Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test

Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture #11

by William Irwin, Mark D. White (Editor)

Alan Moore's Watchmen is set in 1985 and chronicles the alternative history of the United States where the US edges dangerously closer to nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Within this world exists a group of crime busters, who don elaborate costumes to conceal their identity and fight crime, and an intricate plot to kill and discredit these "superheroes." Alan Moore's Watchmen popularized the graphic novel format, has been named one of Time magazine's top 100 novels, and is now being made into a highly anticipated movie adaptation. This latest book in the popular Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture series peers into Moore's deeply philosophical work to parse and deconstruct the ethical issues raised by Watchmen's costumed adventurers, their actions, and their world. From nuclear destruction to utopia, from governmental authority to human morality and social responsibility, it answers questions fans have had for years about Watchmen's ethical quandaries, themes, and characters.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Comics, Pop Culture, Graphic Novels, Essays, Psychology

274 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 1, 2009

About the author

William Irwin is Professor of Philosophy at King's College in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania and is best known for originating the "philosophy and popular culture" book genre with Seinfeld and Philosophy: A Book about Everything and Nothing (1999) and The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer (2001).

Reviews

[Guillermo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The topics range from what is good and evil, what is virtuous, homosexuality, feminism (which, by the way, was actually my favorite argument), political philosophy and the metaphysics of Dr. Manhattan. However, it would seem the two most popular characters these philosophers wrote about were Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) and Rorschach (the subtitle is, in fact, A Rorschach Test). It's understandable why these two characters are the most famous - if you break down the graphic novel, you'll see the whole thing revolves around the deontology of Rorschach and the utilitarianism of Veidt. Nite Owl is touched upon, being claimed as the most virtuous character in the book. Silk Spectre (the first and second) are really only mentioned as main subjects in one (can you guess the topic?) and only slightly touched on in the other essays, if at all. Dr. Manhattan is another famous character - he gets his own section in the book! - especially when it comes to metaphysics (no surprise there)....read more here...

[Paul W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a little too long and some of the philosophy seemed out of place. I enjoyed some parts of it but man was it a slog to get through.

[Lars · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophical essays. Only makes sense when you read Watchmen (duh). Some essays were interesting, the majority just meeh (for me). Ok for a quick read, if a topic of an essay does not touch you: skip. Will not get better.

[Tiara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is my first venture into the Philosophy and Pop Culture series. I wasn't disappointed with most of what I'd read. I was a little hesitant to read this at first because I thought these essays might've been just slapped together to appeal to an audience, but it was much more than that.

The topics span a range of ideas in philosophical context including feminism, virtue, homosexuality. As with any book that has multiple writers, the essays themselves were hit or miss.I enjoyed most of the essays on Rorschach and Ozymandias. There was a great essay about The Comedian and Nite Owl. The essays centering around Mr. Manhattan were a little bland, though.

These essays posed great questions for discussion such as: Would superheroes work in a real life setting? Could we really trust them to be objective creatures who didn't give into personal biases? Or would they be whim to changing the rules to suit them since no ordinary man could challenge them and win?

I probably would've given it 4 stars, but I deducted for a couple of reasons.

First, the guy who wrote about homosexuality in Watchmen seemed like a poor candidate to touch on the subject. His view was very biased as a man who admitted that he was "sickened" by homosexuality and nothing about his argument was compelling. But he did manage to come off like that one guy who can't be racist because he has "black friends." Just replace "black friends" with "gay friends," and you have this guy. He tried to be objective, but it came off very forced.

Secondly, while I enjoyed the essays on Ozymandias and Rorschach--and not so much Dr. Manhattan, I wished it'd touched more on some of the other characters. Most of the book was dominated by those three with Rorschach being a character who had roused Kant in the writers. It would've been nice to read other ideas about the other characters and their actions beside what virtue Nite Owl's potbelly represents and a rambling essay about feminism that seemed to lose the plot.

Overall, a nice collection of essays. If you like Kant, you'll probably love this. He comes up fairly often. If you're looking for a well-rounded book that pays equal tribute to the characters, then you're not going to find it here.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, I'll point out the obvious: If you haven't read Watchmen yet, go do it now. I'll wait... Seriously, go read it. At least see the movie or something.

