fascist book people \nthink I'm dissing it.\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You *are* likening it to one of the most notorious, evil political \nideologies that ever was, and\nlabelling it a member. It is rather understandable why 'people' would \nthink you are dissing it.\n\n\n~Maru\nWhat I'd like to hear is your take on the 'Foundation' series : )" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240B0D5.3010106@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T15:57:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<24.6d41ec8c.2f71ca0d@aol.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Gryphoncrossing at aol.com wrote:\nMy first post." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nHerbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of \nMessiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow \nthem. Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same \nas condoning those actions.\n \nI feel the same way about Watchmen; I found it an illustration of the \nfascist underpinnings of the ubermensch supposedly serving the masses \nwhile in fact being above them (sort of like in a socialist country). \n \nThe only fascistic works I've seen in fantasy/sf, short of The Turner \nDiaries, have been unconscious ones, or at least unacknowledged ones. \nThere are many of these in post-Tolkien fantasy fiction. The tendency \nof these power fantasies to be so popular with supposedly \nliberal-minded fantasy fans is something I've always found curious.\n \nI do think Wolfe's books have a touch of this but I think Wolfe is \nmore interested in exploring a tradition that stretches back so far \nthat one can't do so without including much of this material. I've \nnever found the impulse toward glorifying \"superior people\" that I've \nseen in much fantasy fiction.\n \nJohn" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Welcome.\n\nBut you are in good company when you talk about power fantasies; David \nBrin has expounded at length on just that\nthesis. My personal take is that we always uncounsciously think of \nthings 'different' and 'exotic' from our ordinary lives\nwhen we write or desire fantasy, and since it's been a long time since \nmost of us were under the yoke of aristocracy\nwe tend to romanticize it, quite aside\nfrom the archetypal appeal of it.\n\n~Maru\nhttp://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html\nhttp://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4240BB5D.6010107@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-03-22T16:42:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<4240AC31.8050408@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nPerhaps the problem is that when I say it is a fascist book people\nthink I'm dissing it.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You *are* likening it to one of the most notorious, evil political\nideologies that ever was, and\nlabelling it a member. It is rather understandable why 'people' would\nthink you are dissing it.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suppose. But what would _you_ call a book based on the premise\nthat facism is true?\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd call it didactic. I'm not that fond of books that work on\nproof-by-contradiction, (but Dune is so great in other ways\nI usually overlook it, and try to see it as part of a series.)\n\n\n~Maru\nConcise OED; Plethora: An excess of; /\"I had five dogs; a plethora of \ncanines.\"/" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050409153409.57921.qmail@web54405.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-04-09T08:34:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<4240BB5D.6010107@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I apologize if someone has already said what I'm about to say: I still have about\n160 unread posts but I wanted to point something out here before I forget it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Herbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of \nMessiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow them. \nIllustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as condoning\nthose \nactions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The problem with the Dune, I think, is that Herbert did a terrible job of\nencapsulating the themes he wanted to work with in the first book, which is the best\n(from a storytelling perspective). He wanted to debunk the messiah myth and show\nhow power ebbs and flows. From this point of view, the Fremen were not a master\nrace, just a sort of coiled spring waiting to be released. The pressures creating\ntheir stored power were religious fanaticism (unfortunately for them, it was\nartificial religion created by the Bene Gesserit), a flexible, efficient power\nstructure, and physical prowess honed by decades of hard living and fighting. Once\ntheir power was unleashed, Paul became the somewhat unwilling Emperor, but then\nthese causes were no longer present to give the Fremen their strength and they faded\nfrom the story.\nAs for the Messiah, Herbert unfortunately shot himself in the foot by making us like\nPaul so much. The revenge and retribution story is more interesting than the\nMessiah part of the story, and Paul is such a compelling character that nobody (I\nknow) was really that interested in seeing him \"debunked.\" We feel a little guilty\nseeing Paul exploit the Fremen to a certain degree by pretending to have a divine\nmandate; at the same time, we close one eye and pretend with the Fremen, because how\ncould God not hate those awful Harkonnens?