All the best stories hold up a mirror to society and force the audience to reflect on what it says about them and how they live within that society in order to confront it. Many stories often even hold up a broken and distorted version of this mirror to stress up a specific point in this metaphor, and while “Watchmen” gives an amazing attempt at this, the mirror is left all muddy and dirty, keeping a clear reflection and meditation of our society from being understood.
“Watchmen” was penned by Alan Moore, one of the more interesting weirdo comic book writers. And this incredibly well-written story of political intrigue, moral ambiguity, and the definition of what it means to not only be human but to care about humanity is elevated by the art of the great David Gibbons.
The basic premise is seemingly very simple but produces stellar results. A group of superheroes has been shut down by the government except for a man that works for the military and another that has the power of a god. When one of these men is murdered, one of the superheroes who is defying the government edict to shut down looks into it. Pulling the other heroes out of retirement, they go on to uncover a plot that would change the entire world forever.
It is almost perfect and speaks to a number of audiences with its incredibly well-informed themes and messages. I did say almost perfect however, because this novel, like many other things, is not perfect. For example, the ending of the graphic novel seems to just speed through its conclusion after meticulously building up to that point, only for it to end mildly unresolved.
Even a major character death does not get the time and attention it deserves in my opinion (although I have seen the film and it gets a lot more attention there so my view may be more biased than I think). A part of this rushed ending is that none of us know where the characters stand morally, or how their view is shaping the outcome of an incredibly complex endeavor.
The novel is very clear on the politics and morals of a good chunk of the characters, but only 2 of the main characters actually get this treatment (both of them being lampshaded as twisted versions of the chosen ideology or an ideological extreme) that the rest must then adapt to. We get no time to sit with their decision as they mull it over. Instead, the world is changed and they immediately choose one of the two extremes left to them.
The character of Rorschach in itself is one of the big reasons why what Moore and Gibbons are trying to say is so confusing to me. Rorschach is called a fascist, something Moore has more than double-downed on since the release of the novel, but that is not what confuses me.
Yes, Rorschach is fascist because he seeks his own justice independent of the criminal justice system and specifically for his own reasons due to his own personal experiences. These by themselves are a clear indictment of street justice and the need to moral grandstand by thinking you are above the law in your incessant need to enforce it.
However, Moore and Gibbons take it a step further by making Rorschach an ultra weirdo (still makes sense) who is super right-wing fascist nut who says any critiques of the Comedian when it comes to attempting to sexually assault the original Silk Spectre is unfounded since he is an American War Hero.
Under normal circumstances, this would be fine in any other story since these would be regarded as Rorschach-only traits. But since Rorschach is supposed to represent an idea of a specific type of superhero, this feels like an odd way to format the character that is supposed to represent his critique.
Although he is very similar to the other characters he is based off, he is such a strange exaggeration of these ideas and such a point finger at a subsection of people. Again, I do not disagree with nor do I dislike this characterization, but I find it strange because these traits make Rorschach more than just hypocritical, it makes him the character that readers latch on to.
Then Moore gets angry when that’s how he is received but takes no steps to actively discourage his viewpoint, validity, or moral high ground in the story, depending on how you interpret the ending. Granted my interpretation of the comic is biased as I watch the film beforehand along with my own moral stances.
But, perhaps, since society is so vast and complex, it cannot be properly understood or commented on. Maybe the approach “Watchmen” takes is the correct one.
You should give it a read for yourself and decide. Anyone who can handle contemplating who they are, what they’re place in the world is, and what that place says about them all wrapped up in a compelling slow burn mystery should definitely give this a read. Or anyone that likes stuff about the Cold War and realistic portrayals of superheroes.
I give it 9 blood-stained pins out of 10.