Watchmen Thought - Almost 20 years later! (Belated Spoilers)

[Zonker]

Big-Time Spoilers for The Watchmen if you've not read it

 

Last week's watercooler conversation between Lighthouse & MajorKhaos reminded me of a discussion I recently had on another board.

 

: But why was the Comedian so terrified of this Jack

: Schiff-style outcome? Satire is fine, but I think

: Moore's story suffers for setting up a much better

: conclusion in the reader's mind and not delivering.

: Bob

 

I've previously thought the ending was the weakest part, and also felt a big letdown based on what had been hinted at that the Comedian had learned. But I'll try to defend it now...

 

At the risk of appearing crass, put this into (fictional, conspiracy-theorist) 9/11 terms: Say you find out someone is planning to stage a disaster in New York City for the purpose of motivating society towards some end. Thousands of innocents are about to be killed in service of a hoax by someone you regarded as an ally. So it's not so much the plot itself that is terrifying, instead it is who is doing the plotting, and the casualness with which thousands are about to be sacrificed. And, just maybe, what's really terrifying is that you agree with what's about to happen, even though you know you cannot live with yourself if you let it proceed. So, was the Comedian's death a murder, or in some sense an assisted suicide? Hmmm...

 

Has this been covered before in the intervening years of Watchmen annotations and fannish commentary? If (like me) you've felt the ending marred the story, does this analysis help at all? For me, reading the Comedian as an almost-accomplice in Adrian Veidt's plot, and his death as a virtual assisted-suicide makes for a more satisfying resolution.

 

It is also a nice parallel to Rorschach's fate, a similar assisted-suicide by Dr. Manhattan.

[chrisco37]

For me, reading the Comedian as an almost-accomplice in Adrian Veidt's plot, and his death as a virtual assisted-suicide makes for a more satisfying resolution.

 

Never thought of it that way, either. Although it makes alot of sense. The Comedian is not a nice individual (he raped his teammate for crying out loud).

 

He very well may have agreed w/ Adrian, but did not want anything so heavy on his conscience (he already had the rape haunt him). It's an easy out for him.

 

Great post, Zonker!!!! We need more Watchmen threads.

 

Man, it's about time for a re-read.

[joe_collector]

The series is excellent, but the ending does suck major eggs.

 

Then again, the "it never ends" epilogue was quite well done.

[Zonker]

The Comedian is not a nice individual (he raped his teammate for crying out loud).

 

But... I also remember the victim of that rape in her old age was surprisingly charitable to the Comedian. Which suggests either:

- she was perhaps nuts at that point in her life;

- Moore had/has a strange view of women; or

- there were hidden depths to the Comedian that the readers did not necessarily see, and that would support the scenario outlined above.

 

Man, it's about time for a re-read.

 

Me, too!

[joe_collector]

But... I also remember the victim of that rape in her old age was surprisingly charitable to the Comedian.

 

Well obviously, since she later...

[chrisco37]

- there were hidden depths to the Comedian that the readers did not necessarily see, and that would support the scenario outlined above.

 

This is what I was trying to say (your's is worded much clearer).

 

He is capable of raping a teammate, why would he feel the need to stop the murder of 1000's he didn't know. At the same time, could he have lived with himself in the aftermath? Or (as the poster in you quote suggested) could he live with the knowledge of who had done it?

 

Theres not enough evidence either way to say definatively. Could be intentional by Moore to leave it up to the reader??? I like your theory.

[Robert]

Actualy, what always bugged me was the password plot point towards the end.

[supapimp]

The series is excellent, but the ending does suck major eggs.

 

Then again, the "it never ends" epilogue was quite well done.

 

so 1602 has the similar feel then?

[chrisco37]

 

so 1602 has the similar feel then?

 

1602 ending was much less satisfying than Watchmen was.

[shadroch]

What did you want from 1602? A knockdown dragout brawl?

Try reading Secret Wars 2. The whole 1602 arc was quite thought-provoking,imo. Thats what Gaiman and Moore do.Make the reader use their own imagination.

While I'm not putting 1602 on a par with Watchmen,I thought the ending was done quite well,and left many possibilities.

[chrisco37]

What did you want from 1602? A knockdown dragout brawl?

 

No, not at all. I enjoyed the book for the most part. I thought the ending lacked a little bit as it was basically 7-issues of really good set-up, resolved in only one issue. Based on his previous efforts, I expect more from Gaiman. Maybe that's my fault.

[joe_collector]

One of the big differences between Watchmen and 1602 is that DC wouldn't let Moore use the old Charlton characters, and he was forced to make up new ones (though still similar) and as he admits, the work is far better for it.

