And actual as opposed to fictional.
Just want to point out that, according to this site and this one I don’t see how you would come to the conclusion that Vietnam is 2 1/2 times bigger than California, unless you mean population-wise.
If we follow the comic, then since the US won, it means that South Vietnam stays as a free country and not the North (the VCs surrender to Dr. Manhattan, not the NVA). The 38th parallel would become a permanent border between 2 separate countries. Thus if South Vietnam becomes a US state, the population would be much smaller than what you quoted.
If you don’t like the example of real people, what about fictional characters? Is Hamlet a good guy? How about Tom Sawyer? Or Holden Caulfield? Or Hercules? Or Odysseus?
These characters aren’t good guys or bad guys in the comic book sense, and neither is Doctor Manhattan.
Hamlet is a good guy, wrestling with his morality and his sanity while trying to avenge his father’s death.
Tom Sawyer is a good guy who’s a prankster and still is learning about good and evil.
Hercules and Odysseseus are heroes within the context of Greek mythology.
I haven’t read the Holden Caulfield one. You’re making a simple question far too complicated here and engaging in pointless pedantry.
Really? Because in the play I saw, he deliberately messes with the emotions of a young woman who is deeply in love with him, causing her a nervous breakdown and eventual suicide. Then he murders two of his closest friends. Doesn’t sound like a good guy to me.
Which doesn’t answer the question - are they good guys or bad guys? Or does the question even make sense in that context? If you say yes to that question, then I suspect you’ve stumbled on precisely the point Lemur (to say nothing of Alan Moore) is trying to make.
To the contrary, he’s pointing out that “is he a good guy or a bad guy” is far from a simply question - which is in large measure the central point of The Watchmen.
I don’t recall that in the version of Hamlet I read in high school.
Your version didn’t have Ophelia in it? Or were Rosencrantz and Guildenstern missing? Surely, at the very least, it still had Polonius, whom Hamlet stabs to death in a fit of rage in Act III?
Kids, as much as I am (barely secretly) open to Statehood to whoever suggests it, and despite how pissed I was that the US government for too long prevented US investment in Vietnam, handing the statehood to EVERYBODY ELSE, including countries (China and France) whose colonial claims had many more years to piss off the Vietnamese, the US has decades before we can even suggest it. Step One: A lot of people of my generation must die first. Step Two: Waiting for the Congresscritters representing the same to die, long after they stop being anything like a majority.
Yes. As the two preceding sentences in the OP related to population, as did the phrase which immediately followed the semicolon in that very sentence, I thought it was obvious. My bad.
In the world of Watchmen, taking into account the corruption of Nixon’s administration, the representatives and senators would very likely be a junta of conquering American generals and officers. They’re not going to hand over all of that power to the natives. Perhaps, they’d hand over enough of it to insure the populous is pacified, but no more.
Back when Moore wrote Watchmen and Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Raygun were in power, there was a minor trend in the UK for referring to the UK as the 51st State. Moore calling Vietnam the 51st State might well have been an oblique reference to this.
More nitpicking pedantry. I said he was struggling with his morality and sanity. I’m not playing this game anymore, and I won’t respond to further posts on the topic. Have fun.
Leave aside the issue that Vietnam is on the other side of the world & that neither the Vietnamese nor the Americans want union. Why wouldn’t Vietnam be (at least) three states? At the least it should be split into Cochin China, Annam, & Tonkin.
Check out Atlas of Vietnam - Wikimedia Commons for an idea of actual administrative divisions in Vietnam.
Just another case of Alan Moore being all-wiseacre but certainly not all-wise.
BrightnShiny, Dr Manhattan is Neutral Apathetic. He’s not actively bad, but he’s emotionally depressed in that he sees a span of history between his creation & a point shortly after the main action of the book as all happening at once. So he does as little as possible & doesn’t know how to account for his actions or judge his moral responsibility. He’s more bad than good, on balance.
I don’t know why you’re so pissed off over this line of conversation. I’m not picking nits, in my view - these are important issues of discussion in understanding these works of literature, and by extension, the human condition itself. It’s a bit (okay, a lot) off topic for this thread, but it’s an entirely worthy subject of debate in and of itself.