Okay, now that you've had your mind sufficiently blown, you know what this book proclaims, Watchmen is not your father's comic book. In fact, it's not typical fiction. Gone are the annoyingly perfect hero and cartoonishly evil villain. The costumed vigilantes in Watchmen are set in a realistic (sort of) world. The realism is exemplified by the ambiguous heroes. Is The Comedian's selfishness more wrong than Dr. Manhattan's indifference? The obvious answer is yes. The Comedian is vicious and clearly without scruples. On the other hand, Dr. Manhattan's abilities suggest he should be held to a higher standard. What about Rorschach? Is he more villain than hero? His black and white thinking is certainly too extreme for most of us. Are Ozymandias' shades of gray any better? Are there any real heroes to be had?

If you have ever wanted to delve into these sorts questions deeper, this book is for you. Some of the essays use Watchmen to discuss common philosophical questions presented by Kant, Nietzsche, Descartes, Sarte, Aristotle, or Plato. Other essays show how Watchmen could solve, or confound, existentialist questions. Still others focus on the unique difficulties the world of Watchmen would present.

In all, I found it enjoyable and thought-provoking. I did have a solitary gripe. I felt the essays at the beginning seemed stronger than those at the end.

[Ada · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked the essays in Part I a lot, and Part II was okay, but Part III was unfortunately completely ruined by Robert Arp's blatantly homophobic essay. Sure, it's written as a defense of the "icky" homosexual lifestyle, but it's pretty evident that the person he's trying to convince is himself.

First of all, what does this guy's internal battle against his own prejudice have to do with Watchmen and philosophy? And whose brilliant idea was it to make a homophobe write an essay on homosexuality in the first place? And, most importantly, why was this essay even included in the book, given how laughably irrelevant the subject matter is to the central plot and themes of Watchmen?

I get the feeling that Arp didn't even read Watchmen before writing this pathetic excuse for an essay. He sure likes to avoid mentioning the graphic novel altogether.

The worst part is that the essay is written as if the reader is a clueless homophobe and Arp is some kind of enlightened educator. He's even kind enough to share some his vast knowledge with us by listing some very surprising and enlightening facts, such as "homosexuals don't always spread AIDS", "not every homosexual act is evil" and "homosexuals don't always want to bone you when they look at you." Wow! Who knew?

Very impressive observations, of course, but I fail to see what this has to do with Watchmen.

Sarcasm aside, I genuinely thought this book was going to contain insightful Watchmen-related essays written by serious intellectuals, not outdated discussions about the "ickiness" of homosexuality written by religious bigots. Disappointing.

[Andrew Sorrentino · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this from the perspective of one who enjoys Watchmen, as a reader who might gain some insight into philosophical thought through the lens of the graphic novel. The book did add some nuggets of wisdom into the story and the motivations of the characters. It doesn't make me want to read more philosophy.

[Julio Bonilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

[Eli Roy · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are some parts of this book that made me think, but over all it was pretty disappointing. A lot of the philosophy used to explain Watchmen is explained in a way that is not very novice friendly, which I feel it should be in a pop culture philosophy book. Despite that, the conclusions feel pretty lazy, many simply end in a “BLANK is this way because that’s what seems easiest to grasp.” For example rather than really debating whether Doctor Manhattan is above human morality (there is an argument to made that he is) they simply opt for “No, because that would be uncomfortable for the humans.” I am a complete layman to philosophy so there is a chance that the concepts are explained well but I didn’t understand them, but to me this book neither works as an easy to understand examination of philosophical themes or a decisive answer to questions posed in Watchmen.

I also think this book existing as separate essays by separate people weakens it. I was hoping for a larger thesis about the meaning of the comic, but instead its bite sized arguments that don’t do much to provide a cohesive view of the text.

[Johnny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Part of Blackwell’s Philosophy and Pop Culture series, Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test would make a delightful textbook for introductory philosophy courses. Using the characters from the classic graphic novel (and, eventually, film and television series), Watchmen, various professors in ethics and general philosophy use the moral dilemmas, character flaws, and societal circumstances of the fictional setting to explicate theories and methodologies related to the questions pondered by philosophy.

For example, Dr. Manhattan is a superhero who gained his powers by disintegrating himself and being reconstituted with, essentially, divine powers. James DiGiovanna, an occasional lecturer at CUNY, uses him to explore the concept of identity in “Dr. Manhattan, I Presume.” The larger-than-life character is a perfect foil for exploring Rene Descarte’s assumption that “…beneath the ever-changing set of thoughts and perceptions—yet independent of them—lies a mind that is consistent across time, even as its content changes.” (p. 104) He shows this is different from David Hume’s insistence that there is no identity beyond a bundle of thoughts (p. 105). DiGiovanna reminds us that John Locke had suggested that continuity of thoughts was guaranteed by memory (p. 106) but reiterates Hume’s objection that memories fade over time (not to mention that they seem to be malleable). What then? Do we really on a physical criterion such that “…a person is the same person if some significant part of his or her material body (specifically, the brain) continues to exist…” (p. 108) or the psychological continuity (p. 109), arguable as either Descartes’ self or Hume’s content (p. 110). DiGiovanna doesn’t solve the problem in his essay, but he does a marvelous job of presenting it.

In fact, despite the pun using Rorschach in the book’s subtitle, Dr. Manhattan gets the bulk of attention in this volume. I particularly liked Christopher Robichaud’s (of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government) assessment that Dr. Manhattan’s lack of moral motivation is due to lack of empathy is a major failing: “…because there’s good reason to suppose that moral beliefs are intrinsically motivating; when we form a belief that something is right or wrong, doing so by itself motivates us to action.” (p. 10) He concludes, rightly I believe, that the idea of a morally ambivalent entity with god-like powers is not comforting. Further, as does Arthur Ward in a later essay, Robichaud refers to the clear anti-watchmaker (aka “design argument”) sentiment where the character refers to himself as “a clock without a craftsman” such that no “divine command” even could transform his personal ethic. Later in the book, Andrew Terjesen (a moral philosopher associated with Rhodes College and formerly Duke University) observes that Dr. Manhattan might be deemed Stoic due to his emotional dispassion (apatheia) (p. 138) and even compares the superhero with Epictetus (p. 141). Fortunately, the essay also shows us that Stoics only believed emotion was a problem when it distorted reality as perceived in nature (p. 143).

Christopher Drohan uses Dr. Manhattan in a critical manner, demonstrating that the deterministic fatalism expressed by the character who can, allegedly, see both past and future is hypocritical. When pressed to speak of the end, the superhero hedges and states that the “details are vague” and “there’s some sort of static obscuring the future, preventing any clear impression.” (cited on p. 117.) [In a subsequent essay, Arthur Ward defines the doctor’s hypocrisy as fatalism (p. 126). Drohan moves away from this lose-lose situation via the philosophy of Henri Bergson’ epistemology where, unlike Manhattan’s hypocrisy where his actions mean nothing according to him, our knowledge consists of our actions (p. 118). He cites Bergson’s insight that present images and those we remember are both perceptions of what had been. “Even if we are looking at something right in front of us, the fact that this image has duration means that its image is a mix of past and present images.” (p. 119) Hence, life is a constant mix of image and act (p. 120). “Time is duration, a lived experience that is “essentially memory, consciousness and freedom.” (p. 121)

Similar to Drohan, but with a different perspective, Arthur Ward deals with the issue of “theological fatalism” and Dr. Manhattan, simultaneously noting the superhero’s god-like powers (including a “sort” of omniscience) and the inconsistency of his being surprised by Laurie’s sleeping with Nite Owl or a friend having cancer (pp. 131-132). Ward’s solution, before exposing the muddled nature of Dr. Manhattan’s perception “…combines God’s timelessness with a picture of God’s knowledge that allows for alternative possibilities (the branching movie reel).” (p. 129) This essay is very perceptive and may well be the most critical in the book.

Perhaps, from the perspective of a textbook, the best parts of the book are where the contributors discuss Rorschach and his approach to justice. From the perspective of Hegelian retributivism where punishment is cancellation of crime and restoration of right (p. 26), we see that punishment allows us to reaffirm the value which has been transgressed. Yet, with Rorschach, we realize that his black and white approach to retribution is a problem because there is no check and balance (p. 30). A later essay observes that the more Rorschach looked into the abyss (in this case, the cockroach-infested cesspool of what humanity had, in his eyes, become), the more it caused “him to cling more tightly to his conservative values.” (p. 56) Rorschach didn’t understand that, as binary as Kant’s categorical imperatives are, there are also “grounds for obligation” which might be in conflict (p. 94).

I liked the essay that used Nite Owl to discuss virtue ethics and J. Robert Loftis’ rather simple explanation of utilitarianism in “Means, Ends, and the Critique of Pure Superheroes.” I was intrigued by the discussion of whether graphic novels are, indeed, literature (by my definition, it is, though the essay in this volume labels it “indeterminate” on p. 169). I appreciated the feminist perspective on the two Silk Spectres and the complexity of Sally’s experience as a victim (p. 179).

Watchman and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test took me weeks to read. Every essay had something noteworthy and provocative. I have notes that I will use in preaching, teaching, and pontificating. If I were still teaching courses in Ethics and Philosophy, I would be recommending it in the future.

[Joseph Young · Rating 2 out of 5]

A mix of essays by different authors, giving the compiled book an odd feel.

Much of the works focus on the archetypes that each of the characters fulfill, with regard to different philosophers' works. Several essays were particularly frustrating, particularly those that deigned to assume what the reader felt when reading passages. The essay on homosexuality is particularly embarrassing and dated, barely involving the gay Watchmen, but instead just advocating for acceptance. I particularly enjoyed the essay on the female identities of the characters, and wish they had had at least another essay along those veins.

Overall, I found myself yelling at the book, "That does not follow!" at 1/3 of the essays, finding some of them mediocre, while heartily enjoying a handful of them. I am often a devil's advocate, so maybe I just find different ways to explain things. I think the book would have been better with a single author, more able to tie the ideas together, and go into ideas a little more deeply.

I'm also disappointed that the book did not include a Rorschach test.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book of this series I have read and I found it quite enjoyable. By taking a well-recognized aspect of popular culture, the authors of the various essays explain how the graphic novel Watchmen can be used to understand different aspects of existentialism, feminism, homosexuality, the nature of heroism, and how a character who can see time as an endless loop might relate to the world around him. They even take the time to discuss whether or not comics can be literature. This book is a fine introduction to various types of philosophy for any reader and fan of the original Watchmen who is looking for more things to get out of that classic graphic novel.

[Matt Harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

An uneven collection of essays on Watchmen.. With greater philisophical knowledge I could rate this book more accurately, but I did learn while reading about Stoicism in relation to Dr Manhattan, and the Comedian as ironist, among others. The book treads the line between being knowingly fun, and illustrative. For me at times the winks were a bit heavy, it took a while to finish, but glad I persevered.

[Josh McInnis · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book could have gone into so much more detail and a lot of questions discussed are indirectly answered.

[Petr · Rating 3 out of 5]

One thing I hated about this (and other X and Philosophy books) is the repetition and plot spoilers. The spoilers are not a huge problem as these books would most probably be picked up by someone who knows the source material. However, the story repetitions and spoilers are not that important for the philosophical exposition.

The introduction itself into philosophical though is great and varies in themes and explores topics I would not even think of. Sometimes, however, it seems the author of the essay did not read or consider carefully the original source material (e.g., simplifying Dr. Manhattan's view of the world).

[Michele White · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite movies is Watchmen. This collection of essays and philosophy is outstanding. The different views of the same material are fascinating and worthy of any thinking person's time. No matter how a philosopher interprets the same acts or behaviors and then attempts to use logic to determine how it demonstrates various logical scenarios. Each essayist claims that their logic and the works of other philosophers illustrates the importance of thinking for ourselves. First, it is helpful if you have the tools of philosophy at your command.

[Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really great series of essays on a classic piece of literature (yes, I think it does qualify). It only goes to deepens the source material and brings further thought to what we know. I really enjoyed the variety of the essays too. Every character had a fascinating take.
Just reaffirms how great the material is.
Glad to finally finish this on my second attempt. The first was for a project for a Film Studies class and I got to around page 78. I can’t believe that was 6 years ago!

[Natalie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Personally my favorite out of the three I've read in this series so far (this, Batman and Philosophy, and Game of Thrones and Philosophy). Watchmen is one of those series that people will look at from many different angles, and philosophy is no different. Quite frankly that may be one of the bigger things people look to. So this is a fitting look at Watchmen, even if you may disagree with any of the aspects of the aspects presented in this book.

