WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I'm interviewing Mark D. White, the editor of the book "Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test" tomorrow.

Keep in mind the book explains common philosophical treatises and theories using Watchmen characters and their actions as examples, so construct your questions accordingly.

So questions like, "was Veidt right?" are no good, but questions like, "is Veidt a textbook Utilitarian?" are better.

Anyone have any questions you want me to ask?

_________________
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music - George Carlin

1) Is Comedian a nihilist or a cynic? Please explain why in terms I can use to win internet arguments.

2) Who is the captain of the Black Freighter?

3) Can Doctor Manhattan assemble a rock that is so heavy that he can't levitate it?


Maybe just #1.

_________________
Gone fishin'

Damn, if the interview was later I could have read the book first.
As it is I've never been the biggest philosophy student.

_________________

Have you ever interviewed Moore or Gibbons about this project?

Is there a risk of over-analysis? After all, it's "only a comic".

When did you first get interested in the story? Was it before or after you became interested in philosophy?

How would you define the "moral dilemma" contained in the book's ending?

Could you pigeon-hole specific character types depending on how each individual reader sees the resolution of the story?

The film's ending differs from the graphic novel. From what you have read or seen regarding this, do you think that it "changes" the message the GN is trying to convey?



Just a few to start with. I may cook up a couple more. Zack and Dave have each had one from me, so I'm on a roll, here.

_________________

.

I'd like to read that interview when it gets done. Can you tell me which site it will be on?

_________________
Gone fishin'

It'll eventually go up over at the Forbidden Planet International blog.

The interviewer has something of a personal relationship with Moore and, at the prospective interviewee's own suggestion, is currently accepting questions from the good old general public to put to Alan in March (scroll halfway down to date entry 13/01/09 for details).
I have it on good authority that anything whatsoever to do with WATCHMEN in any way, shape or form is strictly off-limits for obvious reasons, however.

My question (sorry if it's long-winded):

Was there any concern about possibly ignoring or downplaying some of the more complex psychological facets present in each character by trying to examine them as embodiments of a particular philosophical outlook? The character of Adrian Veidt, for example, is often scrutinized through the prism of utilitarianism, and it is often said of him that he would sacrifice the lives of the few for the welfare of the many, which is obviously true. But, are you not ignoring Veidt's enormous personal investment in his plot and its success? His adulation and infatuation with Alexander the Great and Ramesses II, and his manic quest for self-actualization seem to be downplayed in favor of a more altruistic and decidedly more recognizable, run-of-the-mill utilitarian persona, for example. Likewise, Rorschach is often examined as a pure deontologist, and his individual experiences and motivations are not always factored into his deconstruction. Did you feel that including these things would have possibly detracted from the broader philosophical arguments?

_________________
He did it.

Look up the words "utilitarianism" and "altruism", Emp.

_________________

Whatever that's supposed to mean.

The book sometimes paints Veidt's motivations as selfless and altruistic. Again, this is sweeping his personal motivations under the rug. If somebody reading the book had never read Watchmen (not likely to happen, but still), they'd think that Veidt is this unselfish peacenik who worked tirelessly to achieve global harmony, albeit through questionable means. His lunatic infatuation and wholly selfish desire to be the one who ushered the world into this new age of peace is never addressed, and his messianic delusions are never addressed or factored into the discussion. His reasons for setting his plot in motion were equally selfish and selfless, but the book only addresses it from one angle. I'm not necessarily deriding this, as it may have been a necessary compromise in order to keep it within the framework of a philosophical discussion (bringing in personal motivations might have muddled that up), but I was just wondering if it was intentional or not.

_________________
He did it.

Adrian isn't utilitarian. His whole persona is the exact opposite. That's what I mean.

I thought you may have been looking for another word.


/peace

_________________

This book certainly operates off of the assumption that he is, so it's appropriate to frame the question in that way.

And I would make the case that he is indeed the embodiment of it, both its positive and negative aspects. The man's entire life is one big example of the ends justifying the means. Everything he does is done to further his goals and ambitions. But is the ultimate goal world peace or his own personal glory? Is world peace just a means to an end, the actual end being his place in history?

_________________
He did it.

Hi, I wrote the chapter on utilitarianism and deontology in Watchmen and Philosophy, and I went out of my way to avoid making the mistake that EmPiiRe x describes.

EmPiiRe x is absolutely right, Veidt is not a utilitarian, he uses utilitarian ethics to rationalize his quest for power. Similarly, Rorschach is not a deontologist. He uses deontology to rationalize his actions.

Here's what I said in the book.Then at the end I wrote I hope that clarifies things.

I'd be interested to hear the authors' opinions on where Virtue ethics fit into Watchmen and how such areas of ethics can be explored. I didn't study it on my philosophy course unfortunately, so I'll rephrase it a little...

From what area of ethical thought would you say that Dan and Laurie's views be best understood, especially in contrast to those of Adrian and Rorschach?

Sorry, I know it's vague, but that's kind of the point as I would like a nice, juicy catch-all answer.

Thanks,

V.