Interesting thought. Watchmen is a personal favorite of mine and I’m waiting to interview Alan Moore (a representative of his has responded, but not positively yet). Basically put, comic books necessitate some sort of standard whereby readers judge the actions of the characters in them to determine who is the hero and who is the villian. Even in Watchmen you have clear cut concepts like “good” and “evil”, though the lines between them are intentionally blurred at times, don’t you think? Doesn’t Adrian Veidt think that he is doing “good” ultimately? And wasn’t it confronting the truly evilness of “evil” that led to Rorschach’s hardening and the change in how he handled criminals? What do you think? Any additional perspectives you’d like to share?
As far as Veidt goes: well, insofar as you can really call any consequentialist or utilitarian ethical system a base for “good”…
But even then, I’m not sure that he thought what he was doing was good, ultimately. I think he thought that the results would ultimately be better than if he didn’t do so. Incidentally, though the film did change the nature of what he did, I like the way the film handled it over how the graphic novel did. I thought that the inclusion of the quasi-Lovecraftian elements in the original a little sloppy. I thought the over-all work was brilliant, of course.
Rorschach is an interesting case. He’s the only one in the entire book that seems to have some actually developed ethical system, even if it is a sort of Randian objectivism. And he was probably insane by the end, so yeah
Moore is a fascinating writer. He likes to stay in the “grey” areas quite a bit, as evidenced by some of his other work, like V for Vendetta (pardon the implicit pun) and Swamp Thing. He and Neil Gaiman are probably my favourite authors in that medium.
Interesting input there. I’ll have to take out the graphic novel again and flip through it to respond positively or negatively to what you say about Veidt. Thinking off the top of my head, think about what motivated him to do what he did. Was it not that he thought something was wrong with the world? Where there is some standard of “wrong” there must be some standard or “right”, no? Also, the reaction of Night Owl to a lot of the violence and killing. As a side note: Dr. Manhattan seems to be the resident Stoic.
You’re not one of us Watchmen purist, eh? How dare you! LOL Which cut of the film do you prefer? (The motion comic was my personal favorite, though it was about 12 hours long. Dr. Manhattan’s chapter is particularly thought provoking.
V for Vendetta was interesting. The movie was tame in comparison. That graphic novel was overflowing with anarachist thought and even overt hat tips to the devil. In fact, that was who “V” was. (Check out how he introduces himself using the words from The Rolling Stones’ song “Sympathy for the Devil”.) The story and art also served as an outlet for Moore’s disdain of religion in general (if religion were to be confined to “belief in God and morality”), and Christianity in general (note the symbol used by the ruling party). But what do you think about that brief assessment?
As for V For Vendetta: well, in Moore’s introduction, he said that he was writing it because of what he thought that Thatcher’s government was going to end up as. Hence the dystopian theocracy that you find in the book. And it was only a “Christian” society in the broadest of definitions, as I think you’ll agree. And yes – the film, though entertaining, was little like the original work. But I’m not sure whether I agree with you about Moore’s disdain for religion as you define it there. Him being an anarchist, it seems to me that his distrust or dislike of organizations in general leads him to distrust religion, rather than a dislike of the content of said religion – though of course, I could be wrong.
As for Veidt: yes, I think he did think that what he was doing would ultimately result in the “right” thing. But “good” and “bad” in a utilitarian ethical system only really mean “what provides the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people” and “what provides the least amount of pleasure for the least amount of people”. That’s why I indicated my distrust of such systems. And Dr. Manhattan as a Stoic? Possibly, but not intentionally. I thought he was an intellectually consistent Calvinist, only without the God part. :)
As for the Watchmen film, probably the 3 hr.+ directors cut (I waited to put that till last in order to get that out before my body becomes a smouldering heap of ashes to demonstrate the folly of heresy. :)).
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They’re interesting to read and it’s interesting to speculate about the ethics and morality of the characters in Watchmen. That’s one powerful thing about Moore’s Watchmen. It can get people talking. :)
Great work!
And a terrific and unique (methinks) idea for a blog about ultimate issues!
______________________________
Are these drawings your’s?
If so, you are very talented. If not, you have a good eye.
Thanks for the encouraging words, Steve!
Yep, I draw all these. Just a frustrated comic book artist who enjoys Christian apologetics and studying religions.
Well, then you’d get Watchmen, wouldn’t you…
Hey, Wright.
Interesting thought. Watchmen is a personal favorite of mine and I’m waiting to interview Alan Moore (a representative of his has responded, but not positively yet). Basically put, comic books necessitate some sort of standard whereby readers judge the actions of the characters in them to determine who is the hero and who is the villian. Even in Watchmen you have clear cut concepts like “good” and “evil”, though the lines between them are intentionally blurred at times, don’t you think? Doesn’t Adrian Veidt think that he is doing “good” ultimately? And wasn’t it confronting the truly evilness of “evil” that led to Rorschach’s hardening and the change in how he handled criminals? What do you think? Any additional perspectives you’d like to share?
Thanks!
As far as Veidt goes: well, insofar as you can really call any consequentialist or utilitarian ethical system a base for “good”…
But even then, I’m not sure that he thought what he was doing was good, ultimately. I think he thought that the results would ultimately be better than if he didn’t do so. Incidentally, though the film did change the nature of what he did, I like the way the film handled it over how the graphic novel did. I thought that the inclusion of the quasi-Lovecraftian elements in the original a little sloppy. I thought the over-all work was brilliant, of course.
Rorschach is an interesting case. He’s the only one in the entire book that seems to have some actually developed ethical system, even if it is a sort of Randian objectivism. And he was probably insane by the end, so yeah
Moore is a fascinating writer. He likes to stay in the “grey” areas quite a bit, as evidenced by some of his other work, like V for Vendetta (pardon the implicit pun) and Swamp Thing. He and Neil Gaiman are probably my favourite authors in that medium.
Interesting input there. I’ll have to take out the graphic novel again and flip through it to respond positively or negatively to what you say about Veidt. Thinking off the top of my head, think about what motivated him to do what he did. Was it not that he thought something was wrong with the world? Where there is some standard of “wrong” there must be some standard or “right”, no? Also, the reaction of Night Owl to a lot of the violence and killing. As a side note: Dr. Manhattan seems to be the resident Stoic.
You’re not one of us Watchmen purist, eh? How dare you! LOL Which cut of the film do you prefer? (The motion comic was my personal favorite, though it was about 12 hours long. Dr. Manhattan’s chapter is particularly thought provoking.
V for Vendetta was interesting. The movie was tame in comparison. That graphic novel was overflowing with anarachist thought and even overt hat tips to the devil. In fact, that was who “V” was. (Check out how he introduces himself using the words from The Rolling Stones’ song “Sympathy for the Devil”.) The story and art also served as an outlet for Moore’s disdain of religion in general (if religion were to be confined to “belief in God and morality”), and Christianity in general (note the symbol used by the ruling party). But what do you think about that brief assessment?
As for V For Vendetta: well, in Moore’s introduction, he said that he was writing it because of what he thought that Thatcher’s government was going to end up as. Hence the dystopian theocracy that you find in the book. And it was only a “Christian” society in the broadest of definitions, as I think you’ll agree. And yes – the film, though entertaining, was little like the original work. But I’m not sure whether I agree with you about Moore’s disdain for religion as you define it there. Him being an anarchist, it seems to me that his distrust or dislike of organizations in general leads him to distrust religion, rather than a dislike of the content of said religion – though of course, I could be wrong.
As for Veidt: yes, I think he did think that what he was doing would ultimately result in the “right” thing. But “good” and “bad” in a utilitarian ethical system only really mean “what provides the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people” and “what provides the least amount of pleasure for the least amount of people”. That’s why I indicated my distrust of such systems. And Dr. Manhattan as a Stoic? Possibly, but not intentionally. I thought he was an intellectually consistent Calvinist, only without the God part. :)
As for the Watchmen film, probably the 3 hr.+ directors cut (I waited to put that till last in order to get that out before my body becomes a smouldering heap of ashes to demonstrate the folly of heresy. :)).
Hahaha! I like that last line there.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. They’re interesting to read and it’s interesting to speculate about the ethics and morality of the characters in Watchmen. That’s one powerful thing about Moore’s Watchmen. It can get people talking. :)
Feel free to stop by anytime…