Title: Watchmen
By: Alan Moore /Dave Gibbons
Discussion Begins: Wednesday, March 4
Yay! Let the discussion begin! This is only the second time I’ve read Watchmen. And, as promised, this time I read it with a closer eye on the LGBT issues in the book. References to gays and lesbians abound in the book, but if Moore has an agenda, it’s not blatant. The revelation that the Silhouette was expelled from the Minutemen and that she and her girlfriend were murdered is listed in Under the Hood as one of many examples of the deterioration of the masked adventurer culture. Hollis states it would be “tasteless” to go into detail, but leaves us with the impression he believed the Silhouette dressed up in a costume for “libidinous” reasons. Keeping in mind that the book was published in the 80s and references norms and attitudes of the 40s and 50s, it’s no surprise that homosexuality is portrayed as suspicious or dangerous behavior. No doubt Rorschach believes gays and lesbians are part of the wickedness he hopes to punish. He even mentions early on that he suspects Veidt of being gay. Similar suspicions arise, but are left unspoken, about Hooded Justice. In an era where fear and suspicions run high over Russians, communists and people in masks, it’s no wonder gays and lesbians are lumped into that. Yet Moore and Gibbons employ a certain amount of symbolism to draw parallels between Joey’s betrayal and attack on Aline and Veidt’s betrayal and attack on his fellow Watchmen. The pink triangle adorning Joey’s poster also adorns Veidt’s secret Pyramid Deliveries enterprise. Is Veidt gay? Is he self-loathing like Joey? Is Moore suggesting that Veidt’s homosexuality is a reason not to trust him? A sign of his sinister intent that everyone missed?
What do you think?
This is just a starting point. Feel free to go in another direction, if you like.
Assuming that in a graphic novel or comic book every word and every panel counts, I have to believe that the gay references are in there for a reason. Maybe to show that people aren’t always what you think they are. Or that keeping secrets is destructive. Or that gays are just as fucked up as their straight counterparts. Or maybe it’s just another layer to the gritty realism in the book. It is interesting that once that poster goes up at the newsstand, it’s looming in the background for the rest of the book, and even gets a full-page treatment in the final tableau of the creature in NY.
As far as women are concerned, Rorschach seems deeply mistrustful of all women, because of his mother. I think he even refers to Laurie as a consort (and the military says as much, too). He gives the Comedian the benefit of the doubt, because he was a military man, serving his country, and plays into Rorschach’s idealized vision of his father. Rorschach is a tough character. I mean, everything is black or white. You’re either moral or you’re not. Women are either virgins or whores. There’s no place in his views for subtleties or shades of gray in terms of behavior and sexuality. That makes it difficult to like him or relate to him, and yet by the end, I was cheering for him and wanting him to succeed.
The other thing that struck me this time is how prescient the book was about an event like 9/11. Amidst the tragedy and chaos, people put aside their differences and came together both domestically and internationally. Then just like Jon says, “Nothing ends. Nothing ever ends.”
Re-reading the Watchmen for the LGBT characters I felt that Moore seemed to be associating homosexuality with violence. All confirmed gay characters died violently… Silouette and her lover were murdered, Josephine and her lover died in NYC during a very public argument, Capt Metropolis died in an auto accident, Hooded Justice went missing most likely murdered as well.
Hi…. first post
Welcome, Krapmonkey! (Wow, that’s a phrase I never thought I’d type). Good point about the association between homosexuality and violence. There’s definitely a “sex leading to violence, and violence leading to sex” theme throughout.
Honestly, when I read it, I paid almost no attention to the GLBT themes. I knew they were there, but I was more focused on what seemed to be Moore’s disdain for humanity in general and all that goes with it: sex, emotion, the need both for security and the primal call for violence and vengeance.
Then again, I seem to be late to the party here. Anything I could come up with has already been said. That’s what I get for losing my internet connection.
Watchmen for me was all about deconstructing the myth of the superhero. Superhero comics are to a strong degree about hero worship. What if those heroes are human? What if they’re amoral? If a superhero’s job is to save the world from peril, what does that make Veidt? His actions are hideously reprehensible, yet he may be responsible for helping save the human race from annihilation. Dr. Manhattan’s powers are wondrous and awe-inspiring, but his existence may have led humanity to the brink of disaster.
Watchmen is what happens when Superman REALLY comes to Earth.
(More thoughts, now that I’ve had time to think about it and write them down…keep in mind, I wrote this in about 30 minutes on my lunch break. You could easily produce three or four college thesis papers on the themes in Watchmen...I’m just a humble laptop jockey with time on his hands…and I really apologize about the length)
Watchmen is all about the conflict between reality and perception, between what is real and what is artificial, but also about the vicious cycle of heroism and threat.
Superhero myth, especially looking at how early Superman was portrayed, tends to cast superheroes as larger-than-life, beings above the concerns of ordinary mortals. Superman, as he was created, could essentially do anything. He could fly, had super-strength, was invulnerable, even had laser beams shooting out of his eyes. The creators had to invent a much-abused plot device to give him a weakness: deus ex kryptonite. People tended to view him with awe and reverence, often willing to give themselves over completely to him. “Save us, Superman!” instead of saving ourselves.
All of the heroes in Watchmen are ordinary humans, or WERE ordinary humans in the case of Dr. Manhattan. They may have honed their bodies and minds to peak performance, but they’re flesh-and-blood humans with all the flaws and desires that entails. By and large, they are not superheroic individuals, despite their exploits. Most are conflicted between who they are and the masks they wear or between their status as “hero” and their perception of the world. Nite Owl II was once a courageous hero, now he’s a doughy man living in self-imposed exile from his former self. Rorsarch went from hero to brutal vigilante. The Comedian routinely gives in to his basest impulses (his assault on the original Silk Spectre or his actions in Vietnam) even while he feels remorse for them.
The one Watchman who CAN do anything quickly grows bored with existence. When you have the powers of a god, what’s the point of living among humans? It’s Manhattan’s mere presence in the world that sets off waves of doom, as it were. Far from awe and reverence, people tend to fear and hate Manhattan for his abilities and his status. The public is easily manipulated into turning against the Watchmen. Manhattan is less a symbol for truth and justice as he is a dark omen for people terrified of what they don’t understand. That may be why all the GLBT characters in the novel meet horrible ends: fear of the unknown and of those who are different.
A lot of these themes get explored in the Tales of the Black Freighter. The story of a sailor who quickly turns from “civilized” human to murderous savage, unwilling to believe even what he sees with his own eyes, distills a lot of what Moore is trying to say about identity, duality, and the potential of humanity for self-destruction. We create villains when there are none, drastic solutions to problems we don’t have. Veidt does indeed save humanity from annihilation, but at a massive, destructive cost. He takes the “Superman saves the world” theme to its cold, logical, horrible end. He seems to ask if any of this would have been necessary if Manhattan had never existed. Without the victory in Vietnam that he assured, would the doomsday clock ever have gotten so close to midnight? In the end, Veidt solves humanity’s problems in the only way he thinks humanity can process the world: through violence and death. Only then does humanity come together.
“Who watches the Watchmen?” is the famous tag line from the novel, and its a perfect, apt summation of the themes. Who does watch the Watchmen? If our heroes are as prone to human failing as the rest of us, then who are the real heroes? What does it mean to live in a world without heroes at all? Its easy for humanity to give in to terror, anger, and fear. In the end, the only heroes we have are the heroes we are to ourselves. Our actions make us heroes, not our costumes. By elevating others to a pedestal we risk devaluing ourselves…and then what’s to stop us from reaching bottom when the statues on those pedestals fall?
This is not to say that everything in the novel is bleak and dark. Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II both prove that there are heroes still willing to fight for what they believe is right, but even they eventually have to decide between doing the right thing and doing the best thing. It’s a decision Rorsarch isn’t equipped to make in the end. Moore always wants to remind you that the world of Watchmen is the “real” world…heroes are not always victorious, and sometimes they even fail, just like the rest of us.
Great stuff, you guys. You’re all so smart. Anything I add at this point would be on the level of “I like that Jon is blue.” But I’ll try.
In terms of metaphorically queer characters, I think Nite Owl II is a good example. He’s one whose superhero identity is truer to who he is than his secret identity. He struggles to hide his true nature and yearnings, and only finds fulfillment (and his sexuality) when he gives in and lives openly as a crimefighter.
There are also modern day parallels to the events in the book. The Keane Act is essentially a fear-driven policy that forces superheroes back in the closet. I couldn’t help but think of all the hysterical legislation passed trying to force gays back into the closet, or at least deny them civil rights.
To answer your question, Fish, I think Doctor Manhattan wants people (Laurie in particular) to understand that he doesn’t see or experience things like other people, so he shouldn’t be held to the same expectations. Which, you’re right, is analogous to not wanting to be forced to live a lifestyle only to please others.
Re-reading the Watchmen for the LGBT characters I felt that Moore seemed to be associating homosexuality with violence. All confirmed gay characters died violently… Silouette and her lover were murdered, Josephine and her lover died in NYC during a very public argument, Capt Metropolis died in an auto accident, Hooded Justice went missing most likely murdered as well.
Hi…. first post
Welcome, Krapmonkey! (Wow, that’s a phrase I never thought I’d type). Good point about the association between homosexuality and violence. There’s definitely a “sex leading to violence, and violence leading to sex” theme throughout.
While I’m not a fan of Watchman and I doubt I ever will be, I can point out that Moore has a some track record with female characters and his treatment of them. It was, after all, Moore who decided to cripple a then retired Batgirl and have Joker take naked photos of her. There was some implied rape there. He also wrote that dreadfully boring Promethea comic where the main character literally sells herself to a guy in order to gain knowledge of magic. He was the one too, might I add, that wrote the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen where for the entire series Mina Harker whines about how the men treat her like a woman, while she does absolutely nothing.. Not even lead the team she’s supposedly the leader of. The woman just seems to run and hide, while pointing out the hypocracy of the men for protecting the literally weakest member of the team.
Oh yeah, as for the violence/homosexuality thing, there was a very disturbing scene in League where Mr. Hyde rapes the Invisible Man and admits that he might have some latent gay tendencies. Similar scenes are also in other comics though (Apollo gets raped in the Authority by his closeted gay captor). There is also a thing in Promethea. One of the Promethea is a gay man, Bill, who has to transform himself into a woman (i.e. a Promethea) in order to be with the man he loves, then when that man finds out that the woman he is in love with is actually Bill.. he murders Bill. In fact, I can’t think of a happy ending for gay characters in a Moore comic (albiet I haven’t read them all).
There is no “Women in refridgerators” for gay men and gay characters in comics because well.. Marvel and DC like to pretend for the most part that gay people don’t exist. There are not that many gay heroes out there (even if you look at the database for gay heroes, I forget where it is, but there is one) and almost all of them are very minor and do not appear in ANY comic regularly. When they do have one, they tend to get put into comic limbo, killed, or their homosexuality just gets ignored or retconned out entirely. There are very few exceptions. And guess what? Gay heroes don’t come back to life. They stay dead.
Midnighter isn’t the ONLY one. Apollo, his boyfriend, is a pretty mainstream one as well, but that’s just because the Authority has a huge following. There was a big thing about the Midnighter solo series though because Chuck Dixon was writing it and he is very conservative. I think he made some comments that were viewed as anti-gay (I forget what they were), so people were up in arms about him writing Midnighter. I like Dixon’s Batman stuff, so I think he’d do a great job the Extreme Batman/Wolverine, Midnighter.
Also, there is Northstar who makes random appearances as a member of the X-Men. He was the first openly gay character. The problem is no writer really knows how to handle him that I’ve seen. Then there is Kate Kane, the new Batwoman and her girlfriend, Rene Monotoya, the new Question. They got a lot of press and page time due to DC’s recent Crisis stuff. I dig Rene, but I have animosity towards the “Batwoman” and her, in my humble opinion, lame costume. Obsidian, a reserve/mansion guard member of the JSA is also openly gay. He has a non-hero boyfriend, whom he met in the last Manhunter comic. Obsidian has some major issues though, but he did appear regularly in Infinity Inc (Pre-coming out of course).
Oh yeah and then there are the Wiccan and Hulking from Baby ‘Vengers, but the title is kind of up in the air. While I kind of like both characters, I find their relationship a little.. trite and I find Young Avengers to be a rip-off of Peter David’s Young Justice, which I prefered. The Ultimate X-Men had Ultimate Colossus and Ultimate Northstar, but I think they wrote Colossus off the reservation and he’s no longer a major player. I dunno though because I dropped that title a long time ago.
So see.. there are gay heroes, but.. not many and very few have relationships. I think there are a lot more lesbian heroes than gay men.
anyhow here’s a site with some characters for you and info about them: http://www.gayleague.com/wordpress/category/lgbt-characters/
I think the old website that listed all the gay, lesbian, bi, and potentially LGB characters is gone now. I thought I had a link for it, but I must not have or I lost it. Who knows?
I thoroughly enjoyed Watchmen. At times it seemed to get a little confusing with the changing of the story lines, but overall was good. I love how the ending is open for your imagination. I almost read it in a day, but my boyfriend and our friend made me put it down. Hehehe
However, I feel the need to point out what I think are some severe issues with context and bias. Moore states that the purpose of the list is to provide a balanced view of the good and bad things that happen to LGBT superbeings, then let the reader make up their mind if the portrayals are positive or negative. However, the execution of the list doesn’t seem to reflect that, and really just reads like a list of grievances.
For example, Moore notes that The Bloke of X-Statix was killed on his first mission, and the overall tone of the statement (and the list itself) might lead one to believe that Bloke was killed off BECAUSE he was gay. In reality, the frequent death of cast members was a running gag of X-Statix, and Bloke was no different than several other characters in regards to being a “hi-and-die”.
Another good example is Obsidian. Moore attributes a lot of the problems that the character has gone through to his sexuality, despite that connection never actually being established. He then pays no attention at all to his massively positive development in Manhunter over the last 4-5 years.
And the keyword here is “development”. By making a list that serves to chronicle the negative (despite stated intentions to the contrary), Moore pays no mind to when negative things happen to LGBT characters as a part of character or plot development. Positive outcomes from negative events, or the necessity/appropriateness of negative events as part of the story, are simply not mentioned. Again, there’s no context and a what I feel is a clear bias toward making a laundry list of the negative. When you get the the point that you feel the need to point out that there is a child-sized Wolverine costume, but not Northstar, complete with yet another reference to the “unfair” treatment of the character who was CREATED to be a D-lister (a fact that also receives no attention, but would no doubt serve to be a negative thing in and of itself), I really think you’re just defeating your purpose.
So yeah, there is a list… but I wouldn’t just take the list-maker’s word for it.
