Talk:Watchmen/Archive 3

Iconography

For all the mention that they exist, there are few examples of the recurring images. Please list them here and then add them to the article in an appropriate section: The Doomsday Clock Who Watches the Watchmen? Graffiti Nuclear trifoil

Allusions

Aside from the obvious historical references implicit in a storyline covering 60 or so years of alternate history (anything really stand out in the historical allusions? is the presentation of Harry Truman very odd?):

Historical

• A subtle historical reference is the use of Doc Manhattan as a weapon in Vietnam. Nixon considered using nuclear weapons to bomb Hanoi (WH tapes confirm).
• Right-wing New Frontiersman alludes to Kennedy's New Frontier? a critique of cold war liberalism?

Comics

• Nite Owl is a critique of Batman (bats->owls, gadgets, cape costume)
• The Comedian goes to Vietnam to kill "gooks" in a manner similar to Capt. America's killing "krauts" and "Japs" in WWII (although, did the period comics use those pejoratives?)
  • Some of them did.
• Capt. Metropolis ??, to the city inhabited by Superman

• Pirate Comic similar to 50s Horror Comics which led to industry self-regulation through the Comic Code
• References are made to various DC comics as comics, which declined in popularity after the real "heroes" began appearing

Other

• The original Doomsday Clock
• Rorschach, to the psychologist and his eponymous test
• Dr. Manhattan, to the Manhattan Project
  • That was actually stated in the book.
• Ozymandias, to the poem by Shelley

Is the smiling face at all related to the TV host from Philip Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"? I don't know, but it seems to fold over easily into Watchmen's attitude.

• • Probably not.

Similarly, were there any overt references to Burroughs's or Pynchon's work in the comics? I always read Marvel during this period, myself, until I found Sandman and had to backtrack through the 80's DC.

Yes, Burroughs is referenced on the first and second pages in the eleventh chapter (XI). Veidt discusses his "cut-up" technique for predicting the future. Here is a quote from Veidt on page 1: "Multi-screen viewing is seemingly anticipated by Burroughs' cut-up technique. He suggested re-arranging words and images to evade rational analysis, allowing subliminal hints of the future to leak through..."

What are their "secret identities" references to? Who was the Keene Act named for?

OR

Please be very careful with allusions. Remember that everything must be properly referenced. Please do not include original research to the article. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody else notice there seems to be a link between Ozymandias and the Illuminati and the New World Order conspiracy theories? Strongman1970 19:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology

To whomever was editing concurrent with me - I went through twice and tried to find your edits but the only thing I found at variance were the sections I had changed or corrected. I assume this means that you made grammar corrections similar to mine, but if I missed your editing, my profound apologies.

-j

My Edit

Minor stuff, but I corrected numerous grammar and punctuation errors (including irregular British and American quote punctuation, possessive apostrophes, capitalization) - I'm not sure I got all the examples but I left the quoted Britlish such as "well-realised" since it likely appeared in print in that format, while correcting text to American standard.

I corrected the reference to Carlyle - he was neither a sociologist nor a fascist in the sense those terms connote today - and edited the POV section, since it was incorrect. Third Person Omniscient POV would use thought balloons copiously; it was precisely one of Moore's points to use the objective point of view to make the text and characters stand at a greater remove from the reader.

Edits I think the piece could use but would not take upon myself without your input, since it is very well done and deserves its praise, is that it could use more description of the characters and a section listing references (eg, Ozymandias is quite deliberately an ironic name, since it references Shelley's poem far more immediately than it does Ramses II). I felt shy about adding necessarily partial additions to a piece in such a prominent position as a 'finished' work.

I would also suggest removing wholesale the section of analysis, since its copious and non-critical use of quotes from exactly two authorities without any real establishment of their credentials reads to me more like a high school book report or intro lit paper than an encyclopedia article.

-jowfair (at gmail

Note: I saw below that one poster says that the article's presentation of thought was in error and that it possibly does have a 3rd person omniscient POV. If this is true, please correct my edits and the original article. Thanks! - j.

Archived

I have archived the talk page again, as, much like the last time, I feel that the majority of the page was dedicated to problems that have now been rectified! Hope I haven't put anyone out! Adasta 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My Edit

I have made a large edit to the page in the attempt to expand some sections and cite references for them. My changes are as follows:

• Expanded the lead section slightly to attempt to make it a more appropriate overview for Watchmen
• Changed the "Introduction" section to "Composition" because I think "Introduction" is quite a poor name for that section.
• Expanded the "Strcutre" section to include details of the chapter titles, quotations, and also the fictional documents that are used in Watchmen
• Added a "Perspective" section - this is an attempt to discuss the perspective in which the reader follows Watchmen. This could do with being expanded; I am trying to avoid the section becoming very POV and wonder if this is even possibe, what with POV being about points of view...
• Expanded the "Characters" section
• Expanded "The Keene Act" and "Tales of The Black Freighter" slightly
• Changed "Awards, Honors, and Criticisms" section to the "Literary significance" section. Have expanded this section in an attempt to show a rounded view of Watchmen in the literary world.
• Merged "Parody" section into "References in other works" section
• Editied the "Merchandise" section slightly

I hope that with a few dedicated editors, this article can keep growing! I think a Themes section may come next...Adasta 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of info about the checkered production history of the several aborted attempts to adapt Watchmen into a movie. If everyone thinks it would be appropriate, I could certainly expand this section significantly. J.D. 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an individual entry for the movie version but it is pretty bare bones and could use some beefing up in terms of content. Count Ringworm 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The article about the movie is Watchmen (film). --Dennette 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

More recent featured article, very strong. Hiding Talk 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding a themes section...

"I think a Themes section may come next..."

• You can try, but it seems every time someone tries to add one there's strong resistance to it. Check out the archived discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watchmen/Archive_2 Tommyt 14:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The strongest critic of the idea is me, to be honest. If one refers to Applejuicefool's comment, I think a themes discussion that cites things such as, perhaps, a university thesis, would be stronger than just making claims about what one thinks is occuring in the novel. I'm not aware of any books that actively discuss the themes found in Watchmen, but I would be interested in it if one could be found. I think if people were to list the themes that they think appear in the book on this page, then that would make it easier to discuss their relevance. It is critical that the sections be concise and informative, and only discuss what is evident. Things such as Rorschach's world view (nihilist, moral absolutist, etc.) aren't very important. His uncomprimising stance, however, is important.

There needs to be a clear boundary in what is written, ensuring that it has a neutral point of view. Adasta 17:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. When I put in a themes section, it was about how characters in Watchmen, as with many other books Moore has written, resort to extremist methods. Rorshach believes people are either guilty or innocent, no extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Adrian Veidt kills millions in Manhattan in order that the USA & USSR will not destroy the Earth in a nuclear standoff. If you read V for Vendetta, V commits acts of terrorism to fight a totalitarian regime AND draw the attention of the British people to that regime and unite to fight it themselves. So far my comments have either been too POV or need solid documentation.Tommyt 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Question#17

http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/456514.html The main DCU Question was shown reading Watchmen in Question#17. As many have noted, Watchmen depicted Superman as a fictional character. While that can be construed in terms of the DCUniverse's counterpart of Alan Moore throwing that in as a clever touch (a person who was real on his Earth appearing as a fictional character in a work by him), at any point in the book does anyone mention Clark Kent? Enda80 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80

Nope. Superman is only mentioned a few times, always in passing. No details about superhero comics were given, other than they were popular before "real" costumed heroes showed up. - JustSomeKid 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Clark Kent is mentioned once, in the Hollis Mason autobiography excerpt at the end of chapter one, when he described the epiphanic moment in 1938 when he read a copy of Action Comics #1 which, coupled with the first public appearance of Hooded Justice some months later, solidified his desire to become a costumed adventurer: Nite-Owl. Mason makes clear how comic-book superheroes are viewed in his world: "Of course, all of these old characters are gone and forgotten now..." In chapter three, the news-vendor expands on this: "Back in '39, before the real masked men showed up, super-hero comics were enormous. Guess their appeal wore off... I remember there was Super-Man [sic], Flash-Man [sic]..." BryanEkers 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Minutemen reference

This sentence: "Meanwhile, members of The Minutemen, a defunct organisation of costumed adventurers, are being murdered." is factually incorrect and I have removed it. The Minutemen were not "being" murdered. The Comedian was the only one killed by Veidt, and Blake held the Minutemen in contempt, calling them a joke. BryanEkers 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made an error, I realize. Blake called Captain Metropolis's attempted revival of a super-team, the Crime-Busters, a joke. Nevertheless, of the original Minutemen, only Blake is killed by Veidt as part of the larger plan, and only because Blake stumbled across the details accidentally. Of the other seven members of the original team, three were killed by criminals unassociated with Veidt, one disappeared, one died in a car accident, and two were long-retired. BryanEkers 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Covers

Is there any significane to the different UK and US covers for the trade?--Peta 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I know I live in the U.S. and I got the supposed "UK" cover at Barnes & Noble. So I don't know.--DCAnderson 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The TPB with the "US cover" is no longer sold. I remember reading an article once with an explanation, but I'm not sure where -- if I can find it again I'll come back and post it. But the gist of it, if I remember correctly, is that the cover we see now is the cover Moore & Gibbons prefer for the TPB, and the old US cover was chosen by DC. Lord Bodak 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

I've taken the liberty of moving "Artwork" into "Literary Significance", which I have significantly reworked. I also redid some of the citations. I think you could probably cut the section of the Keen Act, since both it and its effects on the Watchmen are discussed in the plot section. Great article, and good luck with the FAC!--Monocrat 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from memory

During a riot, Nite Owl asks, "Who are we protecting them from?" to which the Comedian responds "Themselves."

I wrote this quote from memory, because I loaned someone my copy of Watchmen. Could somebody who has a copy on-hand, please make sure the quote is accurate.--DCAnderson 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

One word off. The Comedian replies "From themselves". - JustSomeKid 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--DCAnderson 14:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month Vote

There is a vote for what will be the next Comics Collabration of the month at:Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration

Watchmen is a nominee, but it needs support.--DCAnderson 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Submitted for copyediting

I've submitted this article for copyediting.

[1]

The later sections of this article (themes, etc), seem weaker than the earlier parts. --P-Chan 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing a copyedit to fix the article up some more. Tombseye 05:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous

"A single issue black and white comic entitled "Watchcats" also appeared around the time the series was in print."

What series? Watchmen or Radioactive Man? I don't think there is a Wikipedia article on this, so you'll have to reference it or find it somewhere in wikipedia. --P-Chan 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If possible, please clarify this statement

"DC Comics did not distribute the book in quantity as planned, but a small quantity were printed."

Also, where is the source for it? --P-Chan 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it.--P-Chan 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen's a featured article now!

Right on, right on! Congrats to all the many, many, many contributors! Tombseye 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Congratulations to all on an excellent article. I really hope to see this on the front page soon. — Estarriol ^talk 07:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I recommend holding off for a while before nominating this article to appear on the main page. I think there are a lot of improvements still to be made here, and we should ensure that the article's at its absolute best before we showcase it. -Silence 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent article guys. Congratulations on a much-deserved award. Ideogram 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats guys. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 00:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Black Freighter section

Let me first say that I was delighted to see Watchmen became a featured article. I have a question about:

A pirate theme was suggested by Gibbons, and Moore agreed because he is "a big Brecht fan."

I looked at the Brecht article and didn't see anything there relating to pirates or the themes from the Black Freighter comic. Is this an omission in the Brecht article or am I not making a connection?

The Black Freighter is a song in Three Penny Opera. Pirates are a big part of Three Penny Opera--71.215.56.225 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, concerning this:

Moore thought that the close-up of the trefoil in the first panel looked like a "stylised picture of a black ship". The trefoil then came to represent "a black ship against a yellow sky".

A scan from the book showing this would be helpful. I'll look for my copy and do it myself unless someone beats me to it. — Zaui (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The effect is most obvious in chapter 11, page 13, frame 3, though chapter 3, page 25, frame 1 has the image as well. BryanEkers 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought balloons

The Perspective section currently says: 'Moreover, Watchmen is unconventional in that it does not utilise the "standard" technique in the comic book genre of employing thought balloons to demonstrate its characters' thoughts'. While it may be true that it doesn't use the classic cloud shape there are large sections dedicated to the characters thoughts: parts of Rorschach's investigation are composed entirely of his thoughts; parts of Osterman's trip to Mars; and almost the entire Black Freighter story. While I think it is important to note the structure with regard to the additional documents, I think the above sentence should be removed.Yomangani 12:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the 3rd person omniscient to 3rd person objective based on the description provided. If there really were extensive use of thought balloons, for God's sake, someone fix the article. - j.

Thought balloons are not employed in the conventional sense in any area except for Chapter IV as boxed overlays in the panels, working like voice narration in a film. However overlays comprised of sections from the fictional documents of Watchmen are used in different panels in several chapters. This should be clarified.

Also, as far as the section on perspectives, the paragraph on first-person view should be rewritten. As is, it makes it appear that the only time a third person objective view is not used is during flash backs; this is not the case. A first person, or possibly third person limited, narrative is used in several instances. Examples: 1) Parts of Rorschach's investigation would fall into this category, as the reader reads Rorschachs thoughts and recounting of the current events from his diary; 2) The psychological evaluation of Rorschach, as the reader is shown portions of the notes of Dr. Malcolm Long during the interviews.

Frame narrative should also be mentioned here, Watchmen is composed of many smaller stories encapsulated by the plot of Veidt. - Jared Chambers

Using a narrative structure like Rorschach's journal pages or Dr. Manhattan's time shifting inner monologue on Mars is not the same as thought balloons. The whole point about thought balloons not being used in the Watchmen IS off base though, at least the way it's written here. Comics of that time period did not widely employ thought balloons. They were already mostly a thing of the past by 1986. I'm sure you could find them in comics from that era, but they certainly weren't 'standard practice' at that time.

John Higgins

Can we assume that the John Higgins who redid the colouring for the Ultimate edition is this John Higgins? He has worked with Moore before so I'd guess he'd be a trusted safe pair of hands but I didn't want to link it in (and add a note in his entry) until someone could confirm it. (Emperor 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

Main image

The statement: "Cover art for the 1987 U.S. (left) and U.K. (right) collected editions of Watchmen, published by DC Comics and Titan Books." really confused me at first because I'm currently reading a US version that uses the bloody smiley version. Wouldn't it be better to just use a big image of that version instead of jamming both of them in together? It's more iconic than the city one (which looks lame when small). Perhaps use a non-country specific image (no publisher logos) like the one seen [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1401207138/ref=dp_image_0/103-5160669-5902240?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books here].--SeizureDog 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with him. - j.

There were two different American covers to the trade paperback. If I remember correctly, the one with the breaking window cover was intended for specialty comic stores, and the one with the close up of the Comedian's smiley was meant for sale at regular bookstores. ~ Thirdrail

Improvements

I've just reworked the plot summary and Black Freighter section somewhat. Spotted a few things that still need work.

• The details why they couldn't use the Charlton characters are discussed twice, with almost the same text. One needs to be removed and merged into the other, without breaking the flow.
• The characters are not described at all, aside from their (even more obscure) inspirations. Some detail could be migrated from the characters page.
• Greater details on the visual symbolism and repeating imagery. The artwork section just doesn't seem that balanced, given that this is a visual medium.
• The criticisms section feels a bit like a straw man. Surely the arguments are more complex and detailed than that.
• The Doomsday Clock is not mentioned anywhere.
• What about DC having to keep the book in print to keep copyrights from reverting?
• Could someone expand the description of the Absolute edition a bit? Particularly, just how extensive is the recolouring?

–Unint 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the most glaring omission: what are the "long-term influences" of Watchmen? Specific books, stories, and movements need to be named here. I mean, Wizard magazine covered that more extensively than this article. –Unint 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how much that cost DC. --Chris Griswold 11:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I get your point, but my point is, Wizard didn't even talk about all that. They had a sentence or so about how comics got "grim" after Watchmen — highly simplified, and that's still more than we have. –Unint 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool! When will you add it? You already have your citation! Awesome! --Chris Griswold 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ENTHUSIASM ROCKS!!! XO -Silence 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Watchmen Backwards

I have heard that Watchmen can be read backwards. I have attempted this in several fashions to no avail. Is this simply a rumor or is there some truth behind it? Could someone please shed some light.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.182.81 (talk • contribs) 02:35 July 24, 2006

You need a mirror, a magnifying glass, and a top hat and fishnets. Please sign your posts. --Chris Griswold 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The rumors are all true. Watchman can indeed be read backwards. The trick is to start at the end of the book, then go back one panel at a time until you reach the beginning. You'll know if it works. -Silence 09:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost all comics could be read backwards, but few of them makes much sense that way. 惑乱 分からん 10:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it was if you read Watchmen quickly enough and played Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, there were strange synchronicities. - j

Maybe you should read the sentences backwards, as well (well as backwards sentences the read should you maybe) or even lla eht srettel... 惑乱 分からん 21:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I might have a clue for you on this one... much of the Watchmen is symmetrical. If you go through it all carefully and look at panel sizes and layouts you can find a number of 'mirrors' in the structure. For instance, and this is just an example I'm making up, the last page of issue 11 has a panel layout that exactly mirrors the first page of issue 2. I repeat, this is a made up example. You'll have to go through the thing yourself to find the actual correlations and pages numbers. There's an old issue of "Comics Interview" where Moore or Gibbons mentions this, I forget now which of them it even was. But anyway, it could be that through some strange game of pop culture telephone, you ended up being told that it could be read backwards. ~ Thirdrail

After killing Kovacs

I think it's left unclear if Kovacs actually is killed. Given the end of the comic (Kovacs's diary turning up at the newspaper office), it seems unlikely that indeed Osterman killed him, as we never see Kovacs mail his diary. The conclusion of "Kovacs had mailed his journal detailing his suspicions to The New Frontiersman" doesn't make sense at that point. Kovacs has no hard evidence and no proof Veidt has done anything. This can be noted by the geniune surprise from Kovacs over the sheer scale of what Veidt has done.

The last frame from the book is not the book being handed in. It is the far more important Doomsday Clock now reading midnight with the blood underneath indicating despite Vedit's plan, a third world war probably began sometime after the publication of Kovacs journal.

This is all conjecture of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.159.78 (talk • contribs) 10:30, August 4, 2006

Kovacs explodes into a shower of blood. It's obvious that he's dead. His diary shows up at the Frontiersman because the last thing he does before departing with Nite Owl is to drop it into a mailbox. (He is shown doing this while the final entries appear as captions.) He had no hard evidence at the time, but he did detail the investigation and indicate that they were going to confront Veidt over their suspicions. All it would take to undermine Veidt's efforts is a reasonable doubt in the public view over whether the "invasion" was genuine. - DynSkeet * Talk 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Kovac's death was established as early as Chapter 9, page 18. Osterman, describing the future, says "I am standing in deep snow... I am killing someone." He has no reason to lie. As for Kovacs's journal, the final entry (Chapter 10, page 22) describes how he doesn't expect to survive confronting Veidt and accused Veidt of being behind the conspiracy, though at this point Kovacs doesn't yet know its exact nature. He mails it and then he and Dreiberg fly to Antarctica. BryanEkers 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Front Page

Wow! Nice work... and on my birthday as well :) I couldn't have chosen a better article! Troubleshooter 00:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations are certainly in under. Good job to those who worked so hard. Incidentally, my birthday is the exact date that starts Watchmen. Eerie... Cybertooth85 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eerie INDEED! That must be pretty cool. Troubleshooter

superhero names over real names?

This is a superb article, but I kept finding it quite jarring to read the characters' surnames instead of hero names in the summary. Sentences like "Dreiberg, Juspeczyk and Osterman agree to keep silent...but Kovacs refuses to compromise and is killed by Osterman" make me forget who's who. What would people think about changing it to hero names ("Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan agree to keep silent...but Rorschach refuses to compromise and is killed by Manhattan")?--Mike Selinker 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I think using the characters' real name is a hypercorrection. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Or at least use the 'mask' names when describing them doing 'mask' things. For instance, it is Rorscach who investigates the Comedian's (Edward Blake's) death, not Kovacs, a point which is made during the chapter devoted to Rorschach. Ashmoo 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it alone. If you can't remember who's who, then you should read it a few more time. :-) Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman refer to each other as Clark, Bruce, and Diana when there are no civilians around, even when they are in costume. Most of the action in Watchmen takes place when they are not in costume, and they never address each other by their mask names (Rorschach being the notable exception). Anyway, if you change it, someone else will just change it back for their own reasons. --Dennette 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure one could argue for retaining the characters' names over those assumed when in costume but the use of 'Walter Kovacs' in place of 'Rorschach' completely misses the point of the character. That, if nothing else, should be changed. 86.29.95.124 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with changing some of the real names into the superhero names when characters tend to refer to each other by their aliases during the vast majority of the narrative. In the case of Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, for instance, the character Osterman is transformed into Dr. Manhattan, yet the WP article still referes to the character as Osterman during the parts of the narrative that involve Dr. Manhattan. -- Tomlouie | talk 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely good article, and the result of much collaborative work. Since neither naming choice stands any chance of pleasing everyone, I suspect the best approach here is to shrug, mutter that you would have done it differently, and let it stand. My own view is a soft version of what Dennette says above, but I am dead sure that there is no solution that will appeal to everyone. I stand with the "leave it alone" folks. Even better, I wonder if we couldn't just leave this as a raised question for the edit team that made this so good in the first place to consider at leisure. - Corporal Tunnel 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that just because some people may disagree with either approach that we shouldn't try to find a more correct compromise. I believe that in the case of 'Rorschach' and also especially 'Dr. Manhattan' that to blindly refer to those characters as 'Kovacs' and 'Osterman' all the time is not only wrong, but misleading. These characters change identity within the narrative, and to attribute a plot point to the 'real name' without regard to the character's persona at the time muddies the plot summary. One of the themes of the work is changes in identity, and coupled this with the nonlinear narrative style, we need to take context into consideration when deciding which name to use to refer to a character. Consider an example 'The story shifts to a flashback and we see Osterman/Dr. Manhattan in front of a building'. Since the sentence doesn't show if the character is in the persona of Osterman or Dr. Manhattan, then we need to make sure we convey the correct identity to the reader with the appropriate name. -- Tomlouie | talk 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Since some people will disagree with any approach, there is no "correct compromise." As far as your example, there are precious few moments when that kind of detail is necessary in a plot summary, which must and should be drawn in broad strokes. We do not need to make sure we convey any detail at all, just the gist of it. The fine points are in the reading of the actual work, not the Wiki article. - Corporal Tunnel 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly as it is for wikipedia, I agree with Corporal Tunnel as to general deferrence for nuance issues like this, but will go him one better and say that editorially referring to the characters by their personal names like this is actually *more* true to the humanizing vision of the work. Further, there's the fact that (since they only existed in this series) the heroic names are no more recognizable to the general public than the personal names are and, in fact, are much more cumbersome. - j