 

1602 was just another Marvel knock-off riff, kind of like a high-brow What-If with a higher quality writer.

[Zonker]

It occurs to me that as much as I like most of Gaiman's stuff, his strengths in writing multi-part arcs are almost all based on the build-up, bits of nice business along the way, and the inevitable life-goes-on anti-climax. Big payoff crescendos never seem to be in the cards for Gaiman, e.g.

 

- Morpheus lets Dr. Destiny go in the first Sandman arc

- Lucifer on the beach after Seasons of Mist

- Destruction leaves again after Brief Lives

 

And, most obviously, the whole Kindly Ones outcome kind of left me

 

I suppose the exception to this was Dolls House, but even that was less a big payoff than it was setting the stage for the main part of the series.

[bobpfef]

I agree about Gamain and long plot arcs. Kindly Ones just didn't work for me. It lacked the spark of the better bits of earlier issues and in truth, I think Gaiman works better on single issue or shorter stories. Plotting doesn't seem to be his strong point. Insteresting characters, wonderful "bits of business", and memorable "small" moments are, imo. I think Moore holds up a bit better as a comic book writer because, in general his stories feel more thought through. Gaiman seems like he is making it up as he is going along, sometimes it all comes together, sometimes it doesn't.

[Solar]

I agree about Gamain and long plot arcs. Kindly Ones just didn't work for me. It lacked the spark of the better bits of earlier issues and in truth, I think Gaiman works better on single issue or shorter stories. Plotting doesn't seem to be his strong point. Insteresting characters, wonderful "bits of business", and memorable "small" moments are, imo. I think Moore holds up a bit better as a comic book writer because, in general his stories feel more thought through. Gaiman seems like he is making it up as he is going along, sometimes it all comes together, sometimes it doesn't.

 

Not too sure about plotting not being his strong point. I cant think of a more tightly stuctured 75 issue plot than Sandman. I mean, the eventual outcome of the series is being set up throughout. Go back and reread the series and you can tell what Morpheus is up to from even before Seasons of Mist. I would say that the last 10 issues or so add up to one of the best payoffs I've read.

[Aman619]

I seem to remember that the girl hero Comedian raped was in love with him all along, she just did not "take kindly" to his taking what she would have offerred if approached differently or something like that. Sort of if Wolverine raped Jean Grey ....

 

but I havent re-read it in years and I dont remember the facts too well except Rorshochs great line in prison" "you dont understand: Im not locked in here with you. YOUre locked up inside with ME!"

[joe_collector]

I seem to remember that the girl hero Comedian raped was in love with him all along, she just did not "take kindly" to his taking what she would have offerred if approached differently or something like that.

 

Well obviously they had a sexual relationship after that.

[Zonker]

Not too sure about plotting not being his strong point. I cant think of a more tightly stuctured 75 issue plot than Sandman. I mean, the eventual outcome of the series is being set up throughout. Go back and reread the series and you can tell what Morpheus is up to from even before Seasons of Mist. I would say that the last 10 issues or so add up to one of the best payoffs I've read.

 

I've been thinking about this... My own earlier point wasn't so much that Gaiman is deficient at plotting. I agree he knew exactly where he wanted to take this story from at least A Doll's House onward. What I think I was trying to get at was that for me, the journey with Gaiman is generally much more rewarding than the destination. And I find that's (usually) not the case with Alan Moore, hence my original post starting this thread, trying to tease some additional meaning out of Watchmen after all these years.

 

My problem with the payoff to Sandman is this:

 

What ultimately happens to Morpheus isn't that interesting to me as a reader. Why? Because Morpheus as a character is not that interesting. He's not a fully-realized fictional person, nor is he meant to be-- as a member of the Endless, he's an archetype. But if he's an archetype, then it seems to me his fate ought to be symbolic of something larger, an allegory to something that has meaning for the rest of us. And here Gaiman is just too obtuse for my taste. We don't know how complicit Morpheus is in the events of The Kindly Ones, nor do we understand who else is involved behind the scenes, and what if anything Gaiman wishes us to learn about ourselves from those events.

 

Having said all that, I still think Sandman is a great piece of work. 99.9% of other published comics wouldn't deserve anywhere near this amount of thought. And the fact that Gaiman is so good along the way just adds to the ever-higher expectations I as a reader have for the pay-off.

 

Finally, it is possible that Gaiman deliberately exits the stage, leaving us wanting more, so he can later return to these characters and fill in some of the gaps. I'd like that.

[chrisco37]

Finally, it is possible that Gaiman deliberately exits the stage, leaving us wanting more, so he can later return to these characters and fill in some of the gaps. I'd like that.

 

Very true. I certainly liked what he did in "Endless Nights".