WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I have no idea whether this has already been said or not, but here goes:

Veidt is a Sadist. An ingenious Sadist with a ton of power. He loves crushing people smaller than him. He can't lose. who ever beat him(The Comedian) gets destroyed.Whoever defies him(Rorschach) gets destroyed. If he had any kind of real empathy for anyone, he wouldn't snicker and make nasty puns about a doomed man. He doesn't care who he hurts(half New York, his Secretary, his Servants, his cat) as long as he's right. I'm not even sure if he wants to save humanity for humanity, or for himself.
He's less than The Comedian, at least Blake admitted to being what he was.

_________________
"What ever the nature of this conspiracy; David Hasselhoff responsible."

Yes, it's your point, and it's my point as well. How wonderful for both our arguments that Veidt neither gets condoned nor condemned.



I'm not sure you've got my actual distinction between 'em in mind; let me lay it out for you, and *then* we can usefully discuss whether (a) my problem is a failure to distinguish between the two, or whether (b) your problem is a failure to understand that Veidt and Doc are operating on the same principle.

Veidt's reasoning can be summed up as "choosing the lesser evil". He'd kill one person to save a thousand people. He'd kill a million of 'em to save a billion more. We could even say he reasons like an absolute utilitarian, such that the only premise for his actions is the benefit of others; he'd kill half of NYC to save the rest of the world, he'd kill one guy to preserve that plan, he'd simply and only claim in each case that the ends justify the means as the lesser of two evils.

Doc's reasoning? Well, you said it yourself: "DM is an absolute utilitarian -- the only premise for his actions is the benefit of others." Doc kills Rorschach to save the plan because it can be summed up as "choosing the lesser evil." He does the math and figures that the ends justify the means as the lesser of two evils.

The *same* principle that justifies killing one innocent for a greater good justifies killing three or three thousand or three million; it's *never* just about how evil the act is, it's *always* about whether the alternative is worse. If you subscribe to such a philosophy, then (a) if the alternative is worse, you should do it; (b) if not, you shouldn't.



But I'm arguing that Veidt can only justify doing something evil -- killing an innocent, killing millions of innocents, whatever -- if he truly believes the alternative is worse: that a good result justifies those evil means, that he did evil things for some greater good. If he *has* saved Earth from hell thereby, then, yes, he can justify the evil he's done. If he *hasn't*, then, no, he can't.

Veidt believes that he *has*, in fact, chosen the lesser evil. He believes he's saved the world from a worse alternative, such that he can reassure himself that the evil he's done is justified by a worthy result. But he's not sure.

And so he'd really like to hear from Doc about whether he's right about that.



No, he isn't sure. He'd very much like for Doc to say it'll all work out just fine in the end (in which case the evil he's done would be justified). He'd very much *hate* for Doc to say it won't (in which case the evil he's done wouldn't be justified). He therefore asks Doc whether it all worked out in the end, expecting one of those two answers.

But, he's told, nothing *ever* ends. Doc can't yet say the plan was a success. Doc also can't yet say it was a failure.

Veidt had hoped to get his evil actions condoned, as justified means to a successful end. He'd hoped not to get his evil actions condemned, as unjustified means to failed end. But *neither* happens, because Doc instead tells him that (a) it's too soon to say, and (b) it'll *always* be too soon to say.

Yes, if we strip that quote of all context it's just a presumably false statement; all *sorts* of things end, after all. But if we take it in context, Doc is answering Veidt's question by claiming he can't yet say whether the plan will succeed or fail -- and, given that ignorance, all Doc can do is kill Rorschach for the exact same reason Veidt would: because Doc understands, without condoning or condemning, why one would kill *any* number of people to save yet *more* people.



And, likewise, Veidt instituted said plan since he believed it was the only reasonable play to make at that point in time. Doc kills Rorschach for the same reason Veidt kills three million people: because he genuinely believes the alternative is worse, since, y'know, otherwise, he'd decide to just sit on his ass while things play out.

_________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste......

I think that second part erases the first part.

Veidt loses to the Comedian, and then spends a whole year not bothering to destroy the Comedian. He then spends another year not bothering to destroy the Comedian, followed by yet more years in which he still doesn't bother to destroy the Comedian, followed by *decades* in which he keeps on not bothering to destroy the Comedian. And then Blake discovers the plan, and Veidt -- who doesn't care who he hurts, so long as he's right -- promptly kills him.

So if Veidt is an ingenious sadist bent on crushing Blake for reasons *other* than safeguarding the plan, he's got to be the laziest and least innovative one ever: frittering away a quarter of a century before for some reason finally deciding to kill the guy when Blake starts drunkenly blurting out secrets that need to be kept under wraps -- or Veidt, who doesn't care who gets hurt so long as the plan is right, kills Blake just like (a) he would've killed anyone else who'd found the island and reacted similarly, sure as (b) he takes no steps to destroy Blake before that.



We should *all* snicker and make nasty puns about someone who dooms himself for Rorschach's reasons: Rorschach (who makes his debut by fantasizing about how there will soon be war and he'll look down to whisper "no" to people who'll look up to beg for help) would rather die than allow Veidt to save the world. That choice *deserves* to be mocked and laughed at: he could, even at that late date, save himself by just agreeing to let mankind be saved -- but, hey, no, thanks, everybody, I'd rather doom myself.

Veidt lacks empathy for a doomed man who is choosing to doom himself, and for no good reason; we should all lack empathy for that. Veidt talks about regretting Blake's involvement, talks about shame and inadequacy when discussing the deaths of his servants -- but when it comes to a guy who moronically turns down the chance to save his own neck by doing what Dan and Laurie and Jon did for the good of mankind, then, yes, by all means, snicker and pun at the village idiot who'd rather tie himself to railroad tracks instead of helping all of humanity without lifting a finger.



Blake chose to keep the secret rather than blow the whistle in advance, because -- just like Veidt -- he concluded the alternative was worse. They'd *both* admit to being the kind of person who'd make that bleak "lesser of two evils" choice; the difference between 'em is that Veidt can shoulder the weight of that awful but necessary crime, whereas Blake is the kind of guy who'd drunkenly blurt out too much stuff despite himself, whereupon Veidt would then kill him.

But not *before* that, since, again, if Veidt had wanted Blake destroyed for personal reasons, he'd have done so in '83 -- or '73 -- or '63 -- or whatever.

yes

_________________
"Never set up a company selling posters and diet books and toy soldiers based on himself. Never became a prostitute"

Hurm

The "Is Veidt right?" topic has been discussed to death in this forum. Click here for the classic thread that is probably the most hotly debated one in the entire forum.

[NOTE: I went ahead and merged the threads. Prior to the merge, this thread started two posts ago.--"Curiosity Inc."]

_________________
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward."
- Søren Kierkegaard

[NOTE: This post started its own thread before I merged it here. --"Curiosity Inc."]

does it make anyone else angry that he won and was right even though he did the wrong thing and was a douche about it

Well yeah. It goes back to the question of power - as a superhero, and as a person, who has the "right" to do something like that? Who has the right to decide so many people need to die so that their own personal idea of utopia can be achieved? This can carry over to real-life world leaders and spiritual leaders, too, but I think Moore was just going at the concept from the viewpoint of comic book superheroes.

What Veidt did would classify him as a supervillain in almost anyone's book under "normal" comic-book circumstances. But because he appeared to be right in the short-term, they all agreed to be quiet about it except for Rorschach. There is the question of whether history will prove him "right" if it ends all war forever, but Jon's statement to him before leaving is telling. Nothing is really "over," especially if Rorschach's journal is published.

I'm actually kind of wondering if Jon is privately having a laugh at him, there, knowing what will happen if the journal comes to light.

But to answer your question - yes, I think he's a douche. I personally don't believe anyone would ever be justified in something like that, but that's my own opinion.

_________________
"It's a turning world."

--- Moorcock's Multiverse.

ARCHIE. 99 Accessories, but a dash lighter ain't one.

.

I think the more I read Moore's stuff that's exactly what he's doing. He's personifying all these ideologies and letting them duke it out. He seems to like to let the Apollonian forces win, but again, who knows how much difference it makes in eternity in their particular realities. As contrast, here's our world. The Cold War ended, and there was no Veidt, and no horrible plan. With our history in mind he seems much douchier.

_________________
Gone fishin'

so if Veidt is the Apollonian, does that make Blake the Dionysian of watchman?

Could you elaborate, please?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Great question, I've often wondered that myself.

Rorshach sits as the "opposite side of the same coin" with Veidt, though. Apollo and Dionysus were worshipped at the same temples, just at different times of the year.

However, Rorschach hardly seems Dionysian at all. Perhaps he is the very opposite of Dionysus?

Obsessed with the physical, yet shunning it rather than embracing it?

_________________
"Everything is a cipher and of everything he is the theme.
He must be always on his guard
and devote every minute and module
of life to the decoding of the undulation of things."
-Nabokov, "Signs and Symbols"

Curi-

Apollo was the Greek god of light, the sun, logic, music (composition), math, logic, etc- very Veidt-ish in appearance and symbols.

Dionysus was Apollo's opposite in ways- he was the god of wine, ecstasy, music (performance), theater, madness, etc...

They apparently were thought of as opposites, yet were both worshipped at the same locations.

Edit--

Found this pic on the first page of Google image search for "Apollo God"-



Interesting!

_________________
"Everything is a cipher and of everything he is the theme.
He must be always on his guard
and devote every minute and module
of life to the decoding of the undulation of things."
-Nabokov, "Signs and Symbols"

Interesting passage I found. Keep Veidt in mind for Apollo, but who is Dionysus?

Keep in mind, there is no doubt that Moore was unaware of these archetypes when he penned Watchmen.

~ Camille Paglia

_________________
"Everything is a cipher and of everything he is the theme.
He must be always on his guard
and devote every minute and module
of life to the decoding of the undulation of things."
-Nabokov, "Signs and Symbols"

well I see Blake as the dionysian, because of the defintion of the Dionysian

Dionysus (Dionysian): chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.


if that doesnt sound like Blake, than who does it sound like in Watchmen?

also I bring this up of the whole, Veidt is The Apollonian, Dr M is the Übermensch, so that leaves The Dionysian

I guess Blake would be Dionysus, because he's a hard-drinking wild man who follows his instincts, no matter where they take him. He seems almost ecstatic in 'Nam, while he's torching the place. He's a little scary. I think a book like Watchmen probably serves to refine or clarify compelling but vague ideas like the definitions of Apollonian or Dionysian. Dan's got a bird motif, but is he supposed to evoke Hermes? Rorschach spends time in the underworld, so is he representative of Hades? I guess Doc could correspond to Mars, but he's also the most powerful of them, so maybe he should be Zeus? Zeus was Jupiter to the Romans, but Doc dated Laurie Juspeczyk, not Sally Jupiter.

_________________
Gone fishin'

Well, if we are talking about Nietzschean symbology, Rorschach is clearly the Nihilist.

_________________
"One may avoid reality, but one cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."
- Ayn Rand

I tend to look at the ideas as a progression, from ancient Greece, or wherever, to the present. The themes are eternal and archetypal, but they get clearer expression as human understanding increases. If I get a good sense of the Dionysian from a nut in a gimp mask firing tear gas canisters at hippies, I have to go with that. Something like Nietzsche's idea of perspectives moving through an abyss could remind a reader of the outlook of several characters in Watchmen. The abyss makes me think of Rorschach, the importance placed on will makes me think of Ozymandias, and the idea of moving perspectives reminds me of Doc's relativist view.

_________________
Gone fishin'