I have read Watchmen several times now and there is something unsettling about it. I think many of us have felt this, judging by the Twitter feed, though we are all struggling to put our finger on it. I think it is because for a book entirely about superheroes, there does not appear to be a single hero among the characters.
Rorschach is often pointed to as people’s favorite character, or the most interesting, and I think there is an initial reaction to think of him as the hero since he is the only one to continue to stand against Veidt. Also, the story begins with his voice and the book also ends with his diary potentially being what will undo the conspiracy. He is n0t the hero, however. While he appears to have many of the traits of the classic American antihero, like a Batman or a Mike Hammer (hard men making hard choices for justice), Moore clearly does not endorse his right-wing, near-fascist vision. As Rosen points out, “the creators of Watchmen make it clear that they also intend to undermine Rorschach and what he embodies.”
Rorschach’s black and white view of morality is not what Moore wants taken away from this story. The whole story culminates in moral ambiguity. I think that is what so many people struggle with. Veidt appears to fill the traditional role of the villain as he kills millions, but he is as close as Watchmen gets to a “hero” because his actions actually save the world. Obviously Moore and Gibbons are deconstructing what it means to “save the world” and playing with the expectations of the reader, Veidt spares the world from nuclear destruction and war by sacrificing millions of lives. Though the other masked adventurers do not necessarily agree that it was right, they can’t disagree with Veidt’s logic and success, with the exception of Rorschach who must also be sacrificed for the “greater good.”
The question comes down to moral relativity versus moral absolutism. Veidt’s moral relativity seems to be answer Moore and Gibbons want us to accept. In the world of Watchmen, there are no moral certainties. The black and white worldview of Rorschach leaves no room for humanity: wrong is wrong, and bad people are always bad. But even the grey, subjective morality of Veidt is not fixed and absolute. As Manhattan points out, “Nothing ever ends.” Veidt’s actions, the conspiracy and the world peace it achieves is only morally correct as long as no one finds out the truth. As long as the lie is maintained, it is the “right” thing, but if the truth is ever discovered, it is just mass murder.
I definitely agree with a lot of what you said in your post, especially the idea that whole story culminates in moral ambiguity. The age old questions about whether or not the ends justify the means and whether the death of a few (well, a million) justifies the saving of the masses (the entire surviving world) are, I think, one of the central points of the narrative. The grey area is where we, as a real society, exist every day. We don’t have the luxury of clearly defined standards for right and wrong. Every choice has an opposite, and every decision we make can, for lack of a better phrase, leave us with “buyers’ remorse.” It’s not just in the world of Watchmen that there exist no moral certainties, and I think that Moore and Gibbons are pointing to that as well. It may not be that Moore and Gibbons are pointing to Veidt’s moral relativity (as you put it so well) as the answer to accept, so much as it is answer that has validity.
I’m sure plenty of the people would shun me for saying that Veidt’s answer to possible nuclear war has validity, but for real, if you could enact world peace by killing millions, would you? 10 million divided by 6 billion is only 0.167% of the total population of the world. On a (very, very) very large scale view, the number of people Veidt killed is somewhat negligible. Now, we get down to question of is even a single life worth as much as the rest of the population. But I might just be repeating what you said about Moore and Gibbons playing with the readers’ expectations, in that we don’t want to admit killing millions could be a solution to anything, much less war.
It is interesting to me, too, that Rorschach can be said to live in a world of black and white morality when it is he that kills, tortures, and abuses so many. I wonder where he fits into his own world view. Or, as a masked adventurer he has bestowed upon himself the position of existing outside morality so as to upkeep morality (“beneath [him], this awful city, screaming like an abattoir full of retarded children”). I guess I just wonder why he never looks back at himself and ends up committing suicide earlier since he is a perversion of his own morality (which is the thing that most matters in his world of “no compromise”).
On one final, totally random, note, when I read your bit about the other watchmen not being about to “disagree with Veidt’s…success” it reminded me on commercials I have been hearing on the radio for DC Mayor elections where Adrian Fenty talks about not being able to “argue with results.” Talk about moral relativity.
Rorschach has no vision beyond punishment for wrongdoers. I think that, combined with his psychotic misogyny, deep sexual unhealthiness/fear/intolerance, general lack of hygine, form the utter isolation from humanity which Moore finds most problematic.
Isolation seems to be the primary problem – something which moderates and/or informs the moral relativism which seems Moore’s view, at least on the surface. Without connections to those around us, we become like Rorschach or Dr. Manhattan or Veidt (who attempts to regain sympathy by claiming he’s “felt every death he’s caused” – a somewhat preposterous claim, further building up his meglomania).
I think Kristine nails it when she says that Moore and Gibbons interrogate not only the absolutist position of Rorschach, but also Veidt’s dead certainty that he’s right in his actions.
Last thought: I would argue that if you try to justify your means by your ends, your ends are not worth pursuing, since the way you end up there determines where you end up. In other words, Veidt’s peaceful world seems ideal, but the lie is there, waiting to burst out and cause chaos again, as Dr. Manhattan says, “Nothing ever ends.”
Forgot to link this blog post, which questions the artistic merit of the use of “moral ambiguity” vs. “moral complexity.” http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-68?comments=on
Simply put, “moral complexity” is where characters and author have clearly defined sense of good and evil or right and wrong, but do not act consistently, leading to a character who is clearly good, but has troubling attitudes or actions. “Moral ambiguity” on the other hand, occurs when the audience and author fail (deliberately or accidentally) to communicate on what is right and wrong (I’ve never read a work where there is no moral standard), and the audience is left confused as to who is good and evil and whose actions are right and wrong. I think the latter is too often lauded while the former is too often denigrated – especially in the case of Watchmen.
While I think that forcing my own interpretation of isolation vs. connection as the ultimate standard Moore is holding up would be stretching a point, I think it’s clear Moore has moral standards (as evidenced by the consistent anti-smoking propaganda in both his and Miller’s work).