First, I must say that I was absolutely stunned by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons Watchmen. I approached the book with a certain bias against “comic books.” How could this offer any sort of intellectual stimulation, I thought. When I started reading, and proceeded to read nearly 2/3 of the book in one sitting, though, I changed my mind. The novel is stunning visually, and I was amazed by how deep and exciting the content is. After completing the book and reading about Swamp Thing in Elizabeth Rosen’s Apocalyptic Transformatio: Sentient Vegetable Claims the End is Near! I am beyond compelled to read more of Moore!
While I was reading through I was thinking about how my thoughts could be translated into a blog post. So many things struck me that I didn’t know what I would pick, or how I would manage to write a post that wasn’t so long that no one would actually want to read it. The one character that was present for all of my most poignant observations, though, was Jon Osterman, Dr. Manhattan. His internal and interactive dialogue about his perspective on time and life was powerful, and also incredibly relevant to many of the class discussions that have arisen.
In Chapter IV when we are walked through the details of Jon’s transformation to Dr. Manhattan, I was moved to sympathy for Jon, a character that I didn’t at all like up to this point in the novel. I saw Jon as a dethatched, inhuman being, but this chapter helped “re-humanize” him. The fact that he is on Mars during his “rehumanization”, glowing and floating, maintained the notion that though Manhattan was a human, and does think and feel like us, he is not one of us. Rosen’s analysis helped me organize the observations of Jon’s deification I saw throughout the novel. When she explained how the postmodern nature of Moore’s character development shaped the “gods” into “doubting, anxious gods, rather than commandingly certain ones,” I was able to reconcile Jon being a god but not in the sense that I had ever really imagined God before (30).
Chapter IX allowed me to further sympathize with Jon. As he moves from very detached language to an acknowledgement of the miracle of human existence, he seemed to shift nearly completely into godliness. I think Rosen’s discussion of a god more apt for the modern world being one that oversees the world, but does not have an active role in it was interesting. I also think it’s important to consider how such a disillusioned world as the that of Watchmen could have no other god but a god that is just as unsure and disillusioned as the people living in it. Jon’s character speaks to the reality of the modern world’s way of thinking, except perhaps deeply religious people. Like Rosen says, “You want an omniscient god? Okay, but don’t be surprised if he finds you insignificant”(33). This rang true for me, someone who has a hard time grasping the concept of God to begin with. An all-powerful being is probably not too concerned with the small details of one life, or even the lives of thousands, but rather sees the bigger picture, just like Dr. Manhattan.
Laurie’s obvious frustration with Jon’s disconnectedness brought up a few things for me. For one, their interactions reflected a frustration that I think many who are suffering feel. They believe or at least really want to believe in someone or something that has the power to change the world with the snap of a finger, but all the while have to reconcile the fact that this being has actively chosen not to do so. I can’t say I know how to solve this conflict, but Jon and Laurie’s interaction is an incredible illustration of how people can struggle with faith and their place in the world. Also, I was interested to think about how believing in a god like Dr. Manhattan, shifts the notion of predestination from hopeful to hopeless.
Throughout Chapter IX and other interactions between Jon and Laurie, we see that he already knows the outcome of all of it. For Jon, knowing what will happen doesn’t seem to stop him from wanting to watch things play out, but the fact that he already knows the outcome of their conversation and her world’s future causes Laurie to pull back. Laurie says, “Jon, please, I mean, this, just being here, it’s giving me problems, okay? I can’t take your predestination trip right now.” To which Jon replies, “why does my perception of time distress you?” And Laurie explains, “Why ask? You already know my answer- it’s stupid.”(5). Laurie expresses in this conversation, a frustration which I think rings true for a lot of faithless or faith-questioning people- what is the point of living life to it’s fullest, or at all, if the outcome has already been decided. Especially when that predestined future is shaping up to be incredibly bleak at best. It is important to note that despite Laurie’s doubts, she can’t help but follow Jon. She relies on him because she needs to hold on to a sense of faith in something bigger than herself, but at the same time, her human perception of life and time forces her to questioning and doubting that he knows what he’s doing at all.
