Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Questions on the Watchmen

154 views
Skip to first unread message

James M.C. Chen

unread,
Nov 28, 1986, 9:05:58 PM11/28/86
to

WM#7 like its predecessor WM#6 does little to advance the
answers to the central questions in this series. Namely:

Who killed the Comedian?

What were the motives, passion or profit?
If the killer was merely the agent of some hidden
group or individual (Is this the meaning of "At
Midnight All the Agents"?) what did they want from
this murder?

If he killed for just himself, why?

What were the means and why were they chosen?
The evidence suggests the Comedian was beaten to death
by one of more persons. In fact, the flashbacks, if
we believe them, tell us he was killed by one man.
The idea of killing a man with one's bare hands, especially
someone like the Comedian known to be able to defend
himself, is a particularly bad one. There are too
many things that could go wrong. You'd never find real
world terrorists or murderers doing it unless they
have the victim in some basement somewhere and can gang up
on him. More likely, they'd smash into his apartment
with guns blazing. So, why was the Comedian beaten to death?
Why, for instance, wasn't he shot?

Was this crime planned in detail and so had a reason
for this particular mode over others? Or was this an
impulsive murder where the killer trusted to his own martial
prowess and the element of surprise? If the crime was one
of passion then we can understand why no weapon was used.
If the crime was one of profit then what was to be
gained by taking such a risk?

There are two clear effects arising from the method
chosen. One, the set of possible killers is severely
restricted. Two, it is more reminiscent of an enraged
husband's revenge against his wife's lover than of an
assassin; the sheer violence suggests more passion
than profit. We know it succeeded in confusing the two
detectives as to whether the crime was for gain or pleasure.
Another result of the unusual means was to lure Rorschach.
Was this intended? Did he/they want Rorschach to investigated?
If so why?

Also, was the murder committed as we think it to be, i.e.,
a simple, violent beating? Perhaps, the Comedian was soften
up first and made an easier target; say, given some drug to
impair his fighting ability. This would require the killer
or an assistant to get close and administer the drug to the
Comedian somehow. A more complicated scheme than before.

How was the opportunity achieved?
Did the killer just wait for the Comedian to come home,
put his feet up, and relax so as to catch him off-guard?
(Remember the previews of the Comedian apparently in
the act of assassinating someone? Perhaps we will yet
see it when the murder is reconstructed.)

Was he trying to kill the Comedian or Edward Blake? If
Blake then the whole masked killer theory is shot, but
if the Comedian then how did he know Blake was the Comedian?
Did someone tell him? Who? Did he discover it from
stalking Blake/Comedian? Or maybe he didn't know; he
just killed whoever was in such and such apartment.
(Does anyone know what apartment Blake lived in? I
couldn't find it.)

What is going to happen to the world?
Remember Moore's trying to show what the world might be if
superheroes existed.

Will there be a world war?
If not then how will it be averted? If so will people
resolve it themselves or will they look to a savior?
Perhaps Dr. Manhattan will descend from heaven like a
Messiah and save the world. Everyone will be so grateful
they'd welcome him back, revoke the Keene Act, etc..
But then again, the prime source of world instability
has always been Dr. Manhattan himself. So nothing will
really have changed. Then again he could come back as a
dictator and rule the world. A most unlikely and
unappealing outcome.

What will be the final relationship between the world and its
heroes--both super and normal?
Will there be no heroes with all of them retired or dead?
Or will the heroes win acceptance, even be welcome, leading
to a new generation of heroes? Can the world ever live
with heroes?

Implicit in my comments so far is the idea that a world
with superheroes should be essentially the same as ours.
But, of course, there is no reason for this prejudice.
Perhaps, the world should make use of the opportunities
opened by the powers of a Dr. Manhattan and really strive
to attain the impossible. Starships, time machines,
colonies in space, star-spanning empires, huge cities
underground or in the oceans, . . . , anything and
everything. Why not?

Alan Moore's premise has been that a world with superheroes
will be different from ours. He shows it using some of the powers of
its heroes and restraining others. The effect has been a world still
basically like ours, but on the verge of change. Will he follow his
premise to its logical conclusion? Or will he cop out in the end and
offer us a romantic, but far-fetched conclusion a la Skizz?

