Talk:Watchmen/Archive 3

message: Aside from the obvious historical references implicit in a storyline covering 60 or so years of alternate history (anything really stand out in the historical allusions? is the presentation of Harry Truman very odd?):
===Historical===
* A subtle historical reference is the use of Doc Manhattan as a weapon in Vietnam. Nixon considered using nuclear weapons to bomb Hanoi (WH tapes confirm).
* Right-wing New Frontiersman alludes to Kennedy's New Frontier? a critique of cold war liberalism?
===Comics===
* Nite Owl is a critique of Batman (bats->owls, gadgets, cape costume)
* The Comedian goes to Vietnam to kill "gooks" in a manner similar to Capt. America's killing "krauts" and "Japs" in WWII (although, did the period comics use those pejoratives?)
** Some of them did.
* Capt. Metropolis ??, to the city inhabited by Superman
* Pirate Comic similar to 50s Horror Comics which led to industry self-regulation through the Comic Code
* References are made to various DC comics as comics, which declined in popularity after the real "heroes" began appearing
===Other===
* The original Doomsday Clock
* Rorschach, to the psychologist and his eponymous test
* Dr. Manhattan, to the Manhattan Project
** That was actually stated in the book.
* Ozymandias, to the poem by Shelley
Is the smiling face at all related to the TV host from Philip Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"? I don't know, but it seems to fold over easily into Watchmen's attitude.
** Probably not.
Similarly, were there any overt references to Burroughs's or Pynchon's work in the comics? I always read Marvel during this period, myself, until I found Sandman and had to backtrack through the 80's DC.
Yes, Burroughs is referenced on the first and second pages in the eleventh chapter (XI). Veidt discusses his "cut-up" technique for predicting the future. Here is a quote from Veidt on page 1:
"Multi-screen viewing is seemingly anticipated by Burroughs' cut-up technique. He suggested re-arranging words and images to evade rational analysis, allowing subliminal hints of the future to leak through..."
What are their "secret identities" references to?
Who was the Keene Act named for?
===OR===
Please be very careful with allusions. Remember that everything must be properly referenced. Please do not include original research to the article. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allusions

message: Please be very careful with allusions. Remember that everything must be properly referenced. Please do not include original research to the article. Joelito (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: I have archived the talk page again, as, much like the last time, I feel that the majority of the page was dedicated to problems that have now been rectified! Hope I haven't put anyone out! Adasta 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I have made a large edit to the page in the attempt to expand some sections and cite references for them. My changes are as follows:
* Expanded the lead section slightly to attempt to make it a more appropriate overview for Watchmen
* Changed the "Introduction" section to "Composition" because I think "Introduction" is quite a poor name for that section.
* Expanded the "Strcutre" section to include details of the chapter titles, quotations, and also the fictional documents that are used in Watchmen
* Added a "Perspective" section - this is an attempt to discuss the perspective in which the reader follows Watchmen. This could do with being expanded; I am trying to avoid the section becoming very POV and wonder if this is even possibe, what with POV being about points of view...
* Expanded the "Characters" section
* Expanded "The Keene Act" and "Tales of The Black Freighter" slightly
* Changed "Awards, Honors, and Criticisms" section to the "Literary significance" section. Have expanded this section in an attempt to show a rounded view of Watchmen in the literary world.
* Merged "Parody" section into "References in other works" section
* Editied the "Merchandise" section slightly
I hope that with a few dedicated editors, this article can keep growing! I think a Themes section may come next...Adasta 23:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a bit of info about the checkered production history of the several aborted attempts to adapt Watchmen into a movie. If everyone thinks it would be appropriate, I could certainly expand this section significantly. J.D. 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an individual entry for the movie version but it is pretty bare bones and could use some beefing up in terms of content. Count Ringworm 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article about the movie is Watchmen (film). --Dennette 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My Edit

message: More recent featured article, very strong. Hiding Talk 22:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: http://community.livejournal.com/scans_daily/456514.html
The main DCU Question was shown reading Watchmen in Question#17. As many have noted, Watchmen depicted Superman as a fictional character. While that can be construed in terms of the DCUniverse's counterpart of Alan Moore throwing that in as a clever touch (a person who was real on his Earth appearing as a fictional character in a work by him), at any point in the book
does anyone mention Clark Kent? Enda80 17:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Superman is only mentioned a few times, always in passing. No details about superhero comics were given, other than they were popular before "real" costumed heroes showed up. - JustSomeKid 17:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Clark Kent is mentioned once, in the Hollis Mason autobiography excerpt at the end of chapter one, when he described the epiphanic moment in 1938 when he read a copy of Action Comics #1 which, coupled with the first public appearance of Hooded Justice some months later, solidified his desire to become a costumed adventurer: Nite-Owl.  Mason makes clear how comic-book superheroes are viewed in his world: "Of course, all of these old characters are gone and forgotten now..."  In chapter three, the news-vendor expands on this: "Back in '39, before the real masked men showed up, super-hero comics were enormous.  Guess their appeal wore off...  I remember there was Super-Man [sic], Flash-Man [sic]..." BryanEkers 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question#17

message: This sentence: "Meanwhile, members of The Minutemen, a defunct organisation of costumed adventurers, are being murdered." is factually incorrect and I have removed it.  The Minutemen were not "being" murdered.  The Comedian was the only one killed by Veidt, and Blake held the Minutemen in contempt, calling them a joke. BryanEkers 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an error, I realize.  Blake called Captain Metropolis's attempted revival of a super-team, the Crime-Busters, a joke.  Nevertheless, of the original Minutemen, only Blake is killed by Veidt as part of the larger plan, and only because Blake stumbled across the details accidentally.  Of the other seven members of the original team, three were killed by criminals unassociated with Veidt, one disappeared, one died in a car accident, and two were long-retired. BryanEkers 13:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minutemen reference

message: Is there any significane to the different UK and US covers for the trade?--Peta 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure exactly what you mean, but I know I live in the U.S. and I got the supposed "UK" cover at Barnes & Noble. So I don't know.--DCAnderson 04:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TPB with the "US cover" is no longer sold.  I remember reading an article once with an explanation, but I'm not sure where -- if I can find it again I'll come back and post it.  But the gist of it, if I remember correctly, is that the cover we see now is the cover Moore & Gibbons prefer for the TPB, and the old US cover was chosen by DC. Lord Bodak 13:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Covers

message: I've taken the liberty of moving "Artwork" into "Literary Significance", which I have significantly reworked. I also redid some of the citations. I think you could probably cut the section of the Keen Act, since both it and its effects on the Watchmen are discussed in the plot section. Great article, and good luck with the FAC!--Monocrat 21:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: During a riot, Nite Owl asks, "Who are we protecting them from?" to which the Comedian responds "Themselves."
I wrote this quote from memory, because I loaned someone my copy of Watchmen. Could somebody who has a copy on-hand, please make sure the quote is accurate.--DCAnderson 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One word off. The Comedian replies "From themselves". - JustSomeKid 12:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.--DCAnderson 14:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting from memory 

message: There is a vote for what will be the next Comics Collabration of the month at:Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Collaboration
Watchmen is a nominee, but it needs support.--DCAnderson 12:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month Vote 

message: I've submitted this article for copyediting.
The later sections of this article (themes, etc), seem weaker than the earlier parts.  --P-Chan 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing a copyedit to fix the article up some more. Tombseye 05:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted for copyediting 

message: "A single issue black and white comic entitled "Watchcats" also appeared around the time the series was in print."
What series?  Watchmen or Radioactive Man?  I don't think there is a Wikipedia article on this, so you'll have to reference it or find it somewhere in wikipedia.  --P-Chan 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous 

message: "DC Comics did not distribute the book in quantity as planned, but a small quantity were printed."
Also, where is the source for it? --P-Chan 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it.--P-Chan 07:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If possible, please clarify this statement 

message: Right on, right on! Congrats to all the many, many, many contributors! Tombseye 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I recommend holding off for a while before nominating this article to appear on the main page. I think there are a lot of improvements still to be made here, and we should ensure that the article's at its absolute best before we showcase it. -Silence 02:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watchmen's a featured article now!

message: Let me first say that I was delighted to see Watchmen became a featured article. I have a question about:
:A pirate theme was suggested by Gibbons, and Moore agreed because he is "a big Brecht fan."
I looked at the Brecht article and didn't see anything there relating to pirates or the themes from the Black Freighter comic.  Is this an omission in the Brecht article or am I not making a connection?
:The Black Freighter is a song in Three Penny Opera. Pirates are a big part of Three Penny Opera--71.215.56.225 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moore thought that the close-up of the trefoil in the first panel looked like a "stylised picture of a black ship". The trefoil then came to represent "a black ship against a yellow sky".
A scan from the book showing this would be helpful.  I'll look for my copy and do it myself unless someone beats me to it. — Zaui (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The effect is most obvious in chapter 11, page 13, frame 3, though chapter 3, page 25, frame 1 has the image as well. BryanEkers 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Freighter section 

message: Can we assume that the John Higgins who redid the colouring for the Ultimate edition is this John Higgins? He has worked with Moore before so I'd guess he'd be a trusted safe pair of hands but I didn't want to link it in (and add a note in his entry) until someone could confirm it. (Emperor 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Higgins

message: I've just reworked the plot summary and Black Freighter section somewhat. Spotted a few things that still need work.
* The details why they couldn't use the Charlton characters are discussed twice, with almost the same text. One needs to be removed and merged into the other, without breaking the flow.
* The characters are not described at all, aside from their (even more obscure) inspirations. Some detail could be migrated from the characters page.
* Greater details on the visual symbolism and repeating imagery. The artwork section just doesn't seem that balanced, given that this is a visual medium.
* The criticisms section feels a bit like a straw man. Surely the arguments are more complex and detailed than that.
* The Doomsday Clock is not mentioned anywhere.
* What about DC having to keep the book in print to keep copyrights from reverting?
* Could someone expand the description of the Absolute edition a bit? Particularly, just how extensive is the recolouring?
–Unint 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the most glaring omission: what are the "long-term influences" of Watchmen? Specific books, stories, and movements need to be named here. I mean, Wizard magazine covered that more extensively than this article. –Unint 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder how much that cost DC. --Chris Griswold 11:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point, but my point is, Wizard didn't even talk about all that. They had a sentence or so about how comics got "grim" after Watchmen — highly simplified, and that's still more than we have. –Unint 22:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! When will you add it? You already have your citation! Awesome! --Chris Griswold 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ENTHUSIASM ROCKS!!! XO -Silence 08:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: I think it's left unclear if Kovacs actually is killed. Given the end of the comic (Kovacs's diary turning up at the newspaper office), it seems unlikely that indeed Osterman killed him, as we never see Kovacs mail his diary. The conclusion of "Kovacs had mailed his journal detailing his suspicions to The New Frontiersman" doesn't make sense at that point. Kovacs has no hard evidence and no proof Veidt has done anything. This can be noted by the geniune surprise from Kovacs over the sheer scale of what Veidt has done.
The last frame from the book is not the book being handed in. It is the far more important Doomsday Clock now reading midnight with the blood underneath indicating despite Vedit's plan, a third world war probably began sometime after the publication of Kovacs journal.
This is all conjecture of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.159.78 (talk • contribs) 10:30, August 4, 2006
:Kovacs explodes into a shower of blood. It's obvious that he's dead. His diary shows up at the Frontiersman because the last thing he does before departing with Nite Owl is to drop it into a mailbox. (He is shown doing this while the final entries appear as captions.) He had no hard evidence at the time, but he did detail the investigation and indicate that they were going to confront Veidt over their suspicions. All it would take to undermine Veidt's efforts is a reasonable doubt in the public view over whether the "invasion" was genuine. - DynSkeet *  Talk 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kovac's death was established as early as Chapter 9, page 18.  Osterman, describing the future, says "I am standing in deep snow... I am killing someone."  He has no reason to lie.  As for Kovacs's journal, the final entry (Chapter 10, page 22) describes how he doesn't expect to survive confronting Veidt and accused Veidt of being behind the conspiracy, though at this point Kovacs doesn't yet know its exact nature. He mails it and then he and Dreiberg fly to Antarctica. BryanEkers 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After killing Kovacs 

message: This is a superb article, but I kept finding it quite jarring to read the characters' surnames instead of hero names in the summary. Sentences like "Dreiberg, Juspeczyk and Osterman agree to keep silent...but Kovacs refuses to compromise and is killed by Osterman" make me forget who's who. What would people think about changing it to hero names ("Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Dr. Manhattan agree to keep silent...but Rorschach refuses to compromise and is killed by Manhattan")?--Mike Selinker 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I think using the characters' real name is a hypercorrection. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that. Or at least use the 'mask' names when describing them doing 'mask' things. For instance, it is Rorscach who investigates the Comedian's (Edward Blake's) death, not Kovacs, a point which is made during the chapter devoted to Rorschach. Ashmoo 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I say leave it alone. If you can't remember who's who, then you should read it a few more time. :-) Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman refer to each other as Clark, Bruce, and Diana when there are no civilians around, even when they are in costume. Most of the action in Watchmen takes place when they are not in costume, and they never address each other by their mask names (Rorschach being the notable exception). Anyway, if you change it, someone else will just change it back for their own reasons. --Dennette 05:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure one could argue for retaining the characters' names over those assumed when in costume but the use of 'Walter Kovacs' in place of 'Rorschach' completely misses the point of the character. That, if nothing else, should be changed. 86.29.95.124 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with changing some of the real names into the superhero names when characters tend to refer to each other by their aliases during the vast majority of the narrative.  In the case of Osterman/Dr. Manhattan, for instance, the character Osterman is transformed into Dr. Manhattan, yet the WP article still referes to the character as Osterman during the parts of the narrative that involve Dr. Manhattan.  -- Tomlouie | talk 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an extremely good article, and the result of much collaborative work.  Since neither naming choice stands any chance of pleasing everyone, I suspect the best approach here is to shrug, mutter that you would have done it differently, and let it stand.  My own view is a soft version of what Dennette says above, but I am dead sure that there is no solution that will appeal to everyone.  I stand with the "leave it alone" folks.  Even better, I wonder if we couldn't just leave this as a raised question for the edit team that made this so good in the first place to consider at leisure. - Corporal Tunnel 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree that just because some people may disagree with either approach that we shouldn't try to find a more correct compromise. I believe that in the case of 'Rorschach' and also especially 'Dr. Manhattan' that to blindly refer to those characters as 'Kovacs' and 'Osterman' all the time is not only wrong, but misleading. These characters change identity within the narrative, and to attribute a plot point to the 'real name' without regard to the character's persona at the time muddies the plot summary. One of the themes of the work is changes in identity, and coupled this with the nonlinear narrative style, we need to take context into consideration when deciding which name to use to refer to a character. Consider an example 'The story shifts to a flashback and we see Osterman/Dr. Manhattan in front of a building'. Since the sentence doesn't show if the character is in the persona of Osterman or Dr. Manhattan, then we need to make sure we convey the correct identity to the reader with the appropriate name. -- Tomlouie | talk 15:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since some people will disagree with any approach, there is no "correct compromise." As far as your example, there are precious few moments when that kind of detail is necessary in a plot summary, which must and should be drawn in broad strokes. We do not need to make sure we convey any detail at all, just the gist of it. The fine points are in the reading of the actual work, not the Wiki article. - Corporal Tunnel 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Silly as it is for wikipedia, I agree with Corporal Tunnel as to general deferrence for nuance issues like this, but will go him one better and say that editorially referring to the characters by their personal names like this is actually *more* true to the humanizing vision of the work. Further, there's the fact that (since they only existed in this series) the heroic names are no more recognizable to the general public than the personal names are and, in fact, are much more cumbersome. - j
I agree that it is somewhat hard as some of the characters are blurred, but I think referring to Rorscharch as Kovacs is somewhat wrong - he alone, of all the characters, is referred to by his alternate identity. He IS Rorscharch more than he is Kovacs. Unfortunately using that instead feels inconsistant, and I think Wikipedia would use either one or the other, and I think generally we prefer to use "real names". Titanium Dragon 05:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  superhero names over real names? 

message: Citation 24 is marked "Ibid." and relates to a comment that Gibbons believes that Rorschach's mood is based off posture not his mask. However citation 23 is not related to Gibbons at all and is instead an analysis of Watchmen itself with only references to Gibbons not using movement lines. In the article the ibid before citation 24 is citation 4 which is an interview with Moore that mentions Gibbons once and is not related to Rorschach either. What is citation 24 supposed to be an ibid of and if we find out can it be linked correctly? --- Lid 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ibid really shouldn't be used with the Ref/Ref notation. As soon as someone adds or moves a reference it makes no sense. A better solution (if you really can't be bothered to type out the whole thing) would be to use the authors name. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's my point, I didn't add the ref and have no idea who did or what it refers to. --- Lid 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind I figured out that citation twenty six was in fact citation twenty four as well. I have no idea how the actual citation ended up after 24 but I've fixed it now. --- Lid 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 24 

message: Right at the end of the 'Themes' section, Miracleman is said to be a character created by Moore - but wasn't he actually a renamed 'Marvelman' created by someone else years before? In fact, check out the Wikipedia article on Miracleman... Jahrsper 12:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracleman 

message: In the second paragraph or so it states that:
The graffito occurs following the proposition of the Keene Act,
What is this - maybe its explained further down the article, but reading from the top and not knowing the subject this needs at least a short explanation I think. -- 217.42.230.183
*OK, I changed it. It is explained later in the article but there's no reason to be cryptic about it up there. --Fastfission 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keene Act? 

message: I protected this page from new and anonymous users since they were vandalizing the page pretty heavily. Another admin can remove this whenever they think it will have calmed down (I'd wait a few hours at least, personally). --Fastfission 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Special protection

message: There's a line in this article about a cameo of Nite Owl in Issue 3 of Alex Ross' Marvels.
Where? I don't see it, and doubt its veracity. Taniwha 04:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvels Cameo? 

message: Regarding the cigarette-style smoking pipe used in the story. Any evidence that they're based on anything real? Are they supposed to be a Doctor Manhattan technology or simply an "alternative universe" smoking device?
The story contains many "alternate universe" technologies, most developed thanks to Doctor Manhattan, such as economical electric cars and teleportation. A technolgy section might make a good addition to the article.--RevWaldo 03:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smoking pipes 

message: 69.253.197.92 Recently edited the page with the following comment: 
:Veidt/Ozymandias catches a speeding bullet in midair - no human, even one in peak condition, can do that
He changed 
: Although the cast of Watchmen are commonly called "superheroes," the only superhuman character in the principal cast is Dr. Manhattan — the others are normal human beings with no special abilities aside from peak physical condition and access to high-class technology and weapons. In the comic, they refer to themselves as "costumed adventurers."
to
: Although the cast of Watchmen are commonly called "superheroes," the only superhuman characters in the principal cast are Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias — the others are normal human beings with no special abilities aside from peak physical condition and access to high-class technology and weapons. In the comic, they refer to themselves as "costumed adventurers."
I think this change requires a bit of discussion.  While we might consider it impossible for a normal human in peak condition, that doesn't mean that, in the story, Veidt isn't a normal human.  --The Hanged Man 01:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense is that Ozymandias was right at the top end of human - and that the top end goes a lot further than most of us realise, at least in the Watchmen universe.  Regards, Ben Aveling 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may, there is a clear distinction between Dr. M, who is meta-human, and Ozymandias, who is a highly trained human.  Perhaps you can suggest a different rewording that doesn't make the mistake?  --The Hanged Man 06:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Even Ozymadias said he 'honestly wasn't sure that would work' when he did it, so it isn't as though it was something he did constantly. In fact that was the first and only time.--HalfShadow 23:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I reread Watchmen this past weekend with an eye towards this.  The interviews with Ozy are illuminative here.  There is repeated mention that anyone can achieve what he has achieved, given adequate determination and effort.  There is also his failure to cleanly catch the bullet.  While Ozy is likely near the apex of possibility for his generation (an all-around Olympic-class athlete), I believe a great deal of the significance of the storyline revolves around him being a flawed (normal) human. Preppy 18:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember that we don't know how he did it.  Maybe he has some super-science equipment in his lab that detects and slows down fast moving objects?  The point is, he is clearly not in the same class as Dr. Manhattan.  He is almost certainly ahead of the other watchment, but when compared to Dr M, the difference between Ozy and a normal human is no difference at all.  (Are we getting into OR yet?)  Regards, Ben Aveling 08:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veidt/Ozymandias - Superhuman? 

message: Would it be appropriate to make a section in the article with information about foreign translations?  E.g.  there is a 3-volume Polish edition (4 issues in each volume), title Strażnicy, translator Jacek Drewnowski, publisher Egmont Polska, 2003-2004.  It could be interesting to see what languages Watchmen's been published in. Goulo 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: I think that some of this can be saved with some work and it is extremely important for the page so I put it here.  What it really needs is some references for the assertions or addition of referenced symbolism.  So if anyone has time I would try and find some references and work through the list. Rtrev 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Symbolism deleted section

message: Might as well start, right?  This section is going huge, if there is a better way to parse things please advise.  I'm just using the brute-force copy method.
I think the problems here begin with the topic sentence of the section - The Watchmen makes use of multiple recurring images.  Well, of course it does.  That's true of any complex collection of words and text.  Clarifying discussion of symbolism can't just be a list of stuff that made you think of other stuff; it needs to be a consideration of devices that shed light upon a theme in a coherent way.  As a guide we can consider the rosebush in The Scarlet Letter, the "green space" in medieval epic poetry and lays, the role of The Monster in 50's horror films (as Other, or Outsider, or, sometimes, as Id): devices that propel our understanding of the text, by emphasizing dominant themes and representing complex realities as simpler symbols that are manipulated to give the work a more resonant meaning.  There is very little of that in this list.
Watches represent Determinism, Fatalism, and inevitability.  The "Watch" in "watch-men" may refer to the fact that all the heroes can do is observe as events unfold around them with clocklike precision.
Do they?  Watches represent fatalism?  They absolutely do not.  Determinism?  In what way?  Inevitability - there's a case that can be made there.  Here there's an inexorable crawl to midnight, yes.  What else might watches represent?  Ingenuity, human intervention, technology, choice, priorities.  Phil Dick believed that time is a cage, and we the prisoners in it.  Kant believed it was a necessary ground to human experience; modern physics thinks of it (partly, at least) as a process which can be reversed in alternate spaces and is embedded in our perceived revision of the universe.  What do Moore and Gibbons think?  Frankly, I don't know, and this section doesn't help me find out.  I'm not sure anyone knows, which is one of the reasons it is not likely to be verifiable in the end.  And Wikipedia:NOR very clearly says that the reference page is not a forum for us to toss around ideas in.
Watchmen are people who watch out and keep guard; they were the first police, and they look out for general safety.  The watch as a timepiece is something that measures the time that the watchmen will keep their watch.  Midnight is a traditional time of the changing of the watch.  In the American Heritage Dictionary (2000), "watch" in the sense of a portable clock is the eighth of nine noun definitions.  The book makes brilliant use of these levels, and so far as I know there is no reliable secondary resource that has made the effort to cogently unravel this Gordian knot.
* The clock in black at the end of each chapter with the blood increasingly dripping towards the bottom moves closer to midnight each chapter. The clock is most likely a reference to the likewise symbolic Doomsday Clock.
The first sentence is not a symbol, it just describes a recurring motif at the end of each chapter.  It doesn't belong here.  The second sentence is pure conjecture, and for the record I don't think it's correct.
* Numerous watches and clock appear, always showing the same time as that of the chapter (with the exception of... 
Again, not a symbol so much as a descriptive bit of trivia.
*...the watch with the cracked face frozen in time by the Hiroshima#Atomic_Bombing. Mankind is shown in civilization-wide descent as time marches on, halted only by the calamitous tragedy of Hiroshima and presumably Veidt's plot. Before the tragedy Veidt sells Nostalgia. After the tragedy in the final chapter the Millenium cologne ads say "This is the time...," "this" to be understood as a new time.
This does not clarify the novel for me; it confuses it.  OK, Hiroshima, good.  That's a moment when time stopped.  Is mankind shown in a civilization-wide descent?  Certainly not.  A small group of people are in decline, yes, and they perceive the world as souring around them, which is a common theme in literature (and in human experience).  It's one foundation of comic crusaders; the Dark Knight shares the same ground.  However, mankind is not demonstrably declining, and even if it were, it certainly isn't because of time, or watches.  Veidt has a theory on this, but that's not symbolic - it's plot.
* Since there is a common Watchmaker analogy to God as part of the deterministic world view, Osterman (who will become a kind of god) grows up as a watchmaker.
There's a point lurking in here.  I buy the Watchmaker and the deity, though I'd like to see a cite from the authors or from legit literary critics on this point.  However, this is not fleshed out, and it isn't brought to the fruition of an actual point.  What does it mean?  How does it advance the story?  How does it support the themes of the novel?  
* Dr. Manhattan's Mars palace looks like the internal gears of a giant clock. His serving bowls look like the halves of an hourglass, and the whole palace is made of glassified Mars sand (which looks like the pink sands put in hourglasses). 
Pink sand in hourglasses?  Reference, please.  Hourglass sand in my experience is either sand-colored or white (powdered marble or eggshell).  We can say that M&G are putting Manhattan in a time setting, but why?  Again, what's the symbolism here?
In general I think there's confusion in this section between rigorous (and useful) symbolism, and stuff that appears often.  The authors do reflect on time, certainly, but so do we all, in every aspect of life.  Other sections deal with gravity and hair color, two other things that are so common that they can't be left out of a graphic novel.  This doesn't mean that they are necessarily meaningful in a symbolic sense.  The job here is to find sources which consider these commonplace occurrences within the fabric of the book, and make sense of them.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporal Tunnel (talk • contribs) 
*That's wacky.  There was a signature line there when I posted it. - Corporal Tunnel 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The themes section actually has citations.  Notice the footnotes and please read WP:NOR.  --Rtrev 01:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *  The point is not to add more OR it is to remove it.  If you find statements in the themes section that are uncited OR then by all means remove them or find citations for them.  --Rtrev 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plotlessviolence, no-one here has any reason to lie to you, or sugar-coat their criticisms of your work. Your analysis is fine, and quite interesting. But, as has been said many times it is WP:OR and cannot be included in a wikipedia article. And like Rtrev said, just because the Themes sections contains some OR, that doesn't mean that you can add OR too. You are just going to have to accept that what you wrote is your own original analysis and can't be included in a wikipedia article. Ashmoo 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly question the latest addition: "As a reference to the watchmaker_analogy", as that statement is a further interpretation of the given source.  That reference can be implied, but is not definitively supported and thus again qualifies as original research and personal bias. It would seem extremely worthwhile to discuss pending Themes/Symbolism changes on the Talk page previous to inclusion.  Preppy 08:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on symbolism points