\nThe one moment in the book for me in which Herbert shows that not all is well with\nthe future Emperor is when he is dealing with the Guild at the climax of the book. \nWhen they refuse to do his bidding he threatens them with the spice, which he knows\nhow to destroy:\n\"The power to destroy a thing is control over it,\" or something along those lines is\nwhat he says to them. This argument is obviously deeply cruel and, if Paul means\nwhat he says (which he might not) then he is betraying an ugly side of himself that\nwe had not previously seen.\n \n\nAbout Watchmen: Again, I apologize for repeating anything already said, but I\nwanted to chime in to agree with the person who said that in the context of the\nstory, Ozy's arguments are viewed as \"correct\" and his actions justified, but that\nviewing them from outside the story we condemn them both. I never once thought that\nOzy was meant as a persuasive tool or that Dr. Manhattan was enlightened. Those of\nyou who did think so: are you also convinced that 1984 is a propaganda piece written\nby that minister of totalitarianism George Orwell?\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<004701c53d35$f864be00$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-04-09T11:57:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<20050409153409.57921.qmail@web54405.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I never once thought that\nOzy was meant as a persuasive tool or that Dr. Manhattan was enlightened. \nThose of\nyou who did think so: are you also convinced that 1984 is a propaganda \npiece written\nby that minister of totalitarianism George Orwell?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nathan, you are coming in a late and I don't want to restart this \nconversation since I have already said that Dan'l and others have a point \n(but only if \"The Watchmen\" is deeply flawed in its storytelling). But you \nare the second person to make this analogy with \"1984\" and while I didn't \nrespond then, I'll say now that I consider this analogy flawed as well.\n\n\"1984\" is pretty obviously an intended Tragedy. If \"The Watchmen\" was meant \nas a tragedy then it was verrrrrry subtle and quite ambivalent one. Also, \nI've sense remembered that it was not Mr. Manhattan that justified Ozy's \nplan (he only murdered the only common man hero in the story), it was Night \nOwl who was the character with the primary narrative perspective. If it was \na mistake to take Night Owl's summation of Ozy's plan **at the climax of the \nstory** as the author's own, then I think it was a forgivable mistake ~ and \nI hereby absolve myself. ;-)\n\n~ Crush " } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050410000045.66295.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Nathan Spears", "address": "spearofsolomon at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-04-09T17:00:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<004701c53d35$f864be00$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"1984\" is pretty obviously an intended Tragedy. If \"The Watchmen\" was meant \nas a tragedy then it was verrrrrry subtle and quite ambivalent one. Also, \nI've sense remembered that it was not Mr. Manhattan that justified Ozy's \nplan (he only murdered the only common man hero in the story), it was Night \nOwl who was the character with the primary narrative perspective. If it was \na mistake to take Night Owl's summation of Ozy's plan **at the climax of the \nstory** as the author's own, then I think it was a forgivable mistake ~ and \nI hereby absolve myself. ;-)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't condemn you but . . . don't you read Gene Wolfe? I admit that I never\nassumed that the author was speaking through the characters because the characters\npresented such a bleak view of morality and humanity, but those are the same reasons\nI assumed Orwell wasn't speaking through O'Brien. Maybe it didn't come across as\nwell in comic book format, but if Watchmen were transcribed in prose I imagine that\nthe scenes with Ozy lecturing to those guys at his stronghold would have read much\nlike O'Brien defeating each of Winston's arguments through cold-blooded logic. The\ngreat tragedy of Watchmen is the triumph of that logic over our own humanity, just\nas it was in 1984. The arguments are different, as the regime in 1984 was pursuing\npower as its own end, but the tragedy is the same.\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<003001c53d73$ada062f0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-04-09T19:19:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<20050410000045.66295.qmail@web54409.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't condemn you but . . . don't you read Gene Wolfe? I admit that I\nnever assumed that the author was speaking through the characters\nbecause the characters presented such a bleak view of morality and\nhumanity, but those are the same reasons I assumed Orwell wasn't\nspeaking through O'Brien. Maybe it didn't come across as\nwell in comic book format, but if Watchmen were transcribed in prose I\nimagine that the scenes with Ozy lecturing to those guys at his stronghold\nwould have read much like O'Brien defeating each of Winston's\narguments through cold-blooded logic. The great tragedy of Watchmen\nis the triumph of that logic over our own humanity, just as it was in 1984.\nThe arguments are different, as the regime in 1984 was pursuing\npower as its own end, but the tragedy is the same." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, of course I do read Wolfe but he takes a *lot* of pretty obvious steps\nto signal that his narrators are unreliable. First, he tells the story in \nfirst\nperson, he sets up the narrator so that he is clearly insane, stupid,\nclearly covering some awful truth, or some combination of the three. In the\ncase of \"1984\", Winston is defeated and his arguments do not win over\nO'Brien, but Winston *does* carry on a quite adamant argument which he never\nconcedes ~ even after he betrays his sweetheart. Night Owl does not put up\nmuch of an argument to Ozy (if he put up any at all) and in the end he\nconcedes that he cannot *condemn* the argument...that it is somehow beyond\nconventional morality (just as Commissioner Gordon absolves Batman and FDR\nfor their actions, and I *still* believe that viewpoint in the \"Dark Knight\"\nseries was influential to \"The Watchmen\").\n\nDespite all this, Dan'l suggests that Moore did not intend Night Owl's\nconcession to be his own, that he intended Rorschach's diary to expose\nOzy's plan in the end. Hm...maybe. I'm not convinced, but I can see\nthat one could take that stance if he were strongly so inclined.\n\nSooooo.....the question is, how do we know when an author POV is coming\nthrough such as, say, is Silk's attitude on gun-control Wolfe's view as\nwell? Or does the revolution in Dorp reflect Wolfe's own view of the current\ntemperament of the American Judicial branch? What is Wolfe's attitude toward\nSeverian, the Hieros, and even Typhon. The last question it is difficult\nto answer because Wolfe has taken so many steps to separate himself from\nthe story. But there is even lots of room for argument in the other two for \nthe\nsame reason. I took it that Night Owl's final conclusion on Ozy's plan was\nthe one Moore would have adopted in his place because he didn't have Night\nOwl put up much of an argument against it (implying he didn't see a serious\nargument against it) and because of the point in the story at which Night\nOwl comes to that conclusion. I could be wrong. But I'm far from convinced \nthat I am.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-04-10T01:20:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) OT: watchmen on trial", "in_reply_to": "<003001c53d73$ada062f0$60a3f63f@wynnhouse>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I generally agree with Crush that we have somewhat overdiscussed the \nWatchmen, but I dug up something interesting from the archives so I thought \nI'd revisit the topic one more time. It appears that there have been \nrepeated discussions of this over the years on the list, and that the \ncomparison of Severian and Ozymandias is almost comulsory. Some links below.\n\nFor what it's worth, while I am not going to argue that there's a wrong or \nright answer on this, the intuitions of *almost* everyone who reads Watchmen \nis that Ozymandias is a villain, and that his \"answer\" is not seriously \nendorsed by Moore. So I do not think that such a reading is really out of \nline, I think it's pretty solidly there; perhaps if anything Crush is \nreading a little bit more into certain scenes (and a little less into \nothers) than most.\n\nNow, back to the old days... from a batch in 1999:\n\nMantis: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0118.shtml\nJohn Bishop: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0113.shtml\nTony Ellis: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0116.shtml\nJim Henley: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0114.shtml\nAlex David Groce: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0111.shtml\nAlex David Groce (2): http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0117.shtml" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, of course I do read Wolfe but he takes a *lot* of pretty obvious \nsteps\nto signal that his narrators are unreliable. First, he tells the story in \nfirst\nperson, he sets up the narrator so that he is clearly insane, stupid,\nclearly covering some awful truth, or some combination of the three. In the\ncase of \"1984\", Winston is defeated and his arguments do not win over\nO'Brien, but Winston *does* carry on a quite adamant argument which he \nnever\nconcedes ~ even after he betrays his sweetheart. Night Owl does not put up\nmuch of an argument to Ozy (if he put up any at all) and in the end he\nconcedes that he cannot *condemn* the argument...that it is somehow beyond\nconventional morality (just as Commissioner Gordon absolves Batman and FDR\nfor their actions, and I *still* believe that viewpoint in the \"Dark \nKnight\"\nseries was influential to \"The Watchmen\").\n\nDespite all this, Dan'l suggests that Moore did not intend Night Owl's\nconcession to be his own, that he intended Rorschach's diary to expose\nOzy's plan in the end. Hm...maybe. I'm not convinced, but I can see\nthat one could take that stance if he were strongly so inclined.\n\nSooooo.....the question is, how do we know when an author POV is coming\nthrough such as, say, is Silk's attitude on gun-control Wolfe's view as\nwell? Or does the revolution in Dorp reflect Wolfe's own view of the \ncurrent\ntemperament of the American Judicial branch? What is Wolfe's attitude \ntoward\nSeverian, the Hieros, and even Typhon. The last question it is difficult\nto answer because Wolfe has taken so many steps to separate himself from\nthe story. But there is even lots of room for argument in the other two for \nthe\nsame reason. I took it that Night Owl's final conclusion on Ozy's plan was\nthe one Moore would have adopted in his place because he didn't have Night\nOwl put up much of an argument against it (implying he didn't see a serious\nargument against it) and because of the point in the story at which Night\nOwl comes to that conclusion. I could be wrong. But I'm far from convinced \nthat I am.\n\n~ Crush\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }