That’s selective application of reality though. If we want this to me “fully realistic” or as close to it as possible then the likes of Roarshack would be dead or in prison within weeks. This is why I think giving them a modicum of super powers would have made more sense and then exploring the genre.
You may be experiencing an uncanny valley effect. If the characters are too close to real, then you have a better feel for their limits. You know what a normal person can do without super powers, so seeing them go beyond that breaks your disbelief.
Jonathan
Interesting but I can’t quite agree with you. Someone like Indiana Jones it’s more of a madcap adventure, which I can accept. In the Watchmen, however, we were asked to accpet the superhero genre imposed on ordinary people and, for me at least, it didn’t work because the basic premise was flawed.
Add into the mix the late addition of psi powers and I think the story is really hurt by not having the Watchmen have at least a modicum of super human power.
I liked The Watchmen, but I wasn’t as blown away by it as most - I think that most of the greatness of the work is in playing with the tropes of comic book super-heros, which can only be so interesting if you are not that into comic super-heros.
I prefer the later work of Eisner, like A Contract With God. I just hope they don’t attempt to make it into a movie. 
That being said … I’ll give The Watchmen a re-read. Many have suggested it is worth it, and it has been some time since I read it.
I’m not a big comic fan; I’ve never really liked the combination of pictures and words used to tell a story. I am, however, passingly familiar with superheros, as my husband enjoys comics. So, I was reluctant to read it when my husband handed me a copy of Watchmen.
It totally blew me away.
Maybe for someone who read everything that came after it beforehand, or something, it might not be that interesting, but I was captivated. It’s one of those books that I’m not sure I can read again yet, though. It just broke everything.
I guess my expectations were just “off” going into this thing then. I was expecting a gripping story with tension, mystery, and action and instead I got a soap opera melodrama of people reminising about the good ol’ days and wallowing in their problems. I thought it picked up a bit with Roarshack’s capture and escape but everyone else was just sad and depressed.
If I’m going to see a “how would the real world accept superheroes” story I guess I prefer it be done in a comedic/satirical way like The Incredibles (which seems to borrow from Watchmen). Superheroes destroying property, getting sued by people they rescue, banned by the government, killed by getting their cape caught in something, etc.
Two of those things happen in Watchmen. 
I personally own hundreds of issues of Spider-Man comic books, not to mention all the ones I’ve checked out from the library and read in comic book shops over the years. The spider-sense has never been flawless or specific, and has failed on many, many, occasions. Back in the day at least, it failed whenever he got a cold.
You realize that we’re talking about a book with a character who has the power to build a fortress on Mars with the blink of an eye, and a giant alien monster squid thing with psychic powers that is teleported into New York City?
If “Roarshack” was dead or in prison within weeks, you wouldn’t have a story. I don’t think any publisher is going to accept a one-and-half page graphic novel that says “A bunch of people tried to be costumed vigilantes but, heh, that shit did not work! The End.”
It really looks like you’re scrambling to find excuses to not like this book, Lochdale.
Which was always a specific plot point. Peter would acknowledge just how vulnerable he is. Normally, however, it is exactly this spider sense which allows him to dodge bullets and what not, something he acknowledges in almost every issue. Something none of the Watchmen have.
Absolutely. So the book made great pains to state that John was the only superhuman but then one of the central plot devices required a superhuman power to create and others having superhuman type powers to be affected by it. All of this could be avoided by giving the them all a modicum of superhuman power.
I agree. I’m just giving you a reason I was taken out of the book.
And honestly, it really looks like you are unable to articulate arguments to counter my central premise. I’m not trying to be be snarky either. I think the Watchmen was a brilliant piece of work and I enjoyed it. In my mind, however, it has a glaring central flaw that takes me out of the book.
I can hardly imagine anyone considering your beef a “central flaw”. It’s a nitpick. Really, this is one of the best/worst (depending on your POV) examples I’ve ever seen of not seeing the forrest for the trees. Art, character studies, Under the Hood, Tales of the Black Freighter, questions of morality, etc, all thrown out because a few characters aren’t bulletproof. Amazing.
It’s a little more than that and I think you know that. If, and again it’s a personal preference, a quite serious fallacy takes one out of the story then anything thereafter has diminished impact.
It’s more than just being bullet proof it’s the notion that normal humans could do anything near what they do much less be quasi-sanctioned by the government. If anything, I think you’re too wrapped up in the book to see that.
Not quite true.
This is worth reading. It’s a simple novel from 1977… and it has shaped every story from Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow onwards.
I’ve read Superfolks. I didn’t see it as an exploration of the genre like what Moore or Miller wrote. It’s like Margaret Truman’s Murder in the White House - it was a murder mystery. The fact that it was set in the White House and many of its characters were politicians didn’t make it a political novel. Superfolks was the same way: its protagonist was a superhero but the book wasn’t about being a superhero.
I am not even joking or exaggerating here: if you seriously believe that, I can’t imagine you liking 95% of the books, movies, and tv shows that fall into the action/adventure genre. This is clearly a hangup you have, and not a flaw in Watchmen, anymore than it’s a “flaw” in thousands of other works of entertainment.
Batman, Bond, and Bourne all seem to typically be carrying projectile weapons when they’re out confronting the bad guys, though. Somebody pulls a gun on Batman in an empty warehouse and he can do something about it (grappling hook to the face, batarang knocks the gun away, etc.) Sure its not perfectly believable, but it’s at least remotely plausible for a guy with near-superhuman reflexes.
What the hell is Rorschach or the Silk Spectre going to do in that situation?
I think I understand the point Lochdale is making. All genres require their audience to accept some conventions, even if that requires a willing suspension of disbelief. You accept the idea of a flying man in a comic book but you wouldn’t accept it in a horror novel - even though you’re willing to accept other equally impossible things in that genre. The author is expected to create his story while working within the rules of the genre. Lochdale appears to feel that Moore was trying to have it both ways: he wanted to play the game but he didn’t want to follow the rules. He was questioning the validity of comic book conventions at the same time he was using them as valid tools to tell the story.
He wasn’t questioning the validity of the conventions. He was exploring the genre, not trying to discredit it. How would the world react to a real, genuine superman? How would society react to real, masked vigilantes.
Moore has said that Rorschach (not Nite Owl) was his real take on Batman – his idea of what an authentic, obsessed, humorless, uncompromisingly moralistic vigilante would be like in the real world. In Moore’s words, he’d have to be a “nutcase.”
Rorschach is very street savvy, and aside from being a badass, vicious hand-to-hand scrapper also the instincts and intelligence to avoid putting himself in a vulnerable situation in the first place. He’s also extremely resourceful at improvising weapons and defenses from whatever is at hand. And like Batman, he is always prepared. he knows what he’s going to do. He’s always two steps ahead of his enemies.
Plus he does carry a grappling hook.
Silk Spectre would probably be more vulnerable to attack, but she’s supposed to a lightweight. She’s not even really that into being a costumed hero, she does it because of her mom.
Having said that, her recourse if someone got the drop on her with a gun would probably be her athleticism, quickness and escapability. She’s no more unbelievable in that regard than Batgirl.
Dio beat me.
I’m sure we could come up with examples where Batman, Bond, and Bourne didn’t have projectile weapons and beat someone with a gun. Also, Rorschach shot a guy with a grappling gun.
Little Nemo I’m not sure if you’re playing devil’s advocate but I’m going to respond anyways.
Moore didn’t have it both ways: the story isn’t about what is physically possible, it’s about what would be social probable if superheroes existed. The superheroes physical traits were only important in that Moore required them to be normal and make it to the end of the story. Moore wasn’t examining what kind of shape a person has to be in be a superhero and he had to fudge what normal was because otherwise the characters would all be dead by page three.
Could you clarify this? Are you saying Moore was questioning the use of superheroes to tell a story? I don’t think he was, I think he was questioning our assumption that people (and superheroes) are as altruistic as we like to think they can be, and if they were that altruistic we’d see them as villains or mentally unstable.
Jeez, I am a huge Watchmen fan and didn’t know about this. Thank you - ordered.
Bottom line? Some books are about characters and what happens to them. Some books are about the author’s philosophy - the characters are vehicles that enable the author illustrate their philosophy. Brave New World, 1984, The Fountainhead and many others - they are novel vehicles for the author’s philosophical exploration (I am NOT commenting on the quality of the author’s execution, merely trying to frame their intent). When the book is about bringing a philosophy to life, and the characters represent different perspectives that explore this philosophy, I tend not to sweat the details - okay, so some aspect doesn’t pass the real-world test - fine,* it’s an allegory*; what matters is whether the philosophical points being raised are articulated clearly and explored in a way that adds to my ability to process the topic.
Watchmen, IMHO comes from a place like that - and succeeds in spades. Who give a flying f**k whether Nite Owl could be shot at random? Or that if Dr. Manhattan was all-powerful, why would he be serving a government role? The ideas being explored - about what power is, what identity is, what Good is, etc. - those are powerful and these characters are put into motion in a way that enables this incredibly rich vein to be mined. The fact that the characters are just well-written enough that we want the facts of their lives to be more realistic or consistent tells me that Moore did an amazing job - so many other philosophy-first novels don’t even try to give their characters a sense of independent existence. Read Thomas Pynchon, the HUGELY respected author - none of his characters feel like, well, characters, per se…
About the psychic powers thing - I think we’re forgetting two things here - one, that Moore himself is a practising Chaos Mage, and so believes that the mind can affect reality somewhat, and two, this was the 80s, where a lot of woo-woo ideas had more currency. As such, I don’t think it unreasonable that, in context, the notion that all humans have some latent telepathic ability (which may even be expressed in some individuals) was not out of left field, and did not, in Moore’s estimation, quite rise to the level of “superpower” any more than Ozymandias’ genius and (realistically superhuman) martial arts powers make him a super.