While WM#7 is not pivotal in the series, it does add to our
understanding of the characters, as well as, giving us some
interesting questions. Going back to WM#1.19.5, Rorschach states
that "MothMan's in an asylum up in Maine." While in UNDER THE HOOD,
Hollis Mason said that MothMan is now institutionalized he doesn't
reveal where. So how did Rorschach know? I thought at first it must
be from Dreiberg since, as several people have pointed out, Dreiberg
mentions visiting MothMan in his article "Blood from the Shoulder of
Pallas." I thought he must have told Rorschach as they were partners
once. This can't be though. If you check the dates, you'd see that
Rorschach must have parted from OwlMan about 1977 at the time of the
Keene Act. The article was published in 1983 some six years later.
In the paragraph where Dreiberg mentions Maine, he said the visit was
"comparatively recently." Even allowing some time between writing and
publication, it isn't likely Dreiberg could have told Rorschach. It's
still possible, but no longer probable. So, the question is
unanswered. How did Rorschach know?

Another discrepancy I noticed was that in WM#6.18.1 Rorschach
says the kidnapping which changed him happened in 1975. In WM#2.18.3,
the Comedian says the kidnapping took place three years ago. Since he
said this during the riots leading to the Keene Act that means,
according to the Comedian, it was 1974 when Rorschach went crazy. A
discrepancy of one year.

This leads me to speculate on the relationship between the
Minutemen and the Watchmen. I know there was some objection to
calling them "Watchmen" since they don't call themselves that; but, I
think this objection is wrong since Moore clearly intends for us to
refer to them as the "Watchmen." Why else was the name of the old
masked hero group the "Minutemen"? The similarity is too close to be
coincidence, especially from a work where there are no coincidences.
However, does the resemblances between the two groups end with their
names? Does it go deeper?

It is difficult to compare the Minutemen with the Watchmen
because the two groups have different membership numbers. There are 8
Minutemen and only 6 Watchmen. So let us first set up a
correspondence between the Minutemen and the Crimebusters. The
formation of the Crimebusters was never consummated. I therefore take
the members of this group to be simply those people at the first and
only meeting. Thus:

MINUTEMEN CRIMEBUSTERS

Hooded Justice Dr. Manhattan
Owl Man I Owl Man II
Silk Spectre I Silk Spectre II
Captain Metropolis Captain Metropolis
Moth Man Rorschach
Dollar Bill Ozymandias
Silhouette Jan Slater
Comedian Comedian

I think most of the correspondences are obvious.

Hooded Justice <--> Dr. Manhattan is because both are unknown
quantities, almost inhuman;
Owl Man I <--> Owl Man II both are affable and public-spirited;
Silk Spectre I <--> Silk Spectre II both are followers, recall both
were pushed into their careers and how both tend to lean on men
(Spectre I -- Hooded Justice & Laurence Schexnayder,
Spectre II -- Dr. Manhattan & Dan Dreiberg);
Moth Man <--> Rorschach both use gimmicks, MothMan's wings and
Rorschach's mask, and both are insane (Any ideas what drove
MothMan crazy?);
Dollar Bill <--> Ozymandias both are athletic and reportedly
likable. (I don't care what Ozymandias might really be in
his heart of hearts, by all accounts he's a nice guy.)
and
Silhouette <--> Jan Slater. This is admittedly pretty weak,
but they're the only ones left.

The point of this exercise is to establish its plausibility. Going
over to the Minutemen vs. Watchmen.

MINUTEMEN WATCHMEN

Hooded Justice Dr. Manhattan
Owl Man I Owl Man II
Silk Spectre I Silk Spectre II
Captain Metropolis Ozymandias
Moth Man Rorschach
Dollar Bill ?
Silhouette ?
Comedian Comedian

Captain Metropolis <--> Ozymandias is because both are
thinkers and organizers.

There are two blanks for missing Watchmen. Will they be filled
before the series ends? If so then by whom? Joey <--> Silhouette?

What the hell. It's only an idea.


-Jimmy Chen
(chenj@cmcl2)


"Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems
harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where
what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says 'Treatment is
simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him.
That should pick you up.' Man bursts into tears.
Says 'But, doctor . . . I am Pagliacci.' "

0 new messages