message: The name given to Rorschach is incorrect throughout the article: in his interview with Dr. Malcolm Long inside the prison on October 28, 1985, Rorschach references the 1975 Blaire Roche kidnapping case as the one where his previous outlook on criminality died, and the new, far more violent one, or as he put it, "Was [finally the real] Rorschach," was created.  From 1975 after, if he is to be taken at his word (and I say he should be, as all his actions throughout the story attest to its validity), he viewed Kovacs as the mask and Rorschach as the reality; as such, identifying him as "Kovacs" after that time is psychologically inaccurate...and yes, that I can state such stuff about something that is in the end a graphic novel is testament to how great the work truly is. All reference to Kovacs' actions past '75 should be replaced with Rorschach. If there is no debate on this matter after seven days, I will begin doing so. --Chr.K. 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting proposition but somewhat calls for original research.  I am more in the camp of being consistent throughout the article, which would make it slightly less accurate from an "in comic" perspective but more readable to an outsider and more encyclopedic. (I also believe this is WP policy for biographies) !@#Rtrev 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that Kovacs 'becomes' Rorchach after the kidnapping, I don't think this should be relected in the article. It is a subtle point that, while highly signicant to the character doesn't belong in a general encyclopedia article on the comic. It would also be too confusion for an uninformed reader. Ashmoo 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Apologies for being away for so long; have been involved in several Wikiproject Paranormal and Open-Wheel Racing articles.)It is not original research, as the character's own words, at one point, were screamed, "GIVE [his] FACE BACK [to him]!!...", attesting, again, to Rorschach's worldview, before later being explained to Long. I would suggest explaining to the reader, who I would likewise (in reply to Ashmoo's comment) automatically treat with expectancy to understand the concept, if appropriately (read: scientific journal level) written out. --Chr.K. 11:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Why not write it out here and see what people think? Hiding Talk  15:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well...though first I will try to explain how I would present it, rather than yet written directly, in italics, etc.At the time readers (viewers, even) first encounter Rorschach, no mention is given of his, ostensibly, real name. All those who encounter him in the bar scene do not know him, and those who even make fun of him (at their peril, we quickly learn) turn over their shoulder and have eyes go wide: it is Rorschach the others see, not any normal man.  Though some would argue that this was induced solely due to psychological effect of the inscrutable, through the image of the mask he wore, such would not be the case: later, in the prison, Rorschach gradually (though always brutally) wears down the confidence of the inmates who gang up on him, so that eventually, when they look at his now supposedly meeker and weaker face, after multiple attempts on his life, they see the eyes, rather than the face: i.e. the complete disavowal of any moral scruples in pursuit of his goals, regardless of what they, be they inmates or governments, innocents or world religions, state to be wrong.  This, in the end, is Rorschach, as opposed to Walter Kovacs, who died the night that "evidence" was so gruesomely disposed of.  That being the case, it is Rorschach, not Kovacs, who investigates what he discovers to be the Comedian's murder; it is Rorschach who attempts to warn all the other "masks"...and in his ceaselessly terming them such, the question can be raised as to whether Rorschach simply sees Dreiberg and Juspeczyk, and for that matter all the rest, as deluding themselves as to which side has been real, and which has been the real mask, over the years in all their own lives; Dr. Manhattan's further and further distancing from standard humanity reiterates it, at least to this author.  In any case: after being given over to the government by Veidt to keep him from the truth, Rorschach shouts out the most blatant presentation of the situation, wherein he demands the police give him back his face, not his crime-fighting mask.  Later, in the room with Long, all references to "Kovacs" doing these things are claimed by Long, not by reference of Rorschach himself: read his diary entries throughout the work; at points where he signs them (most prominently at the end when mailing the item in question), the signature does not read as Walter Kovacs.  Eventually, Long is hammered as well into understanding, just like the prison inmates soon to follow.  This progression can be seen throughout their week of interviews, as step by step, Long comes to see the man sitting across the table from him for what he truly is...even after supposedly catching himself as making the "mistake" of forgetting the name society would insist on calling him by.  Upon Rorschach's detailed summary of the events that led to his current worldview (and psychological makeup), he succeeds in shattering Long's idealism: that night Long sees, in the ink blots he quizzed his patient on, the kind of stark and brutal imagery that Rorschach takes as par for the course of life.  That Rorschach thereafter, at the end of the final sitting, merely asks if he adequately answered the doctor's question, reinforces the point to ultimate level: Kovacs does not exist.  He has been dead for over ten years.  The Watchmen Wikipedia page should suitably reflect this reality. --Chr.K. 10:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Forty-eight hours having passed, I will commence the change within one day, if no problems are noted by any. --Chr.K. 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The implication is that all of the heroes are people underneath their masks.  Kovacs is Rorschach underneath the mask that his skin provides. As said before, this is specifically corroborated by Rorschach's own words, and in Long's psychological evaluation, which ends with such devastation to Long's previous emotional worldview that he even takes up Rorschach's completely-streamlined manner of speech. Psychologically, Rorschach, Veidt and Manhattan are exhibited as three separate ways of looking at reality: absolutism, relativism, and basically fatalistic predestination. --Chr.K. 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but I would call for Osterman to be referred to by another name, if he thought of himself as such; as it stood, he was neutral of naming conventions, so, in fact, Osterman or Manhattan would be acceptable to me.  Rorschach specifically states himself to be that name, as opposed to "just pretending to be" (and incidentally, my apologies for saying "there is no Rorschach"...had meant, "there is no separate Rorschach personality, or Kovacs...his actions reveal both as one."  The reference to Ahab is rather simple: objective reality as opposed to subjective, and that is what I think we've begun debating here.  To me, if the man states, of himself, a reality about him that others, even perhaps ALL others, refuse to see, it is still "the truth" about him, as much as a fact that he believes it.  "A sound is still a sound, in the forest, even if no one...", perhaps the better analogy, mixed with a healthy dose of independent individualism.  What Rorschach is on in inside should be based on Rorschach thinks and feels, not upon what the people around him feel about him. The same would hold true with Manhattan (a name the latter openly thought bizarre when he first heard it, showing how connected he is with it), Dreiberg, Veidt, or any others among them. --Chr.K. 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rorschach 

