Subject: (urth) OT: watchmen on trial

From: zvi at vex.net <zvi at vex.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:06:55 +0000

James Wynn said:
>Blattid said:
>>No. [The Watchmen is] not a "profoundly fascist" work. It is a profound
>>work_about_fascism. Gaaaaah.
>I'd be interested in your explanation of how it was "about" fascism rather
>than founded on it. I'm not sure how you can say Alan Moore did not
>**embrace** the most fascistic elements of the comic book superhero genre
>in "The Watchmen".

James, you're right: Moore was interested in exploring the fascistic
elements in comic books and wanted show how a world with real super-hero
types in it might deform and react to their presence.

However, Moore is playing with the conventions of superhero comic books,
while still being internally consistent and informed by them. (Not to
mention being a formally powerful work with great art.) This is why both
the fanboys and the critics hailed Watchmen as the milestone it is. This
is also why the two of you have this difference of opinion: seen SOLELY as
an internally-consistent comic book story, it's a triumph of the
ubermensch -- Ozy and Dr. M do 'save the world' from itself; and the
morally ambiguous Comedian and Rorschach are point-of-view anti-heroes.
Seen from the outside, it reveals the core humanity of the superhero
behind the mask and their weakness; as well as the way the world deforms
around superheroes: it is the fascist NATURE of the superhero/overman that
changes the world so that a war comes to be that the superhero saves it
from. Dr Manhattan warps the world he comes to exist in: he wins the war
in Vietnam, he acts as a deterrent to the Russians, and he helps prop up a
(presumably) corrupt presidency (Nixon); this agression and power leads
the world into a world war.

Watchmen belong in the company of Disch's _The Genocides_ and Russ's _We
Who are About To..._ and and yeah, even Wolfe's Wizard Knight (yay, got it
back): books that twist convention and really ask the question: what if it
REALLY happened to the world-as-we-know-it: superheroes, alien invasion,
crash landing on an alien planet, giants and gods and knights.

Whew.

--Zvi

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:41:00 +0000

>while still being internally consistent and informed by them....This is why 
>both
>ubermensch

Well, Zvi, now there are *three* interpretations of "The Watchmen". Perhaps 
it ought to have its own list. Nevertheless, characters do what they will 
and stories often go beyond the strict contrivance of the authors, but the 
one thing every author owns is the ending. And you and I *seem* to agree 
that the ending of "The Watchmen" is the triumph of the ubermensch. What 
shall I make of that?

~ Crush

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:43:06 +0000

> [T]he ending of "The Watchmen" is the triumph of the ubermensch. What
> shall I make of that?

Actually, even the ending is ambiguous.

It appears, in the final panel, that Rorschach's diary - which will expose
Veidt's manipulations - is about to be published.

--Dan'l

-- 
You probably do not want to know what that odor is.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:01:08 +0000

>>I said:

>To which Blattid answered:

Since my copies are inaccessible to me right now, I'll have to defer to your 
rendition of that (and I would like it if it were true).

But my memory of the ending is more of an 
Indiana-Jones-The-Ark-Gets-Lost-In-A-Warehouse type ending. I remember the 
diary was sitting on a reporter's desk and was in the process of being lost 
or thrown away.

>Iorwerth said:
>Regarding TDK, I think the British sf magazine SFX had a feature on it in
>which Miller was of the opinion that most of Gotham's villains were as they
>were due to the presence of Batman; the theory put forwards by the TV
>psychologist that Batman is the locus of the chaos (since criminals define
>themselves against him) is in fact what is going on.

I find this to be the most discouraging, most morally vapid interpretation 
of TDKR that I can imagine. If I ever read it again, in order to find any 
pleasure in it, I'll have rub out the memory Miller declaring that the ONE 
truth teller in the graphic novel was one of his trivial TV commentators.

~ Crush

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:09:03 +0000

> diary was sitting on a reporter's desk and was in the process of being lost

Close but not quite -- it's already been placed in the kook file of the
_New Frontiersman_ (the Bircher newspaper that's published out of
one corner of That Intersection). The NF has just had its lead article
for the current number censored (a clear sign, btw, that all is NOT 
well in Veidt's brave new world - prior-restraint censorship of the 
press), and the editor tells his somewhat dimwitted aid to fill it
in with something from the kook file. We see the aide's hand 
reaching for the file, where the diary is right on top.