[Oscar Villegas · Rating 5 out of 5]

very easy to read for a philosophy book

[Glenn Saitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting book but only if you want to take a deep dive into one of the best (but let's be honest, least appealing to mainstream comic fans) graphic novels.

[Marc · Rating 2 out of 5]

This one is ok; a wide range of quality/relevance in the chapters. Some were definitely good, others were a bit weak (unsupported) or particularly unconvincing. I was hoping for more out of this one.

[Munsi Parker-Munroe · Rating 5 out of 5]

...I am an absolute sucker for these things. Take a piece of pop-culture, use it as a segue into a series of extremely accessible philosophy essays teaching the basics to somebody who isn't familiar with the basic concepts behind the foremost thinkers of history. A simple idea, executed well, I tend to read the series at a rate of about one a year, as I stumble on volumes which use pieces of culture I'm personally connected with as their jumping-off point.

And Watchmen and... is an excellent example. Focusing on ethics, metaphysics, theories of moral development, identity and feminism, the essays read briskly and never for a moment come off as dry or sterilely academic. It's highly intelligent pub-conversation, basically, in the best possible way. Enthusiastically recommended.

[Misarweth]

Découverte de la dégaine d'une partie de la philosophie anglo saxonne.
On y trouve de multiples articles/chapitres écrits par des spécialistes différents. Ouvrage collectif donc.
Pour la restauration et ou intégration de la pop culture comme réelle outil de compréhension et réflexion humaine.
Pourquoi pas?

La première partie sur Dr Manhattan et sa ou non morale est très intéressante (avec l'introduction à une idée que l'on a pas l'habitude de voir : les émotions comme moteur de notre moralité) et on aborde ensuite la conception de la morale rétributive de Rorschach : serait-il kantien?

(to be continued)

[Loki · Rating 3 out of 5]

As usual with this series, the essays in this volume vary widely in quality and interest, and very few of them have an engaging prose style. Most of them take one or more characters as models to demonstrate the precepts of particular philosophies, although there is considerable disagreement among the writers as to who represents what (which is, to be honest, the most interesting thing about this book - its title is very accurate indeed).

Still, this book is better than most of its line-mates - perhaps the quality of the source material elevates it - and well worth the time if watching the Watchmen is something you enjoy.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really great read overall. Had a lot of very insightful things to say about each of the characters.

The best essays were probably the first three Dr. Manhattan essays, which looked at his identity, his view of time, and what his perception of time says about free will.

The worst essay was the Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice one, which presents an antiquated point of view towards homosexuality and has little to do with Watchmen.

But it is definitely worth reading if you're a fan of the book.

[The Thompson Foundation · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting. A nice examination of the watchmen's reflection in the eyes of various philosophical approaches. The chapters are written by different authors, some better than others. The chapter on homosexuality was written by a guy who seemed to think that we cared more about his own reactions to homosexuality than what different philosophical schools had to say about the representation of homosexuality in the book.

Still, the book has some great chapters, and even if you're a huge Watchmen fan it still gives you a lot to think about.

[William Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

a very easy read, one that boils down kantian philosophy and morality in such a way as to relate it to each character in the book and explain it through their actions. while it wasn't what i would consider academic, which would have received 5 stars, it is a fair assessment on the philosophical level, especially when dealing with matters of morality (which Watchmen builds its entire story on, moral ambiguity). a quick read, so its worth a try, even if it is only 3 stars for having little academic value.

[Heliocentric · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book, mainly because different people wrote it (some of whom were more capable writers than others). All the essays in the book had interesting perspectives on Watchmen, but I found some of them to be grasping at straws, trying to relate the tiniest spec of the graphic novel to philosophy, just so that they can talk about that philosophical topic in greater depth (and therefore digressing).

[Jacob Van Houtan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The only way to appreciate this astonishing book is to obviously read the graphic novel, but this book is just so darn good that you really can tell that some work was put into to it. Each paper is written so well that you know what they are taking about and why they were chosen for this book. It just enhances your perceptions of the graphic novel itself and I really enjoy that. Great book for any fan of Watchmen.

[katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn't read every essay in here (it was from my uni library so I only had a limited time to read it) but what I read was interesting! I love reading more about Rorschach and Dr Manhattan so I chose their essays over others. I wish I got to read the one about The Silk Spectres and feminism, maybe I'll check it out again.
I know this is technically a DNF but I consider it read for the type of book that it is