In the two first readers’ posts dealing with chapter seven, there seems to be a common theme of the struggle between finding one’s identity by taking on an alter ego, and finding one’s identity by escaping an alter ego. One of the oldest questions for superheroes is, which one is really him or her? The day job or the mask? I love the discussion of this in Kill Bill Vol. 2, when Bill argues that Superman is Superman’s identity, and Clark Kent is the alter ego he takes on to deal with us lowly mortals. Rorschach embodies this idea by calling his mask his face, or skin (ex. Ch 10, pg. 6, panel 2).

Other characters are not so settled in how they as people relate to their masks. As both posts pointed out, Dan seems more confident and “himself” in his suit; the dream in chapter seven is a great example. But I’m sure the character would never say that Nite Owl is “him” and Dan is a false identity, no matter how true that sometimes seems. Laurie is even less comfortable with her superhero identity, and indeed, “Silk Spectre” seems like a personality that suits her mother much better than it suits her. Crimefighting itself, however, is very much a part of who Laurie is. We see the ease with which she slips back into it when she fights the gang in chapter three, and again when she’s taking out guards and inmates alike in chapter eight. In the end, Laurie seems to recognize that she is equal parts her mother and father, and plans to incoporate more of Blake into her costume to better reflect her new-found identity (Ch 12, pg. 30, panel 3).

I think it’s also interesting to consider how the medium of comic books relates to everything both posters were saying. A lot of it has to do with changes in physical appearance, which can happen almost instantly in a comic. Imagine how long it would take to accurately explain Dan’s dream if this were a words-only novel.

In agreement to Moriah Jones’ analogy of the heroes and their disgusting twist of views on humanity, I would like to add the effect of these heroes to people around them.

Rorschach admits that he wasn’t always the “Rorschach”. He was aware of humanity and played hero under the mask. However his mask consumed his true self. The mask seems to not just have the affect on himself but also to those who tries to find the meanings inside the Rorschach mask. Especially in case of Dr.Malcolm, the change of his personality and view are so strikingly evident. On page 8 of chapter 6, Dr. Malcolm’s personality is described as “Nicest, most positive person”. However, during chapter 6, Dr. Malcolm’s positive view on the humanity begin to change as he attempts to fix Rorschach. Dr.Malcolm’s positive character is partially devoted to his wealthiness and the well beings of his social correspondents. However this begins to seriously crumble as he examines the inner side of Rorschach.

Dr. Malcolm thinks he is able to fix Rorschach, in the process however, he himself begins to fall and get sucked into Rorschach’s dark view of world. Dr. Malcolm slowly begins to resemble Rorschach. His detachment to his wife and the social life, and disabillity to distinguish what is socially acceptable or not(his dinner ending with disturbing stories), his weird obsession with Rorschach(as Rorschach was obsessed with proposed mask killer). As Rorschach says, on page 13, “I’m  not locked up in here with you. You’re locked up in here with ME”, the watchmen portrays the society where heros are not heros and may even be a villain.

I would agree and argue that all of the inter-chapter text serves to enhance the story and, in fact, operates as an intergral part of it.  Watchmen is not one narrative, but a series of conjoined stories that only come together as the finished product when read and grouped together.   The main sections of the comic are much poorer for the lack of supporting material; some would call it pace-breaking exposition, but in the long run, how much of a pace does the comic really have?

“Under the Hood” cements the point of deviation from the original timeline (what we’d call “the real world”), and adds what seems to be a voice of sanity in the midst of a collapsing world.  It is part of Moore’s critique of comics and their characters, and probably the origin of the now-famous “no capes” trope, regarding Mason’s attitude towards Dollar Bill’s costume-driven demise, the victim of a marketing ploy.  Comic companies strive for success in the same ways, sacrificing character development, story, and quality artwork for reader enticements (“This issue, someone DIES!!!  Or maybe they come back to life.  We’re really not sure anymore.  Please buy it anyways!”).

I think it’s interesting that this post both praises the Watchmen for it’s realistic New York setting and the statement that Mr. Manhattan is eortiz’s favorite character for his very unreal super powers. A great example of the power of masking, as McCloud discusses it on in the second chapter of Understanding Comics. I would argue that rather than masking being exclusively an illustrative technique, its utilized in the Watchmen through narrative. While Dave Gibbons’ style seems to gravitate towards the more realistic side of the McCloud triangle, this is still, to varying degrees, an impossible story. Rather than identify with the iconic aspects of the characters, the unique and detailed faces of all characters (primary, secondary, superficial) along with similarly realistic backgrounds allows the reader a more objective view of the story based on the text. The focus on reading allows for a greater “perception” rather than “reception” of the story, perhaps lending the story its sophistication and acceptance in the literary world (McCloud, 49).

As to eortiz’s second point about the lack of cultural diversity, I certainly agree, and would also point to this as one of the few aspects that may one day come to view the Watchmen as dated. This cultural criticism certainly applies to virtually every American form of entertainment, and forms the basis for so much of the responsive literature being produced today. Yet its not so much the lack of representation that stuck out to me as much as what we do see: specifically, the lesbian on page 21 of chapter five. I applaud the creative team for attempting to include someone who (especially at the time) was such a poorly understood minority in the American public. Yet I cannot help but feel the eighth panel is both unnecessary and perhaps even misleading. I say unnecessary because, at least for me, it is obvious Joey is a woman. By pointing this out with her poster and intimidation, it seems to place a more flagrant and negative stereotype on her. This is probably way too sensitive, but for the sake of discussion…

My other problem is that the acronym from Gay Woman Against Rape has nothing to do with Gwar, which is only lame because those two things should totally be related!

The point about these heroes coming into their profession through a sort ancient practice is interesting. What time in world history do you think this could be compared to?

Also, I wouldn’t say Alan Moore was attempting to put forth some moral dilemma for or against authority. Rather, he’s created a world that reacts in a very realistic way to vigilantes. In my opinion, the story is a sort of “what if” scenario. The reactions of the people toward these self made super heroes is very realistic. We see this in other comics, too. I know that in the Civil War series by Marvel we see the Superhuman Registration Act come into play. I’m sure they got this idea from Moore, at least in part.

I suppose what I’m attempting to put forth here is the idea that Watchmen was made to show what would really happen of men and women gave in to their ultimate, secret desires and fought crime. Becoming a super hero does not make you a super person. The Comedian is great example of that. Vigilantes would become a nuisance to organized justice systems, many of those heros would get hurt and hurt others in the process, and I strongly believe if there were masked avengers running around Washington D.C. we would be excited but ultimately nervous. Once you have that hero you have to have a villain.

I think what we are getting from Moore is the inadequacies of super heroes. Due to the fact that they are indeed just ordinary people they can’t make extraordinary change. We haven’t gotten to the end of the book yet, but when we do it’ll become more apparent. His point is that what we need is a drastic event to bring as together as people so we can work for ourselves instead of letting others, like heroes, work for us.

I hope that makes sense.