(Incidentally, the aide is wearing a smileyface shirt, with a drip
of borscht on the smileyface forming That Logo one last time.)

--Dan'l

---

From: Gryphoncrossing at aol.com <gryphoncrossing at aol.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:20:59 +0000

In a message dated 3/22/2005 2:02:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net writes:

1]   I suspect, if they're there, Herbet either is commenting on them in a  
negative way, or they're space opera tropes that have snuck in without  
anyone noticing, which can happen if no one's  careful.

>>My first post.
 
Herbert's initial impulse in writing Dune was to write a criticism of  
Messiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow  them.  
Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as  condoning those 
actions.
 
I feel the same way about Watchmen; I found it an illustration of the  
fascist underpinnings of the ubermensch supposedly serving the masses while in  fact 
being above them (sort of like in a socialist country).  
 
The only fascistic works I've seen in fantasy/sf, short of The Turner  
Diaries, have been unconscious ones, or at least unacknowledged ones.   There are 
many of these in post-Tolkien fantasy fiction.  The tendency of  these power 
fantasies to be so popular with supposedly liberal-minded fantasy  fans is 
something I've always found curious.
 
I do think Wolfe's books have a touch of this but I think Wolfe is more  
interested in exploring a tradition that stretches back so far that one can't do  
so without including much of this material.  I've never found the impulse  
toward glorifying "superior people" that I've seen in much fantasy  fiction.
 
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20050322/b74c13c9/attachment.htm

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:44:12 +0000

> Messiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow

Correct. 

> Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same as condoning
> those actions. 

Also correct. However, it is a fascist book in that it is set in a world in
which the basic assumptions of facism (and especially the leader
principle) all turn out to be true. It does so to critique those 
assumptions - to show how badly things would turn out if they were 
true - but nonetheless, in the _Dune_ universe-of-discourse, they
are true.

Perhaps the problem is that when I say it is a fascist book people 
think I'm dissing it.

> fascist underpinnings of the ubermensch supposedly serving the masses
> while in fact being above them (sort of like in a socialist country).  

Bingo. 

It's interesting to read this in conjunction with Moore's other, more or
less contemporary, works, _Miracleman_ and _V for Vendetta_, which
approach the problem of heroes and facism from very different directions.
Moore appears to be, inna final analysis, a libertarian-anarchist type.

--Dan'l

---

From: maru <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:37:25 +0000

>>Messiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow
Yep. There's pretty much a complete consensus about that, from Herbert,  
O"Reilly and beyond.

>Perhaps the problem is that when I say it is a fascist book people 
You *are* likening it to one of the most notorious, evil political 
ideologies that ever was, and
labelling it a member.  It is rather understandable why 'people' would 
think you are dissing it.

~Maru
What I'd like to hear is your take on the 'Foundation' series : )

---

From: maru <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:57:14 +0000

Gryphoncrossing at aol.com wrote:

> Messiah figures, from Jesus to JFK, showing that one SHOULDN'T follow 
> them.  Illustrating their actions, in the case of Dune, isn't the same 
> as condoning those actions.
>  
> Diaries, have been unconscious ones, or at least unacknowledged ones.  
> There are many of these in post-Tolkien fantasy fiction.  The tendency 
> of these power fantasies to be so popular with supposedly 
> liberal-minded fantasy fans is something I've always found curious.
>  
> I do think Wolfe's books have a touch of this but I think Wolfe is 
> more interested in exploring a tradition that stretches back so far 
> that one can't do so without including much of this material.  I've 
> never found the impulse toward glorifying "superior people" that I've 
> seen in much fantasy fiction.
>  
> John

Welcome.

But you are in good company when you talk about power fantasies; David 
Brin has expounded at length on just that
thesis.  My personal take is that we always uncounsciously think of 
things 'different' and 'exotic' from our ordinary lives
when we write or desire fantasy, and since it's been a long time since 
most of us were under the yoke of aristocracy
we tend to romanticize it, quite aside
from the archetypal appeal of it.

