I don’t think the definitions of pessimism, optimism, or cynicism are dependent on being correct. Veidt’s plan is profoundly cynical and pessimistic. Even if he’s completely right, that doesn’t make him an optimist. It makes him someone who has eliminated optimism as a viable philosophy in this situation.
See, I was thinking in best-of-all-possible-outcomes terms.
Like, imagine our buddy is about to hit on women at the local bar; I figure an optimist would say, I bet he goes home with the hottest one, and a pessimist would say I bet none of 'em give him the time of day, and a cynic would say, I dunno, I bet he winds up with a plain-looking one, like he did last time.
Now, you could argue that an optimist is instead someone who says I bet one of them turns out to be a wish-granting genie who gives him everything he desires for the rest of his life, or something, by leaning harder on the “best” part than on the “possible” part. But in a case where the outcomes really are limited, I kinda figured someone who goes with the best possible one counts as an optimist.
(And if there’s only one possible outcome, then I figure the optimist and the pessimist and the cynic all say the same thing; and if there are only two possible outcomes, then I guess the cynic doubles up with the optimist or the pessimist.)
I think the problem there is, nobody ever actually knows what all the possible outcomes of a given situation are. We don’t have the Word of God telling us that humanity was going to wipe itself out in Watchmen - we have the word of Adrien Veidt. And while he’s objectively a very brilliant and accomplished person, he’s still human. The optimistic response to Veidt’s scenario would be to hope that he’s wrong. I’d apply that to Veidt himself - the moment when he ruled out the possibility that he could be wrong, that there could be some other way to save the world that didn’t rely on murdering New York City, was the moment that any optimism died in him.
Never. There’s no room, since Moore stores every turd as examples of his untouchable artistic perfection.
(I like most of Moore’s work. I feel strongly for artistic integrity. But Moore’s just a hypocrite who keeps on selling his work, then throwing fits because DC et al. don’t carefully put it in a cello sleeve and store it in a quiet, dark place.)
Well, leaving aside for a moment whether we could get Word of God on this – would Alan Moore count? Has he weighed in on whether Veidt was factually correct? – my question was, if we assume for the sake of argument that Veidt was factually correct, then how would Jon or Dan or Laurie have reacted if they’d been optimists?
And I guess you’re saying that whether he was correct was irrelevant, because an optimist is someone who – looks not for the best possible outcome, but something better than what’s possible? And someone who looks for the best possible outcome is a cynic? Have I got that right?
Nah, Alan Moore doesn’t count. He’s just the writer. What does he know about anything? :D. What I mean is, from the perspective of a character in the story, there’s no “word of God” that makes Veidt absolutely correct. If Moore said, “Speaking as the author, Veidt was totally right, and he saved mankind from extinction,” that information would not be available to Dan or Laurie. They’d still have to take Veidt’s word for it that there was no other option.
Not really. What I’m saying is, if a character in the story assumed that Veidt was right, they wouldn’t be an optimist. An optimist would assume that Veidt overlooked something. If Veidt was able to convince an optimist that he is right, that person would cease to be an optimist. If Veidt is right, there is no optimistic outcome to the scenario. Just varying degrees of pessimism.
Heh. Okay, fair enough – but let me ask you this: imagine a character who isn’t an optimist; he’s so far from it, he actually believes a nuclear exchange resulting in the extinction of mankind is (a) inevitable; and (b) coming soon. And instead of trying to “convince an optimist that he is right,” Veidt convinces this guy that, no, it’s not inevitable; we can save billions of people.
So – what just happened?
You said that, if Veidt could convince an optimist, that person would cease to be an optimist; no matter that said person might then go the hugs and smiles and sunshine and forgiveness and let’s-go-put-on-costumes-and-save-lives route, they’ve ceased to be an optimist. Granting that for the sake of argument: if Veidt convinces a guy that, no, there is hope; humanity can be saved – did he just cease to be a pessimist?
Heh. Good point. I suppose I’d argue that they guy had gotten more optimistic, compared to where he started from, but I don’t know that I’d necessarily call him an optimist just because he moved in that direction.
Bumping this because I stumbled across something that I thought may be of interest. Or may be nothing. Or may be short-lived, either way.
So they’ve been developing the story with a mysterious “Mr Oz” who makes a habit of viewing multiple TV screens and apparently has access to teleportation technology and prides himself on being a brainy guy who thinks long-term. Is he Ozymandias? We’re probably supposed to wonder if he’s supposed to be Ozymandias.