message: Hi.  This just got deleted.  As I believe that it is very important, I'd like a consensus as to where it might be appropriate to put it -- not necessarily in this form.  thanks!
"Of note in the ending of Watchmen, and very obscure, is the connection between Ozymandias' plan and Shea and Wilson's ILLUMINATUS! Trilogy. Karen Berger, an Editor for DC Comics' Vertigo imprint, acknowledged when asked by the editor of the ILLUMINATUS! Comic that 'Transcendental Illumination' totally changed the perception of the ending to Watchmen."
Icarus 23 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate place for this? 

message: "the Übermensch (literally, "Overman," but more colloquially and to the point, "Superman") recurs throughout much of Moore's work, including Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen..."
I'd disagree. Manhattan can't convince people into doing his bidding; he doesn't even have a bidding. Adrian Veidt is Watchmen's Übermensch, by my reading of the term. I'm changing it, although if I'm outvoted, it can change back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nedlum (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct on Veidt being the Übermensch; he is also a reference to Machiavelli's "Great man," who "cannot be a good man." --Chr.K. 12:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Übermensch  

message: I just saw a trailer for 300, and noticed someone mention Rorschach appears at frame 1:52. Sure enough, there's a frame of him. Hint? Prelude? Possibly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UapGEIMQtkw&mode=related&search=
:I looked, but don't see him.  Am I missing something? -- Sean Martin 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you set the marker at 1:52? You have to do it exactly, otherwise you'll fly right by it. I did it a few times to make sure I wasn't seeing things. There's a guy that looks just like him standing by a streetlight in a city! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.79.10.135 (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang.  There he is!   Couldn't see him when watching the trailer, or trying to pause-play-pause-play frame by frame around that point.  But slide the slider to 1:52 and there he is.  Must be, like, just one perfectly placed frame.  -- Sean Martin 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link no longer works. Any chance of providing a new one? The Ðark Crusader 04:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The frame's already on Wikipedia: here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.146.104.183 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: There has been a great bit of debate on whether Watchmen exists as a graphic novel or as a maxiseries. Both have a limited, specific story arc, and are designed to tell a story in a given time with an episodic feel. The difference is mainly that the original method of publication was individual issues, which had time constraints and advertising concerns that influenced the output differently. If you don't believe me, check out The DC Comics Guide to Writing Comics by Dennis O'Neil. Page 93 onward contain information about what is considered to be a maxiseries, and Watchmen is cited as an example. 
Some might argue it's far too late in the game to quibble over titles, like worrying the dubious titles "indie" and "electronica" in music, as they may not be helpful from a musicological standpoint but at this point are so widely associated with certain work they cannot be effectively "unmythed." The case here being that Watchmen has recieved awards in the genre Graphic Novel and the creators have explained their self-identification as a graphic novel, simply releasing chapters at a time as issues in order to maximize their effort in the making. 
My point after all this ranting (finally) is that I think we should include something about the fact some consider it to be a maxiseries as opposed to a graphic novel. I'd be willing to add it but I wanted to open it for discussion beforehand. Possible things to consider are-
*Does a Maxiseries have to use characters from ongoing series to be considered a Maxiseries?
*Does the episodic genre really differ that much from a single release publication?
*Can any "trade paperback" be considered a Graphic Novel as the issues become chapters, and volumes become books?
*Is any of this significant enough to note on wikipedia?
Hope to hear from you guys soon, love the article, it's some incredible work. : )
--NateDSaint 06:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxiseries 

message: I've been through all this and it's fascinating, but there's one glaring omission in it all. No one ever mentions the point Alan Moore was trying to make with the story. He's said repeatedly over the years that the main theme of the Watchmen is that any one person could change the world. That's why he ended it the way he did, with Seymour reaching for the crank file. This isn't my interpretation, or original research... Alan Moore has stated this fact directly on more than one occasion. It seems like this should be included in the 'themes' section. ~ Thirdrail
:Reference a single quote of this original-author testimony, and you'll have many backing you in placing it in. --Chr.K. 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing.