The Thinking Man's Guide to Watchmen

A Reader's Guide from the Thinking Man Book Club

I hate to admit this, but I have no choice other than to go through the next four weeks feeling like the world’s biggest phony: after choosing Watchmen as the next subject of the Thinking Man Book Club (and urging our subscribers to go out and buy the book), every conversation John and I have had about it has centered around the question, what did we get ourselves into?

This book is fantastic. It is a defining work of genius from one of the greatest living writers of our time. I know—that’s the type of statement that generally sounds a bit too hyperbolic to be true. However, as we reread this book, it only manages to assert itself more and more.

While our first target, Crime and Punishment, inspired a deep dive into the history that surrounded it, this book paints a clear picture of its time (and it’s still a mystery to us how Alan Moore, an Englishman, was able to depict such an accurate rendition of 1980s New York City). While Crime and Punishment vocalizes its author’s wise and deeply sympathetic point of view, Watchmen’s mission is to make you think, to let its reader decide what is true. There’s a similar nostalgia, a call for a type genuine morality missing in a nihilistic age. But the morals that guide the (anti?)heroes of Watchmen are a little darker, a little grittier, a little less absolute.

The book is a political statement, an existential question, an exploration of human psychology and human relationships. It’s a piece that aims at the highest endeavor of human art: the pursuit of truth, whatever that means.

If the ‘guiding questions’ we present seem cryptic at times, it is because we are trying to avoid any definitive statements that may turn out to be wrong. This is a book that assumes its reader’s intelligence. We are not here to preach, or to act like some type of authority.

What we will do is discuss. Our comments will be posted live to Substack Notes and will be reproduced in the comments section of the post, “The Thinking Man’s Guide to ‘Watchmen.’” We urge you, our readers, to join in the discussion.

Our schedule is as follows:

Week 1: Chapters I - III (p. 1-109)

Week 2: Chapters IV - VI (p. 110-211)

Week 3: Chapters VII - IX (p. 212-313)

Week 4: Chapters X - XII (p. 314-414)

We hope you’ll begin the book with us this week (and ask that if you can’t resist the urge to read ahead, you’ll refrain from posting spoilers in the comments). This is going to be a good one.

As always, happy reading.

Week One: Chapters I-III

Guiding Questions:

What is the significance of the ‘doomsday prophet’ that keeps showing up?

Why were the ‘masked adventurers’ attracted to the ‘good versus evil’ morality that their superhero personas allegedly promised?

Why does Hollis Mason look back on his time with the Minutemen with a small degree of shame?

Why did the government ban all costumed heroes, leaving only the ‘government-sponsored’ ones. Can you think of any real-world parallels?

Why did Moore and Gibbons choose ‘Moloch’ as the name of a ‘bad guy’ in the story?

Note that Moloch retired his villainous persona just as the ‘heroes’ retired from their own roles.

In Historical Context:

Watchmen takes place in an alternate reality which is nearly identical to 1980s America, apart from a few key details. Richard Nixon was never impeached and, having abolished term limits, is still president. The United States won the Vietnam War. And, of course, superheroes are real (and live in New York City).

Apart from these minor details, the world is largely the same. The streets of New York are filthy and crime-ridden (the 80s were, of course, the peak of New York City crime). There are wars and terrorists and fear-mongering reporters. Traditional American values were under attack, leaving people… well… confused.

A lot of great literature has been written during times of transition. Some authors glorify the old values that are lost in transition. Some satirize the new changes. Some make a compelling case for why the new way actually isn’t so bad. Stories like Watchmen provide a bird’s-eye view. This has been going on forever—as far back as the Bible.

In his “Guide to the Bible” Isaac Asimov writes, “The occasion for [the Book of] Revelation would seem to be similar to the occasions for all apocalyptic writing. The true believers are being oppressed and the forces of evil seem to be triumphing. It becomes necessary to reassure those with fainting hearts that God is not sleeping, that all is working out according to a prearranged plan, that retribution will not be long delayed and that the final day of judgment with the subsequent establishment of the ideal kingdom will be the result of a course of events that is on the point of being initiated.”

Watchmen is written for a modern audience. Promises of God offer no solace (which, depending on who you ask, may constitute humanity’s exact problem). We will see what Moore offers us instead.

Quotes to Note:

“Whether tales are told by the light of a campfire or by the glow of a screen, the prime decision for the teller has always been what to reveal and what to withhold” (from illustrator Dave Gibbons’ introduction, p. 7)

“They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father, or President Truman. Decent men, who believed in a day’s work for a day’s pay.

Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn’t realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don’t tell me they didn’t have a choice.

Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth talkers…

…and all of a sudden, nobody can think of anything to say.” (p. 9)

“Somebody has to save the world…” (p. 53)

Week 2: Chapters IV - VI

Guiding Questions:

p. 111 Dr. Manhattan’s perception of time is portrayed as a crystallized, predetermined structure that we are all passing through. Do you think that this could actually be true? Do you think Alan Moore intended for Dr. Manhattan’s perception to be representative of ‘objective’ reality? Perhaps his perception is limited just like ours, but slightly expanded so he can see this ‘fourth dimension.’ Could there still be other dimensions he can’t see?

What is the symbolism behind Janie Slater’s broken watch?

Dr. Manhattan gained his ‘superhuman’ abilities by disassembling the components that he was made up of and putting them back together again. What changed in him to give him the powers he ended up with? Was anything added? Lost?

Note that irony that the two most amoral ‘heroes’ (the Comedian, who’s been jaded to the point of apathy, and Dr. Manhattan, who quite literally lacks a human conscience) are the only vigilantes sanctioned by the United States government. Note also that vigilantism was made illegal due to two very public deaths (p. 132-3), despite the benefits of the practice (and the event) arguably outweighing the negative consequences. Can you think of any real-world analogies?

Note the quote on page 156: “See, news-vendors understand.They get to see the whole picture. It’s our curse. We see every damned connection.”

Do you think this is true? Or is the perspective of the news-vendor just as skewed as any other?

Chapter 6 offers readers the first deep-dive into Rorschach’s skewed view of right and wrong. He’s clearly following some version of right and wrong, but what is it? Do criminals deserve to die? Do cops?

Is Rorschach really just ‘misunderstood’? Note all the times that other people view his attacks as ‘unprovoked’ when in reality he is reacting to something that was done to him.

Consider the Dr. Malcolm Long, the psychologist. He starts off optimistic and eager to help Rorschach (so optimistic, in fact, that he may even appear to the reader as pathetically naive). By the end of the chapter his proximity to Rorschach breaks him down and leaves his life in shambles.

Is this an inevitability when a person sees what is truly evil in life? Rorschach would probably say so. (Consider page 147. Rorschach seems to have a deeper understanding of human psychology than Dr. Long, perhaps offering one possible meaning of his name.)

Can we generalize this to apply to anyone who tries to ‘fix’ a truly broken person?

Can anyone be irreparably broken?

In Historical Context:

Dr. Manhattan’s character is clearly a statement about the rapid advance of modern science, but he also closely mirrors one particular historical figure: Albert Einstein. When Einstein published his Theory of Relativity in 1905, it completely changed the way scientists conceptualized the world. Furthermore, the atomic bomb (whose construction was engineered by the ‘Manhattan Project’) would not have been possible without his theories.

This connection is further evidenced by the fact that the chapter ends with an Einstein quote:

“The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking…the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.”

This sentiment—that humanity was simply not ready for the increased power that atomic energy unleashed—is explored throughout Watchmen. Of course, over thirty-five years have passed since its publication, and the world hasn’t ended (yet), but we can see the destabilizing effects that science and technology have had on our belief systems (i.e. our belief in God and traditional values). When you ‘zoom’ too far out, things starts to seem meaningless. Hollis Mason is a good example of this.

Quotes to Note:

p. 113 If time is not true, what purpose have watchmakers?

p. 140 “We have labored long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.”

p. 204 “Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone… This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us.” 

Week 3: Chapters VII - IX

Guiding Questions:

One of the main questions to ask ourselves as readers of Watchmen is what being a ‘costumed hero’ means to each of the major characters. Week 2 explored what it meant to Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach, and this week we get a closer look at three more characters.

What does being a costumed hero mean to Dan Dreiberg? Is it a means of excitement for an otherwise repressed man? A sense of purpose? A sense of freedom?

How about Laurie? She seems resistant to the whole idea, but something keeps drawing her back in. A sense of duty, perhaps?

And how about Sally? What motivates her? The money? The fame? The escape from ‘normal’ life?

Why is Rorschach illustrated as a little boy on pages 263-265?

Consider the segment from Tales of the Black Freighter on pages 271 and 272. Note the way the line “They spoke of a heaven where once we all lived and died, sentenced for our sins to this pandemonium we call the world” (p. 271) is juxtaposed so elegantly with the line, “I lifted my uncomprehending eyes to the heavens… and saw instead the Earth.” 

Note the Biblical allegory of the protagonist seemingly walking on water (but really only reaching land). Note that he found land just when he couldn’t take it anymore and was ready to give up for good. Why do you think this was included at this particular point in the story?

Consider the New Frontiersman article at the end of Chapter 8. Why do you think Moore included the comparison between costumed vigilantes and the KKK?

Note that, at the end of Laurie’s conversation with Dr. Manhattan, time changes, despite being allegedly crystallized and unchangeable. For once, his vision of the future was wrong. Could this mean that his perception isn’t as dependable as he thought? Is it a result of nuclear or some other such interference, like he theorized earlier? Or is this an example of a ‘thermo-dynamic miracle’?

In Historical Context:

The question: “Who watches the watchmen?” is a common motif in Watchmen’s artwork (and a very important aspect of the book’s theme). It is an oft-repeated phrase about the dangers that befall a civilization when the people who are entrusted with the upkeep of its laws are easily corruptible.

We can trace the words back to Ancient Rome in the second century A.D. Phrased “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (directly translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?), the question appears in the Roman writer Juvenal’s Satire VI, one of the writer’s sixteen satires about what he regarded as the decline of Roman civilization.

Interestingly, Satire VI is about female sexual impurity, and the corrupt ‘watchmen’ in question are the husbands (or lovers, presumably) who, similarly corrupted by lust and impropriety, allow such promiscuity to continue.

The origin of the phrase’s political usage is unclear, but some people (dubiously) attribute the question to Plato’s Republic. Whether or not Plato used this exact phrasing, he does address the question in his ‘ideal society,’ saying that the guards (or watchmen) should police themselves, believing themselves to be of a higher moral integrity than the common person.

While this is theoretically possible, I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether it is sustainable.

Quotes to Note:

p, 241: “Is it possible, I wonder, to study a bird so closely, to observe and catalogue its peculiarities in such minute detail, that it becomes invisible?”

Connect this with Chapter 4’s theme of overanalysis obscuring meaning (and Dr. Manhattan’s revisitation of the idea at the end of Chapter 9).

p. 249: “Finally, faced with horrors both intolerable and unavoidable, I chose madness.”

p. 307: “We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another’s vantage point, as if new, it may still take the breath away.”

Week 4: Chapters X - XII

Guiding Questions:

You may have noticed a band named “Pale Horse” popping up throughout the book. Their name is a reference to the Book of Revelation:

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.” (Revelation 6:8)

The ‘pale horse’ and the ‘four horsemen of the apocalypse’ are said to usher in the end of the world (or, perhaps, the world as we know it). In addition, Chapter 10 of Watchmen is titled “Two Riders Were Approaching” (a reference to a lyric from Bob Dylan’s “All Along the Watchtower”). Why did the author (and artist) include all these references?

Tales of the Black Freighter ends somewhat ironically. We see the protagonists completely lose his humanity, seemingly for nothing. Throughout the entire story, Black Freighter has mirrored what was going on in the ‘real world.’ What does this ending suggest? If Davidstown is supposed to represent the world, then who is represented by the story’s ‘hero’?

What is Veidt’s motivation for wearing his costume? Narcissism? Misplaced virtue? Some kind of ‘god complex”?

Consider the ‘moral checkmate’ that Veidt puts the heroes in—they feel morally compelled to expose the horrible thing he has done, but doing so would undo all of the good that could possibly come from it. What do you think of this?

Do you agree with Veidt? Rorschach?

Dr. Manhattan?

The story ends ambiguously, and the final words “I leave it entirely in your hands” urges the reader to come up with whatever interpretation suits them. 

What did you decide?

Does Ozymandias usher in a golden age worthy of his namesake?

Is Rorschach our silent hero, bringing one final person to justice with his journal?

Is your ending ‘happy’?

In Historical Context:

Adrian Veidt (“Ozymandias”) is clearly a character enamored with glory and ‘greatness.’ He idolizes Alexander III (a.k.a. “Alexander the Great”), a brilliant, often ruthless leader who conquered lands spanning three continents and ushered in the prosperous and enlightened “Hellenistic Age.”

Veidt also models himself after a ruler who precedes Alexander by about a millenium: Ramses II, otherwise known as “Ramses the Great,” the most powerful pharaoh of the most powerful era of Egyptian history.

Veidt, considering himself on par with these “Great” leaders, undertakes a venture of his own—not of military conquest, but one of equal grandeur (and arrogance).

Interestingly, “Ozymandias” is also the name of a sonnet written in 1818 by the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. The poem depicts a chilling scene of a crumbling monument of the same Ramses II that Adrian Veidt named himself after, and the civilization he created that has since turned to dust:

I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

How fitting, that at the conclusion of his ‘great’ plan, whilst reassuring himself that the blood he shed was for good cause and that “it all worked out in the end,” our modern Ozymandias is struck by Dr. Manhattan’s words: “Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends.”

Quotes to Note:

p. 327: “At death’s approach, all creatures discover an aptitude for violence.”

p. 374: “Hitler said people swallow lies easily, provided they’re big enough.”