If you click on DC’s link to an issue he’s been in – like this one, say – you can see a whole lot of characters with names you can click on to learn more about each of 'em: Lois Lane, Green Lantern, Captain Boomerang, Alfred Pennyworth, you name it. And the link for Mr Oz doesn’t go anywhere, because, well, they presumably don’t feel like saying much right now; they maybe have a big The Rest Of The Story entry cued up and ready to go, but if so they’re understandably playing it close to the vest.
Anyhow, that works in reverse, too; you can type in “Alfred Pennyworth” on that site, and links to issues he’s been in – including that one – of course pop up.
Guess what happens if you type in “Adrian Veidt”. Or, y’know, “Ozymandias”.
Starfire as Little Annie Fanny? I can’t imagine what that is like. Any links?
It is as if someone gave DC’s continuity to my three year old son. And then he decided to use it to clean up after my dog.
I find it fascinating that Johns’ promotion of the comics line consists apparently of using characters and concepts familiar to long standing readers in ways which trigger the contempt of long-standing readers.
No one over the age of 15 is interested in whether Dr Manhattan could beat Superman or whether Deathstroke or Batman can beat the Comedian. They’re facile questions.
And when Johns isn’t smashing up DC’s heirlooms with a baseball bat, he still does stupid things. Johns recently killed off the Crime Syndicate in JL #50. This involved using a baby as a lightning gun: http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com/index.php/2016/06/02/justice-league-50-broken-springboard/
As for Cap as a Hydra agent, the fan backlash was so abrupt and strong that Marvel quickly blamed a Cosmic Cube over-writing reality. (Which of course can easily be undone by the same Cosmic Cube. So for the time being we have Steve Rogers as a villain, but give it three years and a Marvel Studios movie or two and he will be back to normal.)
Why the same backlash over the “Watchmen” integration has not caused Johns to blink, I attribute only to his ego.
For those of you who think this is means comics have fallen into a creative sewer, I urge you to consider Image, which has come a long way from its T&A origins. “Deadly Class”, “East of West”, and “The Wicked and the Divine” are all from Image and they’re the three best titles being published in comics.
(Poor Vertigo Comics has been reduced to poorly reviving Lucifer and Fables in an effort to suck up some sales, and doesn’t have much to offer otherwise ,save for aside from Gail Simone’s eerie “Clean Room”.)
For an “abrupt” change to a storyline because of “fan backlash,” there sure is a hell of a lot of foreshadowing of it in the months leading up to the reveal.
Probably more to do with book sales than anything else. AIUI, DC’s been doing pretty well since the latest reset. It helps that they’ve been putting out some really, really good books. And they haven’t actually done anything with the Watchmen stuff yet. There’s some mysterious hooded figure who stands around in a hood being mysterious, who’s probably Dr. Manhattan or Ozymandius. And Batman found a smiley face button in the Batcave. That’s been about it. It still sounds like a bad idea, but so far, it’s not actually a thing yet.
Anyway, no matter how bad it turns out, if it gets me more Superdad comics, I’m okay with it.
:smack: It’s especially funny coming from a company that has several ultra powerful beings that can be defeated by forcing them to say their names, or better saying their name backwards. 
It was indeed abrupt. It took one issue: Updated: Marvel Backtracks on Captain America Revelation After Just One Issue - Paste Magazine
I’m obviously missing them. Which books?
-
Aside from giving Superman a son (which is a great character advancement), the writers of Superman are dumpster diving" in Alan Moore’s body of work (a recidivist problem for DC, according to Moore himself), this time taking Moore’s “Supreme” concept and adopting it for Superman - Superman #15 (Review) - World Comic Book Review
-
Batman is same-old, same-old, said in a hundred different ways in, what, five or six different titles featuring the same character.
-
Green Lantern is horribly complicated. I loved GL as a kid, and wonder if the inherent problem is that there are just too many of them. There is no real novelty to the character Green Lanterns #1 and #2 (review) - World Comic Book Review
-
Harley Quinn / Suicide Squad are blatant efforts to milk the movie New Suicide Squad #21 (review) - World Comic Book Review
-
Justice League #1 was awful and kind of on the same intellectual level as Angry Birds #1 - The Oppressive Stink: Justice League #1 Rebirth – Directors’ Cut - World Comic Book Review
I don’t think I’ve read any other titles recently. So Flash might be great, or Wonder Woman might have picked up again post-Azzarello. Quite seriously, I’d be happy if someone pointed me in the direction of a good DC book.
Typhoon, as much as the Hydra Cap thing is dumb, it was always going to be explained by a Cosmic Cube. It was hinted at in the very issue that introduced the plot point. Marvel didn’t scramble and rewrite.
As for DC’s output, Superman is solid for the first time in seven or eight years, and the Batman titles are amazing - Tom King in particular is just an incredible writer who came out of nowhere. Justice League isn’t great, but it’s been bad since the New 52 started. Wonder Woman may be the best it’s ever been in my lifetime. And New Super-Man may be the best wholly new title that DC has introduced since before the New 52, as well.
“A previous version of this article made insinuations that Marvel changed its editorial direction on its second issue to accommodate fans. Paste would like to clarify that a cosmic cube would be necessary to pull off a publication feat of that magnitude and it was an inaccurate implication. More on that here.”
Hoist by your own cite.
You think Marvel had decided to just say Cap was a Hydra Agent for real? And it was only because of fan backlash that they changed their minds?
Thank god there was so much fan backlash that DC went back on their plans in the '90s. Otherwise Superman would surely still be dead, and Batman still paralyzed, just as they planned it. I mean, Superman had a funeral and everything - it doesn’t get much more final than that.
That was also around the time when Marvel announced that they were “canceling” all the X-Men books. Sure, they were some of their best sellers, but Prof. X’s time traveling son had gone back and killed him in the past, so what are you gonna do? Just undo time travel somehow, after it happened?
The fan backlash to that one was so intense that the writers of all the various X-books spontaneously cranked out four months of alternate universe stories before restoring the status quo – and coincidentally all those stories seemed to fit into the same new timeline, almost as if they had been planned out in advance. But of course that’s impossible – how could they have anticipated the fan reaction?
Actually, comic book creators have a long history of being extremely responsive to fan complaints. Back in the '60s, there were a number of famous incidents where they wrote Superman as being a complete dick to his friends, but when the fans complained they rewrote the endings of those stories so instead of them ending with him actually killing Lois Lane or destroying Jimmy Olsen’s life, he was just pretending and always had a good reason.
The funny thing is, with all the originals copies – in which Superman simply indulged his villainous urges – having been destroyed, modern readers sometimes mistakenly assume that comic book writers are just in the habit of throwing in crazy twists to, I don’t know, make the stories interesting or something.
Aha. Seems I was misdirected by the original article.
New Super-Man did not ring true to me.
I will have a look at Tom King’s work.
Aquaman, Flash, Wonder Woman, Detective, Action and Titans (not Teen Titans) are my current favorite comics. Aquaman is better written than any Aquaman, ever (I include Peter David’s iteration), Flash is as good as it was during the Waid/Johns era, Wonder Woman has me fascinated and trying to guess what’ll happen next (weirdly, he’s embraced the Azzarello stuff and at the same time is undoing it without cheating), Detective shows a Batman we haven’t seen since the original Crisis in '85–one who’s able to play well with others, Action has Superdad, but also has great stories and Titans seems to pretty much be the keystone book to the whole Watchmen thing and is stunningly written (art’s a little sketchy for my tastes though).
As much as I griped when this Watchmen thing started, it’s been building up momentum very slowly and very unobtrusively (Saturn Girl showed up in Arkham for a panel or two from Suicide Squad. Johnny Quick’s speed formula showed up on a blackboard somewhere (Blue Beetle, maybe?)…stuff like that) and next month is a Batman/Flash mini-series where they start to explore the mystery of the Comedian’s badge.
Seriously–I’m currently down on Marvel because of the whole Civil War II nonsense (“Let’s have every! single! character! act out of character so they have a reason for a senseless fight, undermine Captain Marvel’s basic core concepts and…oh yeah, start the series by killing off one of the three best known black guys”) and the X-Men vs Inhumans stuff (Which can largely be summed up as “If that gas cloud doesn’t evaporate, all mutants everywhere will die horribly. If it does disappear, we won’t have any more Inhumans created until we travel to one of the (5?) other planets that ALSO have terrigen mists and borrow some of theirs” so let’s just fight), and DC is currently better than it’s been since say, around Infinite Crisis.
What the fuck does that even mean?