WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I haven't read the book yet, so I can't speak intelligently about her all her justifications for the assertion, but I will say I am skeptical for a few reasons.

1. Several chapters have their own narrator. In Watchmaker, for example, Jon is speaking directly to the reader from Mars. It isn't possible that Seymour, for example, would ever know of it or be able to reproduce it.
2. Sally's letters and clippings are on Mars. They would not be available to a specific narrator for inclusion unless that narrator were Dr. Manhattan himself.
3. The shifting narration seems to belie the idea of a single narrator. Even if Jon were the narrator, it seems unlikely that he'd be able to properly convey the raw subtleties that Moore gives us with Rorschach's own words.

As Seymour does not have omniscience, nor was he present to view each of the scenes expressed throughout the novel, the contents of the panels are, at most, Seymour's estimations or predictions of what the journal describes through words. The images and dialogue found in the panels of each chapter that do not directly involve Seymour are hypothetical. The journal takes precedence over the pictoral narrative in the panels, thereby reversing the narrative levels: the journal becomes extradiegetic and guides what is pictured in the panels rather than the pictures in the panels guiding what parts of the journal are included, as is potentially the case with a narrator who is an "other" outside the world of Watchmen and has the super-human ability of omniscience.

OK... I still haven't read the book, so take this with a salt lick, but:

Is the chick missing a button on her trench? Is she seriously suggesting that Moore intended to tell the story from the perspective of a single narrator (other than Moore himself)?

Wow. I think she needs to read the story again... and again.

And I thought Rorschach was sucking on a bent straw.

This is where Intentional Fallacy gets us. Now where the hell is RLS when we need him?

The intention of the chapter is in no way an attempt to simplify the complexity of the narrative structure, nor is it an attempt to give definite answers to questions about who or who is not the narrator. In fact, it is an attempt to show the text's intricacies by raising some hypothetical questions. The chapter attempts to describe the reading process, how readers are thoroughly engaged by a narrative voice that simultaneously becomes more and less clear by the end of the narrative (i.e., the last panel in the book opens up new possibilities for the narrative's construction).

I expected that the chapter would be quite controversial as it is proposing a variety of hypothetical scenarios, none of which can be proven, but this is exactly the point. It is intended to start debate and discussion about various details of the text particularly because some of these scenarios seem more likely than others, yet none are definite. The end of the chapter perhaps provides some insight about the intention of the discussion: "In order to arrive at the three narrative scenarios described here, readers need to speculate about events that occur beyond what is explicitly in the text, and two of these interpretations are based on what readers believe could occur after the last panel of the novel .... The narrative, by its very structure, creates indeterminacy, and would be challenging to sustain any one reading of the novel as having a definite or clear narrative voice. This is not to say that this is a flaw in the narrative, nor is it to say that this takes away from the narrative in any way. Rather, the purpose of the narrative's structure as ambiguous is to encourage readers to think" (75). I understand that the assertion of Seymour as one potential narrator seems simplistic and absurd out of the context of the chapter, but again, the purpose is to raise questions and spark discussion, which I guess this discussion forum has begun to do!

I am so glad that members of the forum find the topic interesting and that that there are some distinct opinions on the narrator. As a reader, the narrative voice and cyclical nature of the text's construction (one that begs rereading) were aspects of Watchmen that I personally found intriguing, and this process of reading and rereading is something I sought to explore more in this chapter. Thank you to everyone who posted, and thanks to "The Watcher" for posting this thread. I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Sara wanted me to tell you the book will not be on sale until May, so don't run out to the bookstore looking for it. It can be pre-ordered on Amazon, etc.

Now where the hell is RLS when we need him?

I have a question a propos of your narratological reading. Do you distinguish between textual and pictorial narrators? I ask because to consider Seymour the narrator, even as a facetious provocation, would require you to suppose that he's responsible not only for the text but also, somehow, for the images. Do you anchor your reading in narratological theory?