Alan Moore

[Logos]

In Watchmen, my impression is that the character for which Moore has the most sympathy is the original Nite Owl, Hollis Mason, who's a clear LSE; it could be argued that it was the way an ILI would see the supervisee, LSE. The same goes for the new Nite Owl, to a lesser degree.

I think that both Ozymandias and Rorschach are Gammas, LIE and ESI, both showing the Gamma "danger"; however, Ozymandias has quite a bit of EIE to him, as well. LIE-Ni if you will.

It is indeed a criticism of Gamma, but from the "inside".

I don't see any sympathy for Osterman/Dr. Manhattan. He seems like a sort of contemptuous look at Alpha.

I thought that Rorschach was a Beta rational, his moral absolutism and desire for justice seemed to point in that direction.

I do agree that Osterman is probably an LII, though I do not agree that he was a contemptuous look at Alpha. I actually saw sympathy for his character, though you perhaps did not read as such or see it coming from a Gamma perspective. He becomes aloof and alienated from people and society without feeling too much of a connection to them as a result of his powers. He also has the power to do great marvels and to end the problem, but he does not do so, mainly because he recognizes through his prescience that he can't and won't. But I think that his character is also the sort of natural conclusion of what such a character with such vast powers would truly be like as opposed to being a critique of Alpha.

I do not think though that Ozymandias actually wins judging by the end though with the newspaper and the Black Freighter. Winning is about the long-term consequences and longevity of the actions, and I am not sure that Ozymandias wins in that criteria. In the end, Dr. Manhattan sides with Ozymandias not from a moral perspective, but from a utilitarian one stemming from the consequences of revealing the plot. But he distances himself finally from humanity with the suggestion that he has left to create his own life as the Creator.

I don't remember.

Rorschach sent his diary to the extreme right-wing newspaper that he loved so much, and the editor of the paper tells some newspaper writer to use their own judgment. The newspaper writer has the diary under his hands. It remains to be seen whether or not it is published, and even if it is published, it is uncertain whether or not it will even be believed since it comes from this somewhat fascist, right-wing conspiracy theory source.

[Expat]

Some further insights.

The character in whose mind Moore enters most clearly, more so than Rorschach, is Hollis Mason, the first Nite Owl - he wrote several pages of Mason's autobiography.

I think the only possible type for Mason is LSE, and that Moore's view of him - and precisely why he felt confident in writing from Mason's PoV - that of the ILI supervising the LSE: it's a benevolent view, recognizing and appreciating the LSE's efforts and good intentions, but also observing that he's spending time and energy in small-scale crime-fighting that is, in the big picture, pointless. And that is precisely the point that the Comedian made to Captain Metropolis: it matters squat if you fight criminals, if within twenty years we'll have nuclear war.

That is not a Beta, conflicting view of a Delta LSE -- it is a supervising view of ILI of LSE.

[discojoe]

Some further insights.

The character in whose mind Moore enters most clearly, more so than Rorschach, is Hollis Mason, the first Nite Owl - he wrote several pages of Mason's autobiography.

I think the only possible type for Mason is LSE, and that Moore's view of him - and precisely why he felt confident in writing from Mason's PoV - that of the ILI supervising the LSE: it's a benevolent view, recognizing and appreciating the LSE's efforts and good intentions, but also observing that he's spending time and energy in small-scale crime-fighting that is, in the big picture, pointless. And that is precisely the point that the Comedian made to Captain Metropolis: it matters squat if you fight criminals, if within twenty years we'll have nuclear war.

That is not a Beta, conflicting view of a Delta LSE -- it is a supervising view of ILI of LSE.

It's wrong though. Humans will eventually become extinct, but that doesn't mean that making someone's life better right now is pointless. In my opinion, the only thing that matters is the present.

[Expat]

It's wrong though. Humans will eventually become extinct, but that doesn't mean that making someone's life better right now is pointless. In my opinion, the only thing that matters is the present.

Well there is the distinction between the very short-term present and the longer-term "present". Ozymandias's was more concerned with the latter, obviously not thinking about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.

[discojoe]

Well there is the distinction between the very short-term present and the longer-term "present". Ozymandias's was more concerned with the latter, obviously not thinking about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.

The issue of fighting crime in the last years leading to nuclear war, and that of what is morally justifiable to prevent said war, are separate.

[Expat]

The issue of fighting crime in the last years leading to nuclear war, and that of what is morally justifiable to prevent said war, are separate.

I didn't say they were not. In fact, I think that's precisely one of Moore's main points.