No, I did not become schizophrenic. I am just attempting to convey some of my confusion about the ending of Watchmen, which I discussed with a friend (whose blog you should look at too).
At first glance, I -hated- the ending. I thought the "good" guy was supposed to win in superhero comics, and in this case, "good"= Rorschach and the rest of the reunited superhero team. I know, perhaps it's messed up of me to think that Rorschach is good, considering his twisted sense of justice, but at least he only uses violence on those who can be said to deserve it (like the guy who butchered a six-year-old and fed it to his German sheperds) and at least he didn't commit mass murder. Though that doesn't necessarily excuse his extreme use of violence. I'm confused--I think the character of Rorschach merits his own discussion at another time. I just didn't want him to die--after all, he had been the crime-solving detective vigilante unraveling this whole mystery from the beginning.
But maybe I'm thinking too conventionally.
However, I am annoyed at the way that Laurie, Dr. Manhattan, and Dan all flocked to Veidt's side so quickly. They didn't even pause to consider the moral dilemma I see here. Instead, they seemed to instantly change their minds and agree with him (putting up the weakest of mental defenses), forgetting that he had killed 3 million innocents to achieve his goal. Honestly, only in like the previous chapter (okay, Chapter 9) did Laurie convince Dr. Manhattan of the infinite rareness and worth of human life. And now she's apparently forgotten about that and is quick to be convinced by Veidt about the rightness of his decision: "Jesus, he was right. All we did was fail to stop him saving Earth" (XII-20).
So what exactly am I trying to argue, aside from the fact that they seem to have lost their critical thinking skills quickly? Well, it's already too late to stop the disaster from happening. The only decision left for our superheroes is whether or not to punish Veidt. Now I am not necessarily saying that they follow Rorschach's path and reveal to the whole world what Veidt had done. In the short run, that would be a sure disaster because the Russians would just accuse the Americans of faking everything (which is true, though not the government's fault) and the war would be accelerated. However, not telling the world about Veidt and deciding whether to punish him are not overlapping decisions (they can be mutually exclusive). They could have punished him in some way--perhaps not killing him--to demonstrate that they disapprove of his methods.
Of course, what this comes down to is a judgment about whether the ends were worth the means. Veidt and the other superheroes seem to think so, but I don't. He still killed millions for a peace that -can- be temporary. His solution was a deus ex machina of sorts, not a real solution to stopping the Cold War. Why? Because once his plan is revealed--and it looks like it will be, if that boy working for the New Frontiersman reads Rorschach's journal, as implied on the last page--then the world will probably escalate into conflict again as the Russians become furious at being tricked by the Americans. Of course, there is still the possibility of peace if Veidt's involvement is revealed late enough--perhaps once having experienced peace, the Americans and Russians will have learned to put away their differences and continue to coexist peacefully even if an American engineered the peace.
But I think that's a slim possibility. The moral quandaries posed here are...was Veidt justified to kill millions of people in order to achieve world peace/prevent possibly more disasters as a result of nuclear war? (Kinda analogous to Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb, but in this situation no war has started yet). Should he be punished? Will this artificial peace last? Is it artificial, as I assert? Can Veidt's act be seen as terrorism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment