As I wrote about geeks in my last post, it seems only appropriate to start this one by mentioning The Watchmen. For those who enjoy human relationships, have had interactions with the opposite sex, or find some other meaning in life, and thus have no idea about the grim, dingy, tawdry world of modern comics, The Watchmen was described by its author as the Moby Dick of comics, and to its fans it is, though they would insist on calling it a "graphic novel" rather than use the dread c-word. And it probably is the most influential of modern comics.

Then again, that is like saying it is the most artistic of pin up posters or the greatest literature written on a wall in spray paint, rather faint praise. But The Watchmen did start three trends. First, it was so highly praised by people, even those with adequate hygiene, that some started to believe comics, erm, "graphic novels" could be taken seriously as literature. I have written on this, so I will not go into that again. Second, it created the modern trend of geek-revered anti-heroes, which has now resulted in such senseless bloodbath-filled cinematic atrocities as Sin City, 300, and (I hate to say it) The Crow*. (And soon we may be able to add "The Watchmen" to the list, as it is apparently due to be filmed in the near future. Though apparently there are still technical problems with ownership rights which may yet delay it.)

However, the problem I have with The Watchmen, and with all the "sophisticated" tales which have followed it, not just in comics (of which I was never a fan) but even in pop-culture, especially in geek-chic projects such as Joss Wheedon productions, is the idea that the morally absolute character is immeasurably flawed. After all, that was the whole idea behind the protagonist Rorschach, as is stated in wikipedia:

In an interview for the BBC's Comics Britannia, Moore stated that Rorschach was created as a way of exploring how an archetypical Batman-type character—a driven, vengeance-fueled, vigilante—would be like in the real world. He concluded that the short answer was "a nutcase".

Of course, now that Batman has been taken over by Frank Miller and others, Batman himself has adopted a "dark" persona, which people think makes him "more mature", but the original Batman, while not exactly as morally clear cut as Superman, was still quite  a straight arrow, not a character one would view as a nutcase.

However, that quote points out precisely what gets my inner Ayn Rand so worked up. I have no problem with using literature, or even comics, to examine how personalities interact with the world around them. What bothers me is the assumption, here and elsewhere, that a strong moral code, that 'seeing things in black and white" makes one weaker. For once I would love to see a story, just one, where it was pointed out that always being able to see "gray" would make one open to seduction by the other side, or even simple confusion as to where the right side might lie which could itself be a weakness. Just once I would like to see a character who sees in black and white and it turns out to be advantageous.

But not in this post Watchmen world, not in a world of ethical relativism and moral uncertainty. We are only certain of one thing and that is we condemn anyone who is certain. We are absolutely opposed to absolutes. And thanks to The Watchmen, and of course its successors, we are unlikely to see any pop culture revival of any sort of absolutism. Despite Frank Miller's supposed "conservative" bent, he is every bit as obsessed with damaged men, with anti-heroes and with grim, dark and brutal tales being passed off as mature as anyone else. And so I seriously doubt pop culture will offer the spectacle of a moral individual whose beliefs are vindicated, at least not anytime soon.

And having said all that, I promise, no mention of geeks, comics, or even pop culture for a while. I am burned out on criticizing everything I see around me. It is demoralizing to realize not only how small our giants have become, but to realize even those I mistook for giants in my youth were pygmies as well. So it is back to pure economics, politics and philosophy for me. No more cultural criticism for a while.

----------------------------------------------------------

* I hate to bash The Crow for two reasons. First, because I did find Brandon Lee a modestly talented actor, considering the small roles he had to that point, and it seems really nasty to bash the man's final film. Second, at the time it had a soundtrack that perfectly matched my taste in music. Well, I never liked Henry Rollins, more for his self-promotion and pretension than because of his music. And I like My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult much more as a dance band than a metal band, and liked "After the Flesh" better in its earlier incarnation as "Nervous Xians", but beyond those petty complaints, it was quite a soundtrack. But if I am honest, it is a lightweight film with a needlessly gloomy tone, and is perfectly grouped as a predecessor of today's blood filled nihilism masquerading as profundity.

----------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Watchmen hardly invented the antihero, nor did it create any of the trends I described, however, it did allow the ideas to amke strong inroads into pop culture. Idiot teens of the 80's who grew up thinking the comics the "coolest thing ever" are now the pop culture producers and consumers who drive the antiheroic trend, who believe that "grim" means sophisticated and think the only "meaningful" ending is a bleak one.

There were precursors in pop culture, but none caught like The Watchmen. (How many of my readers can tell me who Thomas Covenant is, for example?) And among academics and literateurs, antiheroes had been in vogue since at least the sixties, and among the avant garde for a decade or two before that. But it is no exaggeration to say that The Watchmen was the great popularizer, a way of telling teens and geeks of all ages that the antihero had arrived.

Just look at the endless brutal and depressing films of today, at least half comic adaptations themselves. Read interviews with the authors of those comics, and I doubt you will find one who does not cite Alan Moore, author of The Watchmen, as an inspiration. I am hardly the only one to say this. I am simply the only one who seems to think it a  bad thing.

POSTSCRIPT II

By the way, before someone says, "for someone who doesn't read comics you sure know a lot". Well, I do admit I read the Flaming Carrot comics for a time, the absurdist nature appealed to my teenage persona. But beyond that, I honestly am not a reader. I spent many years in the company of comics fans, and spent a few years as a teen hanging out with people who ran a comic book store, from whence much of my knowledge is derived. But I myself really do have very little first hand knowledge. For once, denying an interest in comics is not self serving, it is absolutely true.

However, before I hear the counter-complaint "then how do you know they are bad if you didn't read them?" I can say I read everything I have bashed here. Since that means The Watchmen, it is a short list. I have not read Miller's comics, but since he directed or co-directed the nasty movies made from them, I can say that his movies are honest adaptations of his work. As far as The Watchmen is concerned, I did read it at the time it came out, though I have not since. As I said, I hung around comic fans, so I was told it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and so I read it, or most of it. I may have missed one or two, but I can still recall much of it. I did have recourse to online references while writing to refresh my memory, but I am not speaking from ignorance.

POSTSCRIPT III

By the way, reading into Alan Moore writing is hardly my own fixation. As the recent movie adaptation of his V for Vendetta shows, many people find less than savory political meaning in his work. Although to be fair, Moore appears to be more of an addle-brained anarachist than the doctrinaire Bush-basher c u m* proponent of the dictatorship of the proletariat that V for Vendetta portrays. Then again, in some ways it is telling that Moore's vehicle for anarchy can be so easily turned into a new type of authoritarianism.

Maybe that should be a lesson for those would be anarchists. Just like the lesson to be learned from Mussolini's early anarchist roots. It isn't far from anarchist to dictator. (Perhaps a few libertarians may need to listen in as well. That "fear of government" thing isn't too far from the same sort of addled anarchism.)

* Sorry, this is the only way I can write the Latin word for "with" as some people use it to mean ejaculate, and so Townhall prevents me from writing things like "magna c u m laude", though I think I can write "pax vobiscum". Glad the Romans appended the word to pronouns.