I agree that it is somewhat hard as some of the characters are blurred, but I think referring to Rorscharch as Kovacs is somewhat wrong - he alone, of all the characters, is referred to by his alternate identity. He IS Rorscharch more than he is Kovacs. Unfortunately using that instead feels inconsistant, and I think Wikipedia would use either one or the other, and I think generally we prefer to use "real names". Titanium Dragon 05:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre self-criticism in Watchmen

The article seems to fall a bit short covering the aspects in which Watchmen commented on comics itself -- for instance the clear allusions to other more famous superhero or costumed hero characters. Nite Owl riffs on Batman; the Comedian is in Vietnam killing "gooks" just like Captain America was in the Pacific killing "Japs". There is even a significant question raised in the story whether wearing costumes and fighting crime was sublimination for the characters' other needs. The section on hero-worship and fascism comes close to discussing this but is more about the abstract concept than the way that comic books have relied on it in the past. Even the pirate comic-book-in-a-comic-book relates back to the horror comic books of the 1950s that were such a concern and spawned the Comics Code. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see more about that. Any ideas on sources for this? --Newt ΨΦ 04:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung's suggestions added to the prospective allusion section above. -j.

Citation 24

Citation 24 is marked "Ibid." and relates to a comment that Gibbons believes that Rorschach's mood is based off posture not his mask. However citation 23 is not related to Gibbons at all and is instead an analysis of Watchmen itself with only references to Gibbons not using movement lines. In the article the ibid before citation 24 is citation 4 which is an interview with Moore that mentions Gibbons once and is not related to Rorschach either. What is citation 24 supposed to be an ibid of and if we find out can it be linked correctly? --- Lid 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibid really shouldn't be used with the Ref/Ref notation. As soon as someone adds or moves a reference it makes no sense. A better solution (if you really can't be bothered to type out the whole thing) would be to use the authors name. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's my point, I didn't add the ref and have no idea who did or what it refers to. --- Lid 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind I figured out that citation twenty six was in fact citation twenty four as well. I have no idea how the actual citation ended up after 24 but I've fixed it now. --- Lid 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Miracleman

Right at the end of the 'Themes' section, Miracleman is said to be a character created by Moore - but wasn't he actually a renamed 'Marvelman' created by someone else years before? In fact, check out the Wikipedia article on Miracleman... Jahrsper 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Marvelman was an EC comic I think. Since it was originally published in England, there was no problem calling it Marvelman... but when DC bought the rights and brought it to the U.S., there were obvious problems with keeping the name Marvelman. That change was made long before the age of computer lettering, and if you go back and look, you can clearly see where every "Marvelman" was replaced with "Mircleman" in the American edition. It wasn't a particularly slick edit from the graphic standpoint.

Keene Act?

In the second paragraph or so it states that:

The graffito occurs following the proposition of the Keene Act,

What is this - maybe its explained further down the article, but reading from the top and not knowing the subject this needs at least a short explanation I think. -- 217.42.230.183

• OK, I changed it. It is explained later in the article but there's no reason to be cryptic about it up there. --Fastfission 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Special protection

I protected this page from new and anonymous users since they were vandalizing the page pretty heavily. Another admin can remove this whenever they think it will have calmed down (I'd wait a few hours at least, personally). --Fastfission 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I guess they don't semi-protect featured articles. I think that's a little silly (I don't think Wikipedia should be ashamed of its rather liberal quality-control measures), but whatever. --Fastfission 19:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Graffito/graffiti

The graffito "WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN" appears scrawled upon walls throughout New York City during the story

I'll be honest, i've never heard of the singular before... but now that I know it exists, it doesn't change my opinion that it should be the plural form... as there are more than one "WWTW" tags...? Troubleshooter

Marvels Cameo?

There's a line in this article about a cameo of Nite Owl in Issue 3 of Alex Ross' Marvels.

Where? I don't see it, and doubt its veracity. Taniwha 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Smoking pipes

Regarding the cigarette-style smoking pipe used in the story. Any evidence that they're based on anything real? Are they supposed to be a Doctor Manhattan technology or simply an "alternative universe" smoking device?

The story contains many "alternate universe" technologies, most developed thanks to Doctor Manhattan, such as economical electric cars and teleportation. A technolgy section might make a good addition to the article.--RevWaldo 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation and Spelling

Cherylktardif, in your latest edit, why did you feel the need to change spellings such as "Analyse" and "Summarise" to "Analyze" and "Summarize"? Troubleshooter

Keene Act vs House Un-American Activities Committee

Watchmen's use of the Keene act to suppress costumed adventurers seems very similar to the explanation of the Justice Society of America's quiescence during the 50s - according to our article on whom, "the Society chose to disband and retire rather than appear in front of the real House Un-American Activities Committee, which demanded that they unmask themselves". That was written in 1979, a few years before Watchmen; did Moore borrow the idea? If that's known, it would be good to mention.

Veidt/Ozymandias - Superhuman?

69.253.197.92 Recently edited the page with the following comment:

Veidt/Ozymandias catches a speeding bullet in midair - no human, even one in peak condition, can do that

He changed

Although the cast of Watchmen are commonly called "superheroes," the only superhuman character in the principal cast is Dr. Manhattan — the others are normal human beings with no special abilities aside from peak physical condition and access to high-class technology and weapons. In the comic, they refer to themselves as "costumed adventurers."

to

Although the cast of Watchmen are commonly called "superheroes," the only superhuman characters in the principal cast are Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias — the others are normal human beings with no special abilities aside from peak physical condition and access to high-class technology and weapons. In the comic, they refer to themselves as "costumed adventurers."

I think this change requires a bit of discussion. While we might consider it impossible for a normal human in peak condition, that doesn't mean that, in the story, Veidt isn't a normal human. --The Hanged Man 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To explain a little further: All kinds of normal human superheroes accomplish tasks that are probably not possible in the actual world for humans in peak physical and mental condition, as we understand those things. That doesn't make them superhuman. What does make them superhuman (or meta-human) is if, in the story, implicitly or explicitly, the character is represented as being a normal human being who has achieved a fantastical physical and mental condition through training, or whether they are represented as being super-human (e.g., mutants, aliens, cyborgs, altered by some kind of "serum" or "radiation", etc.). Batman accomplishes ridiculous stuff all the time (though perhaps not to the degree of Ozymandias), but he's still a normal human. To take a more extreme case, Karate Kid from Legion of Superheroes is represented as being a normal human, despite his many seemingly-superhuman abilities (including holding his own against Superboy!!) that supposedly result from just mastery of martial arts.

Now, as I recall, Watchmen represents all the characters except Dr. Manhattan as normal humans in costume. What they accomplish is a little beside the point; we need to know where it is stated or implied that they are actually meta-human. --The Hanged Man 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that Ozymandias was right at the top end of human - and that the top end goes a lot further than most of us realise, at least in the Watchmen universe. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon who made the change was me. The paragraph say normal human beings with no special abilities. Claiming that someone who catches a bullet out of midair (literally, being faster than a speeding bullet, to use the cliche) is someone who has no special abilities is just absurd, and the paragraph is plainly misleading. Raul654 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there is a clear distinction between Dr. M, who is meta-human, and Ozymandias, who is a highly trained human. Perhaps you can suggest a different rewording that doesn't make the mistake? --The Hanged Man 06:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Even Ozymadias said he 'honestly wasn't sure that would work' when he did it, so it isn't as though it was something he did constantly. In fact that was the first and only time.--HalfShadow 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I reread Watchmen this past weekend with an eye towards this. The interviews with Ozy are illuminative here. There is repeated mention that anyone can achieve what he has achieved, given adequate determination and effort. There is also his failure to cleanly catch the bullet. While Ozy is likely near the apex of possibility for his generation (an all-around Olympic-class athlete), I believe a great deal of the significance of the storyline revolves around him being a flawed (normal) human. Preppy 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember finding the bullet-catching scene very odd when I read Watchmen (which wasn't very long ago). I could have accepted Ozymandias being a superhero, or Ozymandias not being a superhero, but I can't understand why Moore would structure the whole story around a world with just one superhero, and then contradict that in a single throwaway scene. Regardless of authorial intent, it feels very wrong to classify Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan together as superhuman, because, from a storytelling perspective, they're treated completely differently. I think either the bullet-catching scene should get its own paragraph or even section, or it should be ignored. It makes no sense to refer to it obliquely. -- BenRG 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that we don't know how he did it. Maybe he has some super-science equipment in his lab that detects and slows down fast moving objects? The point is, he is clearly not in the same class as Dr. Manhattan. He is almost certainly ahead of the other watchment, but when compared to Dr M, the difference between Ozy and a normal human is no difference at all. (Are we getting into OR yet?) Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Veidt is described, a long with Dr. Manhattan, by - I'll have to check this later - the original Nite Owl as a Superhero distinct from the other masked adventurers that appeared prior to, and with, Ozymandias. He should be listed as a superhuman, he's literally the smartest man on earth and beyond peak human condition; in contrast, Dr. Manhattan doesn't even consider himself a man and should be listed as something else, maybe a meta-human - Jared Chambers 12:31, 20 November 2006.