~Maru
http://www.davidbrin.com/tolkienarticle1.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html

---

From: maru <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:42:08 +0000

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

>I suppose. But what would _you_ call a book based on the premise
>that facism is true?
>  
>

I'd call it didactic.  I'm not that fond of books that work on
proof-by-contradiction, (but Dune is so great in other ways
I usually overlook it, and try to see it as part of a series.)

~Maru
Concise OED; Plethora: An excess of; /"I had five dogs; a plethora of 
canines."/

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 08:34:13 +0000

I apologize if someone has already said what I'm about to say:  I still have about
160 unread posts but I wanted to point something out here before I forget it.

> those 

The problem with the Dune, I think, is that Herbert did a terrible job of
encapsulating the themes he wanted to work with in the first book, which is the best
(from a storytelling perspective).  He wanted to debunk the messiah myth and show
how power ebbs and flows.  From this point of view, the Fremen were not a master
race, just a sort of coiled spring waiting to be released.  The pressures creating
their stored power were religious fanaticism (unfortunately for them, it was
artificial religion created by the Bene Gesserit), a flexible, efficient power
structure, and physical prowess honed by decades of hard living and fighting.  Once
their power was unleashed, Paul became the somewhat unwilling Emperor, but then
these causes were no longer present to give the Fremen their strength and they faded
from the story.
As for the Messiah, Herbert unfortunately shot himself in the foot by making us like
Paul so much.  The revenge and retribution story is more interesting than the
Messiah part of the story, and Paul is such a compelling character that nobody (I
know) was really that interested in seeing him "debunked."  We feel a little guilty
seeing Paul exploit the Fremen to a certain degree by pretending to have a divine
mandate; at the same time, we close one eye and pretend with the Fremen, because how
could God not hate those awful Harkonnens?
The one moment in the book for me in which Herbert shows that not all is well with
the future Emperor is when he is dealing with the Guild at the climax of the book. 
When they refuse to do his bidding he threatens them with the spice, which he knows
how to destroy:
"The power to destroy a thing is control over it," or something along those lines is
what he says to them.  This argument is obviously deeply cruel and, if Paul means
what he says (which he might not) then he is betraying an ugly side of himself that
we had not previously seen.

About Watchmen:  Again, I apologize for repeating anything already said, but I
wanted to chime in to agree with the person who said that in the context of the
story, Ozy's arguments are viewed as "correct" and his actions justified, but that
viewing them from outside the story we condemn them both.  I never once thought that
Ozy was meant as a persuasive tool or that Dr. Manhattan was enlightened.  Those of
you who did think so: are you also convinced that 1984 is a propaganda piece written
by that minister of totalitarianism George Orwell?

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:57:28 +0000

>I never once thought that

Nathan, you are coming in a late and I don't want to restart this 
conversation since I have already said that Dan'l and others have a point 
(but only if "The Watchmen" is deeply flawed in its storytelling). But you 
are the second person to make this analogy with "1984" and while I didn't 
respond then, I'll say now that I consider this analogy flawed as well.

"1984" is pretty obviously an intended Tragedy. If "The Watchmen" was meant 
as a tragedy then it was verrrrrry subtle and quite ambivalent one. Also, 
I've sense remembered that it was not Mr. Manhattan that justified Ozy's 
plan (he only murdered the only common man hero in the story), it was Night 
Owl who was the character with the primary narrative perspective. If it was 
a mistake to take Night Owl's summation of Ozy's plan **at the climax of the 
story** as the author's own, then I think it was a forgivable mistake ~ and 
I hereby absolve myself. ;-)

~ Crush

---

From: Nathan Spears <spearofsolomon at yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 17:00:47 +0000

> I hereby absolve myself. ;-)

I don't condemn you but . . . don't you read Gene Wolfe?  I admit that I never
assumed that the author was speaking through the characters because the characters
presented such a bleak view of morality and humanity, but those are the same reasons
I assumed Orwell wasn't speaking through O'Brien.  Maybe it didn't come across as
well in comic book format, but if Watchmen were transcribed in prose I imagine that
the scenes with Ozy lecturing to those guys at his stronghold would have read much
like O'Brien defeating each of Winston's arguments through cold-blooded logic.  The
great tragedy of Watchmen is the triumph of that logic over our own humanity, just
as it was in 1984.  The arguments are different, as the regime in 1984 was pursuing
power as its own end, but the tragedy is the same.

