chenj@cmcl2.UUCP (James M.C. Chen) (11/29/86)
WM#7 like its predecessor WM#6 does little to advance the answers to the central questions in this series. Namely: Who killed the Comedian? What were the motives, passion or profit? If the killer was merely the agent of some hidden group or individual (Is this the meaning of "At Midnight All the Agents"?) what did they want from this murder? If he killed for just himself, why? What were the means and why were they chosen? The evidence suggests the Comedian was beaten to death by one of more persons. In fact, the flashbacks, if we believe them, tell us he was killed by one man. The idea of killing a man with one's bare hands, especially someone like the Comedian known to be able to defend himself, is a particularly bad one. There are too many things that could go wrong. You'd never find real world terrorists or murderers doing it unless they have the victim in some basement somewhere and can gang up on him. More likely, they'd smash into his apartment with guns blazing. So, why was the Comedian beaten to death? Why, for instance, wasn't he shot? Was this crime planned in detail and so had a reason for this particular mode over others? Or was this an impulsive murder where the killer trusted to his own martial prowess and the element of surprise? If the crime was one of passion then we can understand why no weapon was used. If the crime was one of profit then what was to be gained by taking such a risk? There are two clear effects arising from the method chosen. One, the set of possible killers is severely restricted. Two, it is more reminiscent of an enraged husband's revenge against his wife's lover than of an assassin; the sheer violence suggests more passion than profit. We know it succeeded in confusing the two detectives as to whether the crime was for gain or pleasure. Another result of the unusual means was to lure Rorschach. Was this intended? Did he/they want Rorschach to investigated? If so why? Also, was the murder committed as we think it to be, i.e., a simple, violent beating? Perhaps, the Comedian was soften up first and made an easier target; say, given some drug to impair his fighting ability. This would require the killer or an assistant to get close and administer the drug to the Comedian somehow. A more complicated scheme than before. How was the opportunity achieved? Did the killer just wait for the Comedian to come home, put his feet up, and relax so as to catch him off-guard? (Remember the previews of the Comedian apparently in the act of assassinating someone? Perhaps we will yet see it when the murder is reconstructed.) Was he trying to kill the Comedian or Edward Blake? If Blake then the whole masked killer theory is shot, but if the Comedian then how did he know Blake was the Comedian? Did someone tell him? Who? Did he discover it from stalking Blake/Comedian? Or maybe he didn't know; he just killed whoever was in such and such apartment. (Does anyone know what apartment Blake lived in? I couldn't find it.) What is going to happen to the world? Remember Moore's trying to show what the world might be if superheroes existed. Will there be a world war? If not then how will it be averted? If so will people resolve it themselves or will they look to a savior? Perhaps Dr. Manhattan will descend from heaven like a Messiah and save the world. Everyone will be so grateful they'd welcome him back, revoke the Keene Act, etc.. But then again, the prime source of world instability has always been Dr. Manhattan himself. So nothing will really have changed. Then again he could come back as a dictator and rule the world. A most unlikely and unappealing outcome. What will be the final relationship between the world and its heroes--both super and normal? Will there be no heroes with all of them retired or dead? Or will the heroes win acceptance, even be welcome, leading to a new generation of heroes? Can the world ever live with heroes? Implicit in my comments so far is the idea that a world with superheroes should be essentially the same as ours. But, of course, there is no reason for this prejudice. Perhaps, the world should make use of the opportunities opened by the powers of a Dr. Manhattan and really strive to attain the impossible. Starships, time machines, colonies in space, star-spanning empires, huge cities underground or in the oceans, . . . , anything and everything. Why not? Alan Moore's premise has been that a world with superheroes will be different from ours. He shows it using some of the powers of its heroes and restraining others. The effect has been a world still basically like ours, but on the verge of change. Will he follow his premise to its logical conclusion? Or will he cop out in the end and offer us a romantic, but far-fetched conclusion a la Skizz? While WM#7 is not pivotal in the series, it does add to our understanding of the characters, as well as, giving us some interesting questions. Going back to WM#1.19.5, Rorschach states that "MothMan's in an asylum up in Maine." While in UNDER THE HOOD, Hollis Mason said that MothMan is now institutionalized he doesn't reveal where. So how did Rorschach know? I thought at first it must be from Dreiberg since, as several people have pointed out, Dreiberg mentions visiting MothMan in his article "Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas." I thought he must have told Rorschach as they were partners once. This can't be though. If you check the dates, you'd see that Rorschach must have parted from OwlMan about 1977 at the time of the Keene Act. The article was published in 1983 some six years later. In the paragraph where Dreiberg mentions Maine, he said the visit was "comparatively recently." Even allowing some time between writing and publication, it isn't likely Dreiberg could have told Rorschach. It's still possible, but no longer probable. So, the question is unanswered. How did Rorschach know? Another discrepancy I noticed was that in WM#6.18.1 Rorschach says the kidnapping which changed him happened in 1975. In WM#2.18.3, the Comedian says the kidnapping took place three years ago. Since he said this during the riots leading to the Keene Act that means, according to the Comedian, it was 1974 when Rorschach went crazy. A discrepancy of one year. This leads me to speculate on the relationship between the Minutemen and the Watchmen. I know there was some objection to calling them "Watchmen" since they don't call themselves that; but, I think this objection is wrong since Moore clearly intends for us to refer to them as the "Watchmen." Why else was the name of the old masked hero group the "Minutemen"? The similarity is too close to be coincidence, especially from a work where there are no coincidences. However, does the resemblances between the two groups end with their names? Does it go deeper? It is difficult to compare the Minutemen with the Watchmen because the two groups have different membership numbers. There are 8 Minutemen and only 6 Watchmen. So let us first set up a correspondence between the Minutemen and the Crimebusters. The formation of the Crimebusters was never consummated. I therefore take the members of this group to be simply those people at the first and only meeting. Thus: MINUTEMEN CRIMEBUSTERS Hooded Justice Dr. Manhattan Owl Man I Owl Man II Silk Spectre I Silk Spectre II Captain Metropolis Captain Metropolis Moth Man Rorschach Dollar Bill Ozymandias Silhouette Jan Slater Comedian Comedian I think most of the correspondences are obvious. Hooded Justice <--> Dr. Manhattan is because both are unknown quantities, almost inhuman; Owl Man I <--> Owl Man II both are affable and public-spirited; Silk Spectre I <--> Silk Spectre II both are followers, recall both were pushed into their careers and how both tend to lean on men (Spectre I -- Hooded Justice & Laurence Schexnayder, Spectre II -- Dr. Manhattan & Dan Dreiberg); Moth Man <--> Rorschach both use gimmicks, MothMan's wings and Rorschach's mask, and both are insane (Any ideas what drove MothMan crazy?); Dollar Bill <--> Ozymandias both are athletic and reportedly likable. (I don't care what Ozymandias might really be in his heart of hearts, by all accounts he's a nice guy.) and Silhouette <--> Jan Slater. This is admittedly pretty weak, but they're the only ones left. The point of this exercise is to establish its plausibility. Going over to the Minutemen vs. Watchmen. MINUTEMEN WATCHMEN Hooded Justice Dr. Manhattan Owl Man I Owl Man II Silk Spectre I Silk Spectre II Captain Metropolis Ozymandias Moth Man Rorschach Dollar Bill ? Silhouette ? Comedian Comedian Captain Metropolis <--> Ozymandias is because both are thinkers and organizers. There are two blanks for missing Watchmen. Will they be filled before the series ends? If so then by whom? Joey <--> Silhouette? What the hell. It's only an idea. -Jimmy Chen (chenj@cmcl2) "Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says 'Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up.' Man bursts into tears. Says 'But, doctor . . . I am Pagliacci.' "