I think it is worth noting that Ozymandias and Dr. Manhattan were seen as many as superhuman, but the question remains whether Ozymandias actually was superhuman. While he claimed anyone could become like him, I'm not sure if even he really believes it. I think it was meant to be something of an open question: is someone who is absurdly intelligent actually superhuman? Titanium Dragon 05:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

While I can understand the side that thinks Ozymandius promoted himself to superhuman by catching the bullet, I think the important thing to remember is that Alan Moore disagrees with that. In his mind, Ozymandius catching the bullet is more akin to the ultimate Jackie Chan stunt. I think you have to defer to his vision, since it's his story. And while it is impossible, it's not theoretically impossible. He's not catching the bullet the way a ninja grabs a fly with chopsticks, he's angling his hand into the way and deflecting the bullet into enough friction to slow it down. It still knocks him over and tears up his hand. And that kind of heightened sense of spatial geometry does exist on some level. Hockey players, for instance, make minute and nuanced deflections of pucks going a hundred miles an hour when they redirect their team mates slap shots. ~ Thirdrail

Translations

Would it be appropriate to make a section in the article with information about foreign translations? E.g. there is a 3-volume Polish edition (4 issues in each volume), title Strażnicy, translator Jacek Drewnowski, publisher Egmont Polska, 2003-2004. It could be interesting to see what languages Watchmen's been published in. Goulo 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism deleted section

I think that some of this can be saved with some work and it is extremely important for the page so I put it here. What it really needs is some references for the assertions or addition of referenced symbolism. So if anyone has time I would try and find some references and work through the list. Rtrev 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Section for OR

I think that some of this can be saved with some research. It clearly violates WP:NOR and must be removed. However, last time this was removed there was a WP:3RR problem. I am confident that there is consensus for the removal and I put the content here so hopefully some can be rolled back into the page with cites. So if this is reverted with no changes I would be obliged if I was not the only one reverting back. I also cleaned up the sections here and made a new section for the disciussion. Rtrev 14:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

The Watchmen makes use of multiple recurring images.

{{spoilers}}

Watches represent Determinism, Fatalism, and inevitability. The "Watch" in "watch-men" may refer to the fact that all the heroes can do is observe as events unfold around them with clocklike precision.

• The clock in black at the end of each chapter with the blood increasingly dripping towards the bottom moves closer to midnight each chapter. The clock is most likely a reference to the likewise symbolic Doomsday Clock.
• Numerous watches and clock appear, always showing the same time as that of the chapter (with the exception of...
• ...the watch with the cracked face frozen in time by the Hiroshima#Atomic_Bombing. Mankind is shown in civilization-wide descent as time marches on, halted only by the calamitous tragedy of Hiroshima and presumably Veidt's plot. Before the tragedy Veidt sells Nostalgia. After the tragedy in the final chapter the Millenium cologne ads say "This is the time...," "this" to be understood as a new time.
• Since there is a common Watchmaker analogy to God as part of the deterministic world view, Osterman (who will become a kind of god) grows up as a watchmaker.
• Dr. Manhattan's Mars palace looks like the internal gears of a giant clock. His serving bowls look like the halves of an hourglass, and the whole palace is made of glassified Mars sand (which looks like the pink sands put in hourglasses).

The concept of gravity, and especially the crashing at the end of a fall, is recurring. Like the watches, it symbolizes the unstoppable force of inevitability.

• The opening sequence of Watchmen shows The Comedian falling out of his building.
• The closing image of each chapter features blood pulled ever further down towards the clock.
• Dr. Manhattan's dropping of the photograph of him and Janey Slater is mentioned repeatedly, and it's collision wth the Mars surface is used as an example of a specific moment in time where he abandoned another piece of his humanity.
• The snowglobe's crash in Laurie's flashback to childhood mirrors how her world crashes at the revelation of her paternity.
• The Nostalgia bottle's flight is portrayed repeatedly through the chapter, parallelling Laurie's flashbacks until it crashes as well. Her "nostalgia" is gone when she learns the truth.
• Dr. Manhattan's statement "I fully understand the Gravity of the situation" is another indicia of the fact that his unique ability is mainly to see those unstoppable forces "normal" humans can ignore.

Costumes:

• The Comedian's trademark smiley face opens and closes The Watchmen and appears throughout. It represents the character's nihilism/cynical ability to enjoy himself no matter how horrible the world is, but the concept becomes stained with "human bean juice" when Blake's "practiced cynicism shattered." Rorschach hands The Comedian's button to Nite Owl II, passing the torch of responsibility, which is why Dreiberg enables the investigation in the later chapters. In the last image of the book, the smiley face is stained with real bean juice, and worn by the character who might publish Rorschach's journal, finally getting revenge on Veidt.
• Nite Owl I's costume is bright and gaudy, representing that of the featured characters, he is by far the most traditionally wholesome.
• Hooded Justice's noose and hood are (except for color scheme) symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, who often dispensed what was euphemized as "hooded justice." This connection is made by the New Frontiersman article at the end of one chapter, "Justice is like the Hawk: sometimes it must go hooded" when the editor defends the KKK by way of justifying Rorschach's actions. Notably, every single Minuteman and Crimebuster is white, and the Silk Spectre I even takes pains to hide her Polish heritage.
• Unlike his predecessor, Nite Owl II's costume is actually based off of owls, indicating how easily he took to the romantic aspects of the profession. Dan Dreiberg is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get character, which is why he is the only character other than Nelson Gardner/Captain Metropolis who does not have a chapter dedicated to illustrating flashbacks from his life.
• Dr. Manhattan is blue, the traditional color symbol of magic, indicating his godlike status. His hydrogen symbol, and insulted rejection of the nuclear insignia is likely a reference to the insignia of the character he was based off of, Captain Atom. Blue is also the traditional color of sadness, demonstrating the fact that for all his powers, Osterman brings happiness to neither himself (because in seeing the future he feels powerless) nor others (he neither averts nor meaningfully assists the Veidt plot).
• Rorschach's costume is the most like his inspiration, The Question. His comment "made a face I could bear to look at in the mirror" is a reference to the fact that The Question has no face when in costume. The shifting black and white ink represents Rorschach's monochromatic morality, but also the fact that Rorschach blots are open to subjective interpretation, which is why Rorschach can agree with Truman's bombing of Hiroshima to end war, but not Veidt's plot to end war. Rorschach's has the simplest costume, just gloves, trenchcoat and mask, because his only goal is his version of justice (as opposed to profit, romanticism or excitement).
• The Silk Spectres' costumes are designed mainly for sex appeal rather than combat or stealth. The name, like that of the other female costumed fighter The Sillouhette, indicates an ephemeral shadow or spirit. As a result, none of the female characters accomplish much (a parody of supposed girl-power heroes who have inhuman powers but dress skimpily) until Silk Spectre II embraces her role as inspiration and motivates first Nite Owl II and then Dr. Manhattan to save the world. At the end of The Watchmen she discusses redesigning the costume, this time for protection at the cost of fashion because she is ready to be a "real" hero.

Hair color:

• Ozymandias' blonde is reminiscent of the Nazi's eugenics preferences (Eugenics is based on the kind of life-sacrificing Utilitarianism Veidt espouses). Doug Roth, ultraliberal head of the Nova Express paper that helped Veidt exile Dr. Manhattan and conducted the interview with Veidt is also a blonde. The Millenium cologne models are blondes. After Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre II agree not to expose Veidt, they dye their hair the same color as part of their new identities. The police officer who suggests keeping the Comedian's murder secret and who tries to warn Dreiberg not to associate with Rorschach is blonde.
• Conversely, when Silk Spectre II takes the gun she will later use to fire at Ozymandias, she takes it not from the blonde cop but from the one with the dark hair and bald spot. It is this cop whose comment about Rorschach in chapter one perks up Kovac's (in his End-is-nigh disguise) attention.
• Many of the characters who have black hair are used as minor characters, who make one perform one or two appearances to move the story forward but do not contribute significantly to the main characters' development. These include Larry Schexnayder, the agent in charge of keeping Dr. Manhattan pacified, Veidt's three Vietnamese servants in Antarctica, etc. The policeman whose gun the Silk Spectre II takes does nothing else plotwise other than provide a sounding board for his blonde partner's theories.
• The Silk Spectre II's straight brown hair, unlike her mother's or her mother's husband's, is an early indicator of her paternity.
• Dan Dreiberg's brown hair shows he's emotionally more related to Laurie than any other character. His coif is also styled--along with the beaklike hook nose--to make him look like the Owl he derives his costumed identity from.
• Malcolm Long's brown hair with white frayed edges and mustache is similar to The Comedian's. Although the characters appear to be opposites, Dr. Long believes in displaying optimism (in the same way The Comedian believes in enjoying himself) regardless of the reality of the world.
• Seymour, the worker at the New Frontiersman has the same red curls haircut as Rorschach, indicating that he might carry on Rorschach's work in exposing Veidt by publishing Rorschach's journal. His boss has the same brown hair as The Comedian, indicating his allegiance to the war hero.
• The white-haired characters, Silk Spectre I and Nite Owl I, serve only as inspiration to the current generation. The Comedian partially makes the transition, inspiring Rorschach, as indicated by his frayed edges. The "frayed" edges may also indicate how in his last days The Comedian went somewhat insane from his recent discoveries.

At its heart, Watchmen portrays a world where superhero intervention winning the Vietnam War, preventing disclosure of the Watergate scandal and gifting the nation with military superiority and unparallelled technology should have extended the positive feelings post WWII. But instead of utopia people are still inhuman to each other, take drugs as a form of escapism, and propagate hatred.

• Harry S. Truman's dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima is referenced repeatedly, as it is parallelled by Veidt's actions. References include Einstein's quote about preferring to be a Watchmaker, Osterman's father's declaration Hiroshima invalidates "petty" mechanics, Dr. Malcolm Long's interpretation of the Knot Top's embracing couple spraying, the atomic trefoil/pirate comparison, and the Cold War Nuclear Buildup.
• John F. Kennedy's intended speech, quoted for its use of the "Watchmen," is part of a speech where Kennedy would have suggested that Americans accept its responsibilities intelligently, without relying on primarily military solutions. Significantly, he was not allowed to make that speech. There is Dramatic Irony in the sense that many people suspect The Comedian and/or Richard Nixon of having been involved in Kennedy's assasination due to coincidence, whereas we in the real world know JFK would not have survived even absent costumed crimefighters.

Discussion about Removed Section

I know this is an important article for a lot of people. It also has a lot of original research. I think that a lot of the symbolism section can be saved/fixed but as it stands it draws many original conclusions without a single citation of reliable sources. As it is it cannot stand. In keeping with the quality of the article let's cite as quickly as possible Rtrev 01:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Useful resources:

• annotated Watchmen
• Hopefully someone has access to this article
• January Magazine
• Seems reliable enough and a huge resource
• Alan Moore interview (mostly Wathmen movie but may have points)
• [http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Works-Alan-Moore/dp/1893905241/sr=8-22/qid=1160444402/ref=sr_1_22/104-3275036-6053539?ie=UTF8&s=books This book may have some info if anyone has it]
• [http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Moore-Portrait-Extraordinary-Gentleman/dp/094679006X/sr=8-26/qid=1160444402/ref=sr_1_26/104-3275036-6053539?ie=UTF8&s=books Another book]
• [http://www.amazon.com/Alan-Moore-Spells-Bill-Baker/dp/0972480579/sr=8-31/qid=1160444402/ref=sr_1_31/104-3275036-6053539?ie=UTF8&s=books Yet another book]

I hope these help... sorry I cannot do more right now. List any more resources if you have them. !@#Rtrev 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, none of this is helpful. Joelr31 merely deleted everything I posted without anything I posted without ever stating a more specific reason than "OR." So I added bracket cites to every external reference/concept I could think of, all of which Wikipedia thankfully already had pages for. Beyond that I'm not sure what it is you expect. If you're suggesting that I can't summarize what's present in the work or provide the most logical of interpretations, then I question why Wikipedia exists at all if not massive copyright violation. Note that every single nonhyperlinked text in the Themes section is functionally identical to my Symbolism section: Sentence 1: Realism is a primary mode in Watchmen, which features themes that relate superheroes to the human condition. According to whom? Who says it's about the human condition? There's no cite for that proposition. Who says it's Realistic? There's no cite for that proposition. Those two terms do not appear at all in the cite marked #19: "THE ANNOTATED WATCHMEN" immediately following those statements. Who said it's about superheroes? etc. etc. And that's just the first sentence. None of those three terms appear at all in the cite marked #20: "The Rise of the Post-Modern Graphic Novel." But no one deleted that. If you're saying I need individual page cites to the Watchmen Graphic Novel, then that might apply for some, but what about concepts that encompass the whole book? Which page do I cite for the proposition that Dr. Manhattan is blue? His first book appearance? His first chronological "sunburn in november" formation appearance? The page where the tv producer tells him that his blue will "wash out" on camera? I understand you want the page to be professional; I didn't type what I typed to prank or ruin a Wikipage, but all in all I think I've been rather patient so far. I spent some amount of work thinking about these concepts and I'm not going to keep improving the list if the only place it'll ever appear is relegated to this discussion page most people will skip. To reiterrate: if someone has a problem with what I posted, maybe they should improve rather than remove. At least show me one cite I can use as a template. Thanks, Plotlessviolence 02:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from completely. I am extremely loathe to give up this section (not to mention the rest). The problem is that we have to work within a certain framework. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. I would be more willing to let sections slide if they simply stated declarative fact. But the truth is that the symbolism section is almost completely interpretation... very good interpretation... but nonetheless original research. It clearly violates WP:NOR which is a good read for exactly this reason. There are most certainly other instances that do not conform to WP:NOR but that does not mean that it is acceptable. The problem is that your section is very good but makes assertions beyond "Dr. Manhattan is blue" that constitute original research. I direly want this section to be included but we MUST cite authoratative sources for assertions such as,

Dan Dreiberg's brown hair shows he's emotionally more related to Laurie than any other character. His coif is also styled--along with the beaklike hook nose--to make him look like the Owl he derives his costumed identity from.

or

The white-haired characters, Silk Spectre I and Nite Owl I, serve only as inspiration to the current generation. The Comedian partially makes the transition, inspiring Rorschach, as indicated by his frayed edges. The "frayed" edges may also indicate how in his last days The Comedian went somewhat insane from his recent discoveries.

They are excellent interpretations, but as such they are original interpretations and not de facto accepted. This is why I moved this content here to the talk page. It is not to relegate it to the "lesser" arena of a talk page, but to improve it to the point where it can return fully cited and free of original research to the main article. The prohibition of original research is not merely a suggestion but a basic tenet. You should definitely read the WP:NOR page because it would clear up the discussion here. I hope this clears up the topic some.  !@#Rtrev (talk · contribs)

I've read the WPNOR. This is exactly what I meant when I said that if all you're doing is reproducing other peoples' ideas without summary, expansion or interpretation then you fail to qualify under the News/Commentary Fair Use exception to copyright violation. And you still haven't explained how anything I want to post is qualitatively different from anything in the Themes section or why I'm being singled out for OR enforcement. Plotlessviolence 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been patient, I've added every relevant cite that could possibly refer to anything external to the Watchmen book itself, I've asked for specific examples of what it is you think a proper citation should look like in this case and still you delete my work for no reason, pretending that if I sink another 3 hours into it it will be allowed. Explain this then: It is absolutely undisputed by anybody with eyes that certain characters in the Watchmen are blonde, or yellow-inked. It is similarly undisputed that those specified characters perform the various specified actions that either help Veidt or are designed to help various portions of Veidt's plot. It is similarly undisputed that the Nazis were imposing a system of Eugenics that preferred blonde haired, blue-eyed aryans. It is similarly undisputed that Utilitarianism is the philosophical backbone/justification of any Eugenicist. It is similarly undisputed by anyone who's read the Watchmen and understands what the word Utilitarianism means that Veidt is a Utilitarian. So why is it that the phrase, Ozymandias' blonde is reminiscent of the Nazi's eugenics preferences (Eugenics is based on the kind of life-sacrificing Utilitarianism Veidt espouses). Doug Roth, ultraliberal head of the Nova Express paper that helped Veidt exile Dr. Manhattan and conducted the interview with Veidt is also a blonde. The Millenium cologne models are blondes. After Nite Owl and the Silk Spectre II agree not to expose Veidt, they dye their hair the same color as part of their new identities. The police officer who suggests keeping the Comedian's murder secret and who tries to warn Dreiberg not to associate with Rorschach is blonde. is disallowed? After everything that's happened so far it's getting a little hard not to take this thing personally. I mean, look at the Rorschach character's page. Moore and Gibbons have specifically stated that the specific inkblot shapes on the mask at various points DO NOT have ANY visual significance, yet that page has a whole section dedicated to interpreting Rorschach's mood from his mask. That's OR (by the definition applied to me anyway, and worse, it's OR that's specifically been proved false by the creators of the original work. So why doesn't that get deleted? You know why? Because I didn't write it. You don't want to help me improve my section? Fine. But don't mess it up either. That's just selfish. Who watches the Watchmen watchers? Plotlessviolence 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you stop thinking that we are singling you out then improvements can be made on your contributions and the article. We are targeting the content not the person. Joelito (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with you. Simply citing other examples of OR in the wikipedia does not make them or any other OR ok. Since you are clearly not grasping the concept of original research and continue to take this personally I think the tag is a good compromise. I really think that you need to re-read the WP:NOR page and take a critical look at the symbolism section. There is plainly a lot of uncited original research here. !@#Rtrev (talk · contribs)

• I have not participated much in this page, apart from helping to keep an eye on it since it was featured, but let me chime in. I think this section is massively overblown, completely OR, and unhelpful at best. It will not be possible to source most of it, partly because there is no indication that most of it is especially true.
  Sections based on comments like "The concept of gravity ... is recurring" are not useful. Gravity is recurring because, well, gravity is everywhere. It's not a symbol, it's a fact.
  I think the gravity, costume, and hair color sections should go immediately, as there is no indication that these assumptions are true (e.g., it is easy to ink black-haired characters, which may be why they tend to be minor personalities: I am unconvinced that it's a master plan by the authors). Moving the whole to this talk page for surgery was probably the right idea.
  Overanalysis of an important work tends to trivialize it; this level of detail and conjecture is not what the Wiki should be about. As I have not been active in the crafting, I'll refrain from the deleting. But I'd favor massive removal in this section, ideally before this is no longer a Good Article. - Corporal Tunnel 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to put my 2 cents in as a 3rd party. Reading through the article and this discussion, it does seem to me that the Symbolism section while very interesting, violates WP:OR policy. The whole section would be better on someone's personal webpage. Ashmoo 04:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok I am going to give the section another week or so for people to cite things. Then I am moving any uncited original research to the talk page. This will probably have to be done with other portions as well. I would hate to see this article lose its high ranking. Rtrev 19:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While more people have joined your "It's OR because we say so" camp (and thanks for that big honkin' sign on the main page maintaining nuetrality on that point), no one has:

• 1) Explained why, for example, my point about the blondes supporting Veidt is qualitatively (OR-wise) different from the first sentence in Themes claiming The Watchmen is realistic or about the human condition.
• 2) Demonstrated even a single example of this magical cite that you desire so much.
• 3) Made any effort to improve my section (other than one person who corrected its spelling), despite your problems with it.

You might as well type "Catch 22" instead of "OR" when you delete my work. I've read the wikipedia NOR page, I've made every effort to understand your point (and I have added hyperlinks to every external reference) but none of you have addressed any of the specific points I've made in the discussion page so far. So in the same third grade spirit of "Because I say so" let me simply respond that "My Daddy can beat up your daddy." Plotlessviolence 20:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are 54 references at the bottom of the article, not one of which supports anything in the section you are defending. Take a look at them. They are citations.
  Since your first edit was yesterday, and you have edited nothing but this section and the Rorschach page, it's clear that you're new to the Wiki world. Why not sit back and learn how things are done here, rather than leaping in with hysteria? The section is not cited; it is not verifiable; it is not viably factual - I, for example, have taken issue with two of the interpretations, in my above comment - and is a speculative account of symbolism in a great work. It is not true, it is opinion, and as such it has no place here. - Corporal Tunnel 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You've disagreed with only my comment about Gravity, even though I did cite specific proofs for that...Jon's comment, the repeated references to the falling photograph, the crashing at the end of various liquid-filled bottles that always parallel the most emotional moments. I never suggested a reason why black-haired characters are minor, just that they are; I would say your explanation should be added since it's logical. You don't actually disagree with my point that dark-haired characters are minor in Watchmen. And you're right, I am new, but you haven't addressed any of my points except 2). Why don't you have the same OR problems with the Themes section or really anything else? And are you suggesting that if I posted everything I wrote in a separate website and then cited that, that would magically justify the same exact information? Or are you saying that only justifications/explanations that come directly from Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons are citeable and therefore worthy of Wikipedia-ness, in which case, again, how do you explain the current Themes section (or really any of the article other than direct quotes from Moore-interviews)? Plotlessviolence 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please refer to the Wiki guidelines on WP:Reliable Sources before we discuss this further. - Corporal Tunnel 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I read that, I think what you're saying is that I can't cite myself, but I can get a friend to cite me if I can convince him I'm right about enough of what I'm claiming. As long as we're doing the whole book report thing, why don't you read Hagakure: The Way of the Samurai by Yamamoto Tsunetomo? I'm not going to tell you the one line in chapter 4 I think is relevant to this conversation, but it's there. Now if you're done euphemistically calling me an idiot, maybe you can answer my numbered questions. Plotlessviolence 21:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• You are not a reliable source and cannot be quoted at all. I am done with you. - Corporal Tunnel 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point: if Moore and Gibbons are the only reliable sources, your precious article will be all of 3 sentences long. But thank you for again addressing none of my points and still pretending to be reasonable.Plotlessviolence 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• if Moore and Gibbons are the only reliable sources, your precious article will be all of 3 sentences long This is wrong. There are MANY other reliable sources than the authors themselves. You however do not happen to be one as far as we can tell. A book of commentary on the comic would be reliable though. I purposely posted several bulleted links higher up to what should be reliable sources that can be drawn from. Your example of having a friend cite you is also wrong... you are still not a reliable source. If you happened to be an important scholar of comic book symbolism or someone who has written a book on it, scholarly papers, or even a web authority that has proven themselves to be a reliable source then it would be perfectly acceptable for you to be cited and your assertions to stand.

For example I could not go and state what symbolism I think is in The Book of Genesis. I would have to cite a scholarly or otherwise verifiable source as to what symbolism is in the Book of Genesis for it to be in the Wikipedia. It is really critical that you understand this concept because it is extremely basic to the Wikipedia. This is not something that everyone is making up and arbitrarily applying to you. It is not a "bandwagon" that we are jumping on. It is a core tenet of the Wikipedia put forth by Jimbo Wales its founder.

You wanted examples of what some problems are

• • You cite no external sources at all in a very lengthy section
  • You make original assertions that do not appear anywhere else
  • For example:
    • Dr. Manhattan is blue, the traditional color symbol of magic, indicating his godlike status

Where did that come from? Did you make it up? Who says that magic is traditionally indicated by blue? It is an original assertion with no verification.

I really don't want this to drag on much longer but it is an extremely critical point for any Wikipedia editor to understand. You also keep mentioning the argument "but something else is original research why not delete it." The answer to that is it should be deleted or cited from a verifiable source. You can even do it yourself. The problem with the symbolism segment is that it is not just a little original research in an otherwise well cited section. It is a whole section of original research. If you would like to discuss these points more feel free to post on my talk page, the talk page of people that have a long history of editing graphic novel wiki entries, or better yet the talk page of an administrator or someone associated with WP:CMC for guidance. They would be a very good resource for a new Wikipedia editor. This is really not a personal attack against you or your work. It just violates the principles of the Wikipedia. As I said I will give it some more time then remove uncited portions back here to the talk page. Rtrev 22:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Plotlessviolence,

1. The Themes section also contains unsourced statements which need to be cited. This doesn't affect the need for sources in the Symbolism section.
2. It is up to the editor adding material to provide cites for their statements.
3. The only problem with the Symbolism section is that it is unsourced. It is difficult for other editors to improve it (ie add cites), as we do not know where the information/analysis originated from.

Please don't take any of this personally, we are merely trying to get the article to conform to wikipedia standards. Take care, Ashmoo 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try again and start adding cites next Monday. I assure you I've reread Watchmen enough times to qualify as an "expert" in every sense except that I didn't personally write it. As far as blue, that assertion comes from a high school lecture I got (twice, the teacher repeated himself often after years doing the same curriculum) about color ancient cultures' color association. I have added that theory to the "Blue" page. Want to know why pink is traditionally considered a female color? Plotlessviolence 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, those sources will be great! But please note, no matter how many times you've read Watchmen, it doesn't make you an expert in the sense that Wikipedia requires. see Reliable sources. That doesn't mean you're not an expert, just that wikipedia has special rules about what sort of experts can be used. Similarly, you can't incorporate something you learnt from your high school teacher, unless you can cite the source that the teacher's textbook used. Again, that's no slight on your teacher, it's just that wikipedia has special rules about how information is gained. Ashmoo 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am unhappy that the symbolism section is now generating the addition of more OR without citations. While the addition of the Doomsday Clock link is probably accurate I don't like where this is going seeing as none of the symbolism is being sourced. I am going to remove this section unless items are sourced. Although this time I am going to try to make it stick and hopefully no one will violate 3RR. Rtrev 16:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. It should never have been allowed to stay at all; thank you for taking the step. If and when items are properly sourced - and I am going to venture that most or all never will be - then the whole can be added back in, bit by bit. - Corporal Tunnel 17:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on symbolism points

Might as well start, right? This section is going huge, if there is a better way to parse things please advise. I'm just using the brute-force copy method.

I think the problems here begin with the topic sentence of the section - The Watchmen makes use of multiple recurring images. Well, of course it does. That's true of any complex collection of words and text. Clarifying discussion of symbolism can't just be a list of stuff that made you think of other stuff; it needs to be a consideration of devices that shed light upon a theme in a coherent way. As a guide we can consider the rosebush in The Scarlet Letter, the "green space" in medieval epic poetry and lays, the role of The Monster in 50's horror films (as Other, or Outsider, or, sometimes, as Id): devices that propel our understanding of the text, by emphasizing dominant themes and representing complex realities as simpler symbols that are manipulated to give the work a more resonant meaning. There is very little of that in this list.

Watches represent Determinism, Fatalism, and inevitability. The "Watch" in "watch-men" may refer to the fact that all the heroes can do is observe as events unfold around them with clocklike precision.

Do they? Watches represent fatalism? They absolutely do not. Determinism? In what way? Inevitability - there's a case that can be made there. Here there's an inexorable crawl to midnight, yes. What else might watches represent? Ingenuity, human intervention, technology, choice, priorities. Phil Dick believed that time is a cage, and we the prisoners in it. Kant believed it was a necessary ground to human experience; modern physics thinks of it (partly, at least) as a process which can be reversed in alternate spaces and is embedded in our perceived revision of the universe. What do Moore and Gibbons think? Frankly, I don't know, and this section doesn't help me find out. I'm not sure anyone knows, which is one of the reasons it is not likely to be verifiable in the end. And Wikipedia:NOR very clearly says that the reference page is not a forum for us to toss around ideas in.

Watchmen are people who watch out and keep guard; they were the first police, and they look out for general safety. The watch as a timepiece is something that measures the time that the watchmen will keep their watch. Midnight is a traditional time of the changing of the watch. In the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), "watch" in the sense of a portable clock is the eighth of nine noun definitions. The book makes brilliant use of these levels, and so far as I know there is no reliable secondary resource that has made the effort to cogently unravel this Gordian knot.

* The clock in black at the end of each chapter with the blood increasingly dripping towards the bottom moves closer to midnight each chapter. The clock is most likely a reference to the likewise symbolic Doomsday Clock.

The first sentence is not a symbol, it just describes a recurring motif at the end of each chapter. It doesn't belong here. The second sentence is pure conjecture, and for the record I don't think it's correct.

* Numerous watches and clock appear, always showing the same time as that of the chapter (with the exception of...

Again, not a symbol so much as a descriptive bit of trivia.

*...the watch with the cracked face frozen in time by the Hiroshima#Atomic_Bombing. Mankind is shown in civilization-wide descent as time marches on, halted only by the calamitous tragedy of Hiroshima and presumably Veidt's plot. Before the tragedy Veidt sells Nostalgia. After the tragedy in the final chapter the Millenium cologne ads say "This is the time...," "this" to be understood as a new time.

This does not clarify the novel for me; it confuses it. OK, Hiroshima, good. That's a moment when time stopped. Is mankind shown in a civilization-wide descent? Certainly not. A small group of people are in decline, yes, and they perceive the world as souring around them, which is a common theme in literature (and in human experience). It's one foundation of comic crusaders; the Dark Knight shares the same ground. However, mankind is not demonstrably declining, and even if it were, it certainly isn't because of time, or watches. Veidt has a theory on this, but that's not symbolic - it's plot.

* Since there is a common Watchmaker analogy to God as part of the deterministic world view, Osterman (who will become a kind of god) grows up as a watchmaker.

There's a point lurking in here. I buy the Watchmaker and the deity, though I'd like to see a cite from the authors or from legit literary critics on this point. However, this is not fleshed out, and it isn't brought to the fruition of an actual point. What does it mean? How does it advance the story? How does it support the themes of the novel?

* Dr. Manhattan's Mars palace looks like the internal gears of a giant clock. His serving bowls look like the halves of an hourglass, and the whole palace is made of glassified Mars sand (which looks like the pink sands put in hourglasses).

Pink sand in hourglasses? Reference, please. Hourglass sand in my experience is either sand-colored or white (powdered marble or eggshell). We can say that M&G are putting Manhattan in a time setting, but why? Again, what's the symbolism here?

In general I think there's confusion in this section between rigorous (and useful) symbolism, and stuff that appears often. The authors do reflect on time, certainly, but so do we all, in every aspect of life. Other sections deal with gravity and hair color, two other things that are so common that they can't be left out of a graphic novel. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily meaningful in a symbolic sense. The job here is to find sources which consider these commonplace occurrences within the fabric of the book, and make sense of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporal Tunnel (talk • contribs)

• That's wacky. There was a signature line there when I posted it. - Corporal Tunnel 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit that my point about Gravity is stretching it. The actual symbolism is to the "Krystalnacht," (the name of a band, apparently in the Watchmen world), which is both a symbolic reference to mob rule under (Nazi) Fascism and literally "shattering glass," a recurring motif. I learned that from one of the fun links. I stand by everything else, especially the hair color as defining philosophical and political factions. That's not just coincidence. What's wierd to me is that the best content people contribute is labelled OR and deleted. Just recently, like the fact that the Latin for Watchman is also the source of the word "Vigilante," that kind of knowledge enhances my enjoyment of the book, but someone didn't think it was, what, relevant? The whole section in V for Vendetta on the symbolism of the name "V" is awesome, but it's all "OR" by the definition (applied to me at least). Do you not understand that an OR-free page reads like: "Watchmen is a comic book. It was drawn by Dave Gibbons and written by Alan Moore. Television shows that have used the word 'Watchmen' in their scripts include..." blah blah blah. If any of the OR-ites had a shred of integrity they would completely delete the Themes section.Plotlessviolence 20:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The themes section actually has citations. Notice the footnotes and please read WP:NOR. --Rtrev 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read it twice. If you'll read what I wrote above explain why the Themes section IS OR, you'll see that the first SENTENCE contains 3 uncited claims. I think what everyone's NOT saying is that what I worte just isn't good enough. That's ok, I can rewrite it, I think I'll delete the Gravity point for example, but things like hair color and Watchmaker analogies gotta stay. Also the Doomsday clock reference someone else mentioned. It'll probably go in the Themes section, thus hiding it from your ridiculous OR and lack of citation charges.Plotlessviolence 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• The point is not to add more OR it is to remove it. If you find statements in the themes section that are uncited OR then by all means remove them or find citations for them. --Rtrev 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Plotlessviolence, no-one here has any reason to lie to you, or sugar-coat their criticisms of your work. Your analysis is fine, and quite interesting. But, as has been said many times it is WP:OR and cannot be included in a wikipedia article. And like Rtrev said, just because the Themes sections contains some OR, that doesn't mean that you can add OR too. You are just going to have to accept that what you wrote is your own original analysis and can't be included in a wikipedia article. Ashmoo 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly question the latest addition: "As a reference to the watchmaker_analogy", as that statement is a further interpretation of the given source. That reference can be implied, but is not definitively supported and thus again qualifies as original research and personal bias. It would seem extremely worthwhile to discuss pending Themes/Symbolism changes on the Talk page previous to inclusion. Preppy 08:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Rorschach

The name given to Rorschach is incorrect throughout the article: in his interview with Dr. Malcolm Long inside the prison on October 28, 1985, Rorschach references the 1975 Blaire Roche kidnapping case as the one where his previous outlook on criminality died, and the new, far more violent one, or as he put it, "Was [finally the real] Rorschach," was created. From 1975 after, if he is to be taken at his word (and I say he should be, as all his actions throughout the story attest to its validity), he viewed Kovacs as the mask and Rorschach as the reality; as such, identifying him as "Kovacs" after that time is psychologically inaccurate...and yes, that I can state such stuff about something that is in the end a graphic novel is testament to how great the work truly is. All reference to Kovacs' actions past '75 should be replaced with Rorschach. If there is no debate on this matter after seven days, I will begin doing so. --Chr.K. 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting proposition but somewhat calls for original research. I am more in the camp of being consistent throughout the article, which would make it slightly less accurate from an "in comic" perspective but more readable to an outsider and more encyclopedic. (I also believe this is WP policy for biographies) !@#Rtrev 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that Kovacs 'becomes' Rorchach after the kidnapping, I don't think this should be relected in the article. It is a subtle point that, while highly signicant to the character doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia article on the comic. It would also be too confusion for an uninformed reader. Ashmoo 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(Apologies for being away for so long; have been involved in several Wikiproject Paranormal and Open-Wheel Racing articles.)
It is not original research, as the character's own words, at one point, were screamed, "GIVE [his] FACE BACK [to him]!!...", attesting, again, to Rorschach's worldview, before later being explained to Long. I would suggest explaining to the reader, who I would likewise (in reply to Ashmoo's comment) automatically treat with expectancy to understand the concept, if appropriately (read: scientific journal level) written out. --Chr.K. 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why not write it out here and see what people think? Hiding Talk 15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well...though first I will try to explain how I would present it, rather than yet written directly, in italics, etc.
At the time readers (viewers, even) first encounter Rorschach, no mention is given of his, ostensibly, real name. All those who encounter him in the bar scene do not know him, and those who even make fun of him (at their peril, we quickly learn) turn over their shoulder and have eyes go wide: it is Rorschach the others see, not any normal man. Though some would argue that this was induced solely due to psychological effect of the inscrutable, through the image of the mask he wore, such would not be the case: later, in the prison, Rorschach gradually (though always brutally) wears down the confidence of the inmates who gang up on him, so that eventually, when they look at his now supposedly meeker and weaker face, after multiple attempts on his life, they see the eyes, rather than the face: i.e. the complete disavowal of any moral scruples in pursuit of his goals, regardless of what they, be they inmates or governments, innocents or world religions, state to be wrong. This, in the end, is Rorschach, as opposed to Walter Kovacs, who died the night that "evidence" was so gruesomely disposed of. That being the case, it is Rorschach, not Kovacs, who investigates what he discovers to be the Comedian's murder; it is Rorschach who attempts to warn all the other "masks"...and in his ceaselessly terming them such, the question can be raised as to whether Rorschach simply sees Dreiberg and Juspeczyk, and for that matter all the rest, as deluding themselves as to which side has been real, and which has been the real mask, over the years in all their own lives; Dr. Manhattan's further and further distancing from standard humanity reiterates it, at least to this author. In any case: after being given over to the government by Veidt to keep him from the truth, Rorschach shouts out the most blatant presentation of the situation, wherein he demands the police give him back his face, not his crime-fighting mask. Later, in the room with Long, all references to "Kovacs" doing these things are claimed by Long, not by reference of Rorschach himself: read his diary entries throughout the work; at points where he signs them (most prominently at the end when mailing the item in question), the signature does not read as Walter Kovacs. Eventually, Long is hammered as well into understanding, just like the prison inmates soon to follow. This progression can be seen throughout their week of interviews, as step by step, Long comes to see the man sitting across the table from him for what he truly is...even after supposedly catching himself as making the "mistake" of forgetting the name society would insist on calling him by. Upon Rorschach's detailed summary of the events that led to his current worldview (and psychological makeup), he succeeds in shattering Long's idealism: that night Long sees, in the ink blots he quizzed his patient on, the kind of stark and brutal imagery that Rorschach takes as par for the course of life. That Rorschach thereafter, at the end of the final sitting, merely asks if he adequately answered the doctor's question, reinforces the point to ultimate level: Kovacs does not exist. He has been dead for over ten years. The Watchmen Wikipedia page should suitably reflect this reality. --Chr.K. 10:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Suggested new version:
  

In October 1985, Rorschach (Walter Kovacs) investigates the murder of New Yorker Edward Blake and discovers that Blake was the "Comedian," a veteran costumed adventurer and government agent. Forming a theory that Blake's murder is part of a greater plot to eliminate costumed adventurers (or "masks," as he terms them), Rorschach warns others: Jon Osterman (Dr. Manhattan), Laurel Jane Juspeczyk (the second Silk Spectre), Daniel Dreiberg (the second Nite Owl) and Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias). Veidt, Juspeczyk and Dreiberg are long retired from crime-fighting, the latter two because of the 1977 passage of the Keene Act, which had banned costumed vigilantes (a law that Rorschach, unwilling to compromise his own moral code, ignores with disdain). Veidt retired voluntarily in 1975, disclosing his identity publicly and using his reputation and intelligence to build a successful commercial enterprise and a large personal fortune. Like Blake, Osterman remained exempt from the Keene Act as an agent of the U.S. government; no longer engaged in crime fighting, he has become an important element of the ongoing Cold War.

Geopolitically, the United States and the Soviet Union have been edging toward a nuclear confrontation since the 1959 nuclear accident that transformed Osterman into the super-powered Dr. Manhattan. Due to Osterman's near-godlike powers and allegiance to the American government, the U.S. has enjoyed a distinct strategic advantage, allowing it to defeat the Soviet Union in a series of proxy wars, most notably in Vietnam. Richard Nixon, unmarred by the Watergate scandal which attracted little or no attention, used such successes to encourage a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, removing Presidential term limits. He remains President in 1985, on an unprecedented fifth term of office.

The power imbalance resulting from Manhattan's capabilities accelerated the nuclear arms race and dramatically increased global tension. In seeming anticipation of global war, American society has assumed a general sense of fatalism about the future. Signs of this in daily life range from "Meltdowns" candy to graffiti inspired by the Hiroshima bombing to the designation of many buildings in New York as fallout shelters.

Veidt, observing Osterman's increasing emotional detachment from humanity, forms a theory that military expenditures and environmental damage will lead to the collapse of modern civilization no later than the mid-1990s. As part of an elaborate plot to avert this, Veidt acts to accelerate Osterman's isolation by secretly exposing more than two dozen of Osterman's former associates to harmful radiation, inflicting a variety of cancers on them, while simultaneously manipulating the press into speculating that Osterman himself was the cause of these cancers.

Now hounded by media allegations and quarantined as a result, Osterman teleports himself to the planet Mars to contemplate the events of his life. His break with the U.S. government prompts Soviet opportunism in the form of an invasion of Afghanistan (a delayed version of the real-life event), greatly aggravating the global crisis and prompting Nixon to consider nuclear options.

Investigating the calamities that have befallen the other adventurers, Dreiberg and Rorschach discover information incriminating Veidt; they, Juspeczyk, and Osterman confront Veidt at his Antarctic retreat, but arrive too late to prevent the final phase of his plan (which was, according to Moore, coincidentally similar to an episode of The Outer Limits; a nod to the episode is made near the end when Laurie and Dreiberg stop by to visit her mother [2]). Using a teleportation device, Veidt moves a massive, genetically-engineered, psionic creature into the heart of New York City, knowing that the teleportation process will kill it. In its death-throes, the creature releases a "psychic shockwave" containing imagery designed to be so violent and alien as to kill half the residents of the city and drive many survivors insane. With the world convinced that the creature is the first of a potential alien invasion force, the United States and Soviet Union withdraw from the brink of war and form an accord to face this apparent extraterrestrial threat.

The murderer of Blake is revealed to be Veidt himself, acting after Blake had accidentally discovered details of Veidt's plot. Veidt has also eliminated numerous employees and minions. At the end, the only people aware of the truth are Veidt, Dreiberg, Juspeczyk, Rorschach and Osterman. Dreiberg, Juspeczyk and Osterman agree to keep silent out of concern that revealing the plot could re-ignite U.S.-Soviet tensions, but Rorschach refuses to compromise and leaves to tell the world about Veidt's actions. Osterman attempts to dissuade him, but when Rorschach challenges Osterman to silence him through murder, Osterman does so with almost no hesitation.

The ending of Watchmen is deliberately ambiguous about the long-term success of Veidt's plan to lead the world toward utopia. After killing Rorschach, Osterman talks briefly to Veidt. Professing his guilt and doubt, Veidt asks the precognitive Osterman for closure: "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end." Osterman, standing within Veidt's mechanical model of the solar system, replies cryptically: "In the end? Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." He then disappears, leaving Earth forever and leaving the entire orrery framed by a residue appearing distinctly similar to an atomic mushroom cloud.

However, before confronting Veidt, Rorschach had mailed his journal detailing his suspicions to The New Frontiersman, a far right-wing magazine he frequently read. The final frame of the series shows a New Frontiersman editor contemplating which item from the "crank file" (to which Rorschach's journal had been consigned) to use as filler for the upcoming issue. The final line of the story is that of the editor's superior, indifferent as to which piece from the crank file is selected. He tells his subordinate, "I leave it entirely in your hands," whereupon the latter seems poised to pick up the journal.
--Chr.K. 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Forty-eight hours having passed, I will commence the change within one day, if no problems are noted by any. --Chr.K. 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, been busy in other areas. I'd like to suggest leading in with "In October 1985, the costumed adventurer Rorschach (Walter Kovacs) investigates the murder"... just to clarify if this is the first section someone reads. I would also like to change the line which reads a law that Rorschach, unwilling to compromise his own moral code, ignores with disdain to remove the words "with disdain". I think there are concerns over original research and maybe the text needs to be tightened up a little, it would be nice to have some citations for the theory you outline above. After all, it is only one interpretation, and I think it ignores the manner of Kovacs death, which is with mask removed. Since that can be interpreted in a number of ways, I think we should avoid all attempts at interpretation. It is a fact that, taken through the plot chronologically, Rorschach is presented as investigating the murder. I'm not sure about changing every further reference to Kovacs to read as to Rorschach; it seems ill-fitting where every other character is mentioned by their real name. I think it would be better to refer to Kovacs, it fits the rest of the text better and doesn't make any interpretations on the text. If we don't change all the other references to other characters to that of the costumed identity, then I think we're marking Rorschach out as special, which to me isn't supported in the text. Hiding Talk 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The implication is that all of the heroes are people underneath their masks. Kovacs is Rorschach underneath the mask that his skin provides. As said before, this is specifically corroborated by Rorschach's own words, and in Long's psychological evaluation, which ends with such devastation to Long's previous emotional worldview that he even takes up Rorschach's completely-streamlined manner of speech. Psychologically, Rorschach, Veidt and Manhattan are exhibited as three separate ways of looking at reality: absolutism, relativism, and basically fatalistic predestination. --Chr.K. 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Revision of new version:
  

"...with disdain.", eliminated. Calling him Rorschach throughout, explained by stating his complete sublimation to the Rorschach...what, though? Personality? There IS NO Rorschach: he stated so, himself, in the interview; all the psychologists in the world could deny it, and insist that it is still Kovacs, but that would basically be them refusing to believe something is possible, not the matter being any less true in Rorschach's mind. He does not talk like Kovacs, he states plainly he did not believe, before the devouring-case, what he believed thereafter; the reasons could continue. Given the complexity of the narrative, I don't believe this (as opposed to my "with disdain" comment, which is OR, and should be stricken as said) is original...but rather a direct reading. It would be like saying Ahab ceased caring about the fate of ship or crew, if such would've held him back from his rage and revenge. That is what happened, is the thing. --Chr.K. 06:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I haven't read Moby Dick so the analogy is bad. I tend to veer away from plot summaries myself, because they introduce this confusion over hopw to decipher the text. For the character of Rorschach it is true that in the interviews he states his beliefs. That doesn't mean they are true for the reader, who is able to make his own mind up. That's why I'm not comfortable with it. I always tend to present as "in the book", or"on page 22" or something like that. But I think you are treading somewhat into interpretation, since you are asserting the Rorschach character's view of the world over other viewpoints within the world. Dreiberg for example notes Kovacs is mad, why don't we present that to the reader? This is a plot summary, maybe we should simply reduce it in length and avoid these difficult areas of ambiguity. To me you're giving weight to one character's views over the others. For instance, you aren't suggesting changing Osterman to Manhattan, a character who also renounces his previous identity. Hiding Talk 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but I would call for Osterman to be referred to by another name, if he thought of himself as such; as it stood, he was neutral of naming conventions, so, in fact, Osterman or Manhattan would be acceptable to me. Rorschach specifically states himself to be that name, as opposed to "just pretending to be" (and incidentally, my apologies for saying "there is no Rorschach"...had meant, "there is no separate Rorschach personality, or Kovacs...his actions reveal both as one." The reference to Ahab is rather simple: objective reality as opposed to subjective, and that is what I think we've begun debating here. To me, if the man states, of himself, a reality about him that others, even perhaps ALL others, refuse to see, it is still "the truth" about him, as much as a fact that he believes it. "A sound is still a sound, in the forest, even if no one...", perhaps the better analogy, mixed with a healthy dose of independent individualism. What Rorschach is on in inside should be based on Rorschach thinks and feels, not upon what the people around him feel about him. The same would hold true with Manhattan (a name the latter openly thought bizarre when he first heard it, showing how connected he is with it), Dreiberg, Veidt, or any others among them. --Chr.K. 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are confirming the fact that you are placing Ror5schach's internal truth above that of the narrative and of the other characters, and I think that is the reason I, and people above, have disagreed with you. For example, you write "if the man states, of himself". I think it is important to remember we are discussing a fictional character, and also that we are discussing the work as a whole, rather than the one character. Perhaps your arguments would be better made at Rorschach (comics). Hiding Talk 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate place for this?

Hi. This just got deleted. As I believe that it is very important, I'd like a consensus as to where it might be appropriate to put it -- not necessarily in this form. thanks!

"Of note in the ending of Watchmen, and very obscure, is the connection between Ozymandias' plan and Shea and Wilson's ILLUMINATUS! Trilogy. Karen Berger, an Editor for DC Comics' Vertigo imprint, acknowledged when asked by the editor of the ILLUMINATUS! Comic that 'Transcendental Illumination' totally changed the perception of the ending to Watchmen."

Icarus 23 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really answering the question but... that definitely needs a citation before it goes in. It should maybe go in the "Themes" section. It could also use a little rewrite for clarity. Rtrev 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed on the clarity - it means absolutely nothing to me. Frankly, and I mean no disrespect here, I suspect that it properly belongs in an Illuminatus entry, not in this one. The first sentence of the paragraph above specifically notes that it is "very obscure," and thus of little relevance to a general entry on the graphic novel. I think it might be happier in the References section, which might be retitled to include references out as well as references in; but I don't believe it's clear that it belongs here at all. - Corporal Tunnel 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Difficult to cite -- I threw it in before I'd gotten the hang of documentable and verifiable with this. Source is me, and the conversation happened... I doubt Karen would care to respond to it, and in any case, it would have to be documented elsewhere in order to have that.

I still contend that this is quite important to an understanding of Watchmen, but ezxactly how/if it belongs here or elsewhere is a good question. I cooled my jets after seeing this -- and deleted a similar bit of documentation in the LOEG article. Glad I thoughta bout it before answering back. 'Themes' might be good -- I'll read it, and try to bone up on your style data before coming back.

Perhaps 'obscure' is a poor choice of words. When I read Watchmen, it was a completely different book because of this to me than most of the audience, and I'm almost completely certain that the interpretation I had was Moore's intent. But, as this is my subjective belief BASED on the observable data, not sufficient. Icarus 23 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We have sadly ran into that a lot in this article (and I believe there is still a lot that needs citations). The book is fairly rich in references, allusions, symbolism, etc. The only problem is that there are not a lot of good sources for most of it. Rtrev 21:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Übermensch

"the Übermensch (literally, "Overman," but more colloquially and to the point, "Superman") recurs throughout much of Moore's work, including Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen..."

I'd disagree. Manhattan can't convince people into doing his bidding; he doesn't even have a bidding. Adrian Veidt is Watchmen's Übermensch, by my reading of the term. I'm changing it, although if I'm outvoted, it can change back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nedlum (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

You are correct on Veidt being the Übermensch; he is also a reference to Machiavelli's "Great man," who "cannot be a good man." --Chr.K. 12:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Film

I just saw a trailer for 300, and noticed someone mention Rorschach appears at frame 1:52. Sure enough, there's a frame of him. Hint? Prelude? Possibly?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UapGEIMQtkw&mode=related&search=

I looked, but don't see him. Am I missing something? -- Sean Martin 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you set the marker at 1:52? You have to do it exactly, otherwise you'll fly right by it. I did it a few times to make sure I wasn't seeing things. There's a guy that looks just like him standing by a streetlight in a city! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Dang. There he is! Couldn't see him when watching the trailer, or trying to pause-play-pause-play frame by frame around that point. But slide the slider to 1:52 and there he is. Must be, like, just one perfectly placed frame. -- Sean Martin 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The link no longer works. Any chance of providing a new one? The Ðark Crusader 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The frame's already on Wikipedia: here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.146.104.183 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Maxiseries

There has been a great bit of debate on whether Watchmen exists as a graphic novel or as a maxiseries. Both have a limited, specific story arc, and are designed to tell a story in a given time with an episodic feel. The difference is mainly that the original method of publication was individual issues, which had time constraints and advertising concerns that influenced the output differently. If you don't believe me, check out The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics by Dennis O'Neil. Page 93 onward contain information about what is considered to be a maxiseries, and Watchmen is cited as an example. Some might argue it's far too late in the game to quibble over titles, like worrying the dubious titles "indie" and "electronica" in music, as they may not be helpful from a musicological standpoint but at this point are so widely associated with certain work they cannot be effectively "unmythed." The case here being that Watchmen has recieved awards in the genre Graphic Novel and the creators have explained their self-identification as a graphic novel, simply releasing chapters at a time as issues in order to maximize their effort in the making. My point after all this ranting (finally) is that I think we should include something about the fact some consider it to be a maxiseries as opposed to a graphic novel. I'd be willing to add it but I wanted to open it for discussion beforehand. Possible things to consider are-

• Does a Maxiseries have to use characters from ongoing series to be considered a Maxiseries?
• Does the episodic genre really differ that much from a single release publication?
• Can any "trade paperback" be considered a Graphic Novel as the issues become chapters, and volumes become books?
• Is any of this significant enough to note on wikipedia?

Hope to hear from you guys soon, love the article, it's some incredible work. : ) --NateDSaint 06:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been much debate I find over the use of the term "Graphic Novel." The term, just a few years ago was very specific in referencing a particular kind of work, much like Batman: Ego or better yet, A Contract With God. As wikipedia a place that tries to maintain accademic impartiality, All terminology should be very specific. I have seen quotes where Alan Moore has expressed his dislike of the term, combined with the nature of the release of Watchmen, I do think it warrants a removal of the reference to being a Graphic novel, as, simply put, it is not one.

I agree that the terminology needs to be more specific, and I like the idea of the term "maxiseries" being used, but I think that in this case, wikipedia's job is to categorize something as it exists. Watchmen has been given awards for the genre "Graphic Novel" much as Bela Fleck and the Flecktones recieve awards for the genre Jazz, although they call themselves Bluegrass/Bebop fusion or Blu-Bop. So I think the issue isn't that we need to remove all reference to it being a graphic novel, but rather clarify that it is a maxiseries that has won awards in the genre graphic novel, and is used as a reference for modern "graphic novelists." Any thoughts? --NateDSaint 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would rather if we go that route we go the whole hog and state that it was released as a comic book maxiseries, collected into a trade paperback and has won awards in the genre graphic novel, and is used as a reference for modern "graphic novelists." I can probably rip through a newspaper library search and offer up any large number of cites for its status as a graphic novel. Whilst Wikipedia is impartial, we give each point of view equal weight. Food for thought, at the least. Hiding Talk 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Watchmen was originally a 12 issue series. It should probably be called a mini-series or maxi-series, not a graphic novel. Yes, it has been collected into a graphic novel form, but that's not the most accurate definition. Think about this from a slightly different angle... is Star Wars the first film in a trilogy of films? Or is it disc one in a boxed dvd set? Is Sgt. Peppers a song from the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, or is it track 5 from Beatles Greatest Hits Volume XI? And yes, the Watchmen is only printed in graphic form now, but the single issues didn't spontaneously disintegrate when those versions were published. It exists now as a 12 issue series just like it did in 1987. ~ Thirdrail

• Language is not confined to boxes, but subject to common usage. The word gay no longer means happy, for example. So Watchmen can happily exist as both a twelve issue comic book series and a graphic novel, because that's the way language works. Do we place our article on George VI at the name the nation knew him as or the name his parents chose for him, Albert Frederick Arthur George? Do we describe Charles Dicken's works as novels or serialised fictions? Language is ephemeral, and we must reflect the way it is used. Our policy on the WP:NPOV does not allow us to determine what something is, it allows us to work out what others have determined that thing to be. Hiding Talk 16:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Something missing.

I've been through all this and it's fascinating, but there's one glaring omission in it all. No one ever mentions the point Alan Moore was trying to make with the story. He's said repeatedly over the years that the main theme of the Watchmen is that any one person could change the world. That's why he ended it the way he did, with Seymour reaching for the crank file. This isn't my interpretation, or original research... Alan Moore has stated this fact directly on more than one occasion. It seems like this should be included in the 'themes' section. ~ Thirdrail

Reference a single quote of this original-author testimony, and you'll have many backing you in placing it in. --Chr.K. 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)