---

From: James Wynn <thewynns at earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:19:14 +0000

>I don't condemn you but . . . don't you read Gene Wolfe?  I admit that I
>never assumed that the author was speaking through the characters
>because the characters presented such a bleak view of morality and
>humanity, but those are the same reasons I assumed Orwell wasn't
>speaking through O'Brien.  Maybe it didn't come across as
>well in comic book format, but if Watchmen were transcribed in prose I
>imagine that the scenes with Ozy lecturing to those guys at his stronghold
>would have read much like O'Brien defeating each of Winston's
>arguments through cold-blooded logic.  The great tragedy of Watchmen
>is the triumph of that logic over our own humanity, just as it was in 1984.
>The arguments are different, as the regime in 1984 was pursuing

Well, of course I do read Wolfe but he takes a *lot* of pretty obvious steps
to signal that his narrators are unreliable. First, he tells the story in 
first
person, he sets up the narrator so that he is clearly insane, stupid,
clearly covering some awful truth, or some combination of the three. In the
case of "1984", Winston is defeated and his arguments do not win over
O'Brien, but Winston *does* carry on a quite adamant argument which he never
concedes ~ even after he betrays his sweetheart. Night Owl does not put up
much of an argument to Ozy (if he put up any at all) and in the end he
concedes that he cannot *condemn* the argument...that it is somehow beyond
conventional morality (just as Commissioner Gordon absolves Batman and FDR
for their actions, and I *still* believe that viewpoint in the "Dark Knight"
series was influential to "The Watchmen").

Despite all this, Dan'l suggests that Moore did not intend Night Owl's
concession to be his own, that he intended Rorschach's diary to expose
Ozy's plan in the end. Hm...maybe. I'm not convinced, but I can see
that one could take that stance if he were strongly so inclined.

Sooooo.....the question is, how do we know when an author POV is coming
through such as, say, is Silk's attitude on gun-control Wolfe's view as
well? Or does the revolution in Dorp reflect Wolfe's own view of the current
temperament of the American Judicial branch? What is Wolfe's attitude toward
Severian, the Hieros, and even Typhon.  The last question it is difficult
to answer because Wolfe has taken so many steps to separate himself from
the story. But there is even lots of room for argument in the other two for 
the
same reason.  I took it that Night Owl's final conclusion on Ozy's plan was
the one Moore would have adopted in his place because he didn't have Night
Owl put up much of an argument against it (implying he didn't see a serious
argument against it) and because of the point in the story at which Night
Owl comes to that conclusion. I could be wrong. But I'm far from convinced 
that I am.

~ Crush

---

From: Chris <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 01:20:41 +0000

I generally agree with Crush that we have somewhat overdiscussed the 
Watchmen, but I dug up something interesting from the archives so I thought 
I'd revisit the topic one more time. It appears that there have been 
repeated discussions of this over the years on the list, and that the 
comparison of Severian and Ozymandias is almost comulsory. Some links below.

For what it's worth, while I am not going to argue that there's a wrong or 
right answer on this, the intuitions of *almost* everyone who reads Watchmen 
is that Ozymandias is a villain, and that his "answer" is not seriously 
endorsed by Moore. So I do not think that such a reading is really out of 
line, I think it's pretty solidly there; perhaps if anything Crush is 
reading a little bit more into certain scenes (and a little less into 
others) than most.

Now, back to the old days... from a batch in 1999:

Mantis: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0118.shtml
John Bishop: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0113.shtml
Tony Ellis: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0116.shtml
Jim Henley: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0114.shtml
Alex David Groce: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0111.shtml
Alex David Groce (2): http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0117.shtml

>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net