I can’t help but wonder what a fundamentalist might make of this representation of predestination. I suppose that a strong believer would have to dismiss something like this as blasphemy, but for me, Jon’s character and his interactions with other reflect some very real and very human truths about what it means to put your hope and faith in something you can’t understand.
I’m eager to hear how all of you reacted to the issues raised in these chapters!
I was also intrigued by the idea of predestination in Watchmen through Jon. In this class thus far, we’ve discussed the idea of predestination that fundamentalists relish. They look forward to their believed apocalypse with anxious hearts, hopeful that their God will save them from the horrors of the world. However, with Jon as a god in the world of Watchmen, predestination does indeed switch from hopeful to hopeless, as you’ve written here. I mentioned in my post that I think Veidt serves as a contrast to Jon regarding these issues. Unlike Jon, Veidt is not restricted by knowledge of a future that, to Jon, has already happened. With Veidt as an alternative deity, the hope for future is reinstated, for the most part. He is still connected to human society because he is still human. Whereas Jon is most similar to the Judeo-Christian god in superpowers, Veidt is most similar to him in human compassion. I think Moore purposely creates this split for the reasons that Rosen mentions in her essay about the contradictions in human ideas about godhead (and that you’ve mentioned as well). “You want an omniscient god? Okay, but don’t be surprised if he finds you insignificant.” Jon embodies this idea. Veidt in contrast, though much more utilitarian than the Judeo-Christian concept of god, is the not-omniscient god who cares about humanity and at least attempts to create a peaceful world.
Its definitely worthwhile to consider the role of predestination in Moore’s novel as well as in apocalyptic culture in general. Most of us probably have come to the realization at one point in our lives, of just how pointless it may be to live life if it really is all “predestined” for us? You bring a good point when you resonate this idea with the fundamentalist mindset; fundamentalists thrive off the possibility of predestination, particularly the foreseen end when the faithful shall be rewarded with their predestined life in the New Jerusalem. Thus I would presume that strong believers would indeed accept this concept of predestination, as it is inherently rooted at the core of their belief in the Christian scripture.
The question of omnipotence carries a different set of ideologies. Of course, fundamentalists would be dismayed at the fact that they are just “insignificant” individuals in the eyes of an omniscient God. However, there seems to be more to this theory than just the worry felt by God’s subjects. In one particular discussion between Laurie and Jon in Watchmen, Laurie begs that Jon come back to Earth and save his people from their own manmade crisis. Yet, Dr. Manhattan is reluctant to help, in light of his rejection amongst Earth’s subjects. He was rejected by Laurie and then made a spectacle of for his “cancerous contagion” on public television. This leads me to wonder whether fundamentalists ever considered that their omniscient God may also reject them in times of need, the way they once rejected him on Earth and supported his death. Such an idea, though unsettling, offers a different explanation to the failed Judgements that have not yet appeared.
I’m not sure I agree with you Emily, that Veidt serves as a full counterpoint to Jon. You write that Veidt is still connected to human society, because he is human, unlike Jon. However, to me he seems very disconnected from human society. This is represented literally by the location of his fortress in Antarctica. Though he tells Jon that he feels the loss of the people he’s killed, his reaction doesn’t seem to back this statement up. He finds the people in New York who he killed “insignificant” in comparison to his larger goal, what he would perceive as the greater good. His sense of morality tells him that the death of 3 million people is worth the price of peace, but the other characters in the story, and the reader, don’t necessarily agree. Especially given the lack of back-story on Veidt, I as a reader felt no sympathy for him, and only horror that he was willing to pay such a high price for peace – especially peace that is not guaranteed. In this way, Veidt is actually similar to Jon. It is also perhaps important to note that Jon is the first to come to Veidt’s defense when Laurie, Dan and Rorschach contemplate exposing what he’s done, and it is Jon who kills Rorschach, ensuring (as far as he knows anyway) that Veidt’s plan is successful.