The misunderstanding of Alan Moore's Watchmen

'Watchmen' written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons was a series of comics published between 1986 and 1987 that analysed and deconstructed the right wing ideas that had begun to take over the superhero comic book medium. Eventually, the series was published as a graphic novel and eventually got various adaptions as a movie and TV show, both facing various responses from fans of the original comic.

However, I'm not here to discuss the adaptions today, I'm here to analyse what Alan Moore originally set out to say with the comic and one part I don't see a lot of people discuss when talking about Alan Moore's original thesis.

For those unfamiliar with Watchmen, the comic follows an alternate version of American history where superheroes such as The Comedian, a man who seems to see joy and excitement in battle and war, and Doctor Manhattan, who used to be a normal man before a science experiment gone wrong gave him god-like powers and a struggle to relate to his former species, allowed the country to turn the tide of the Cold War and American History in general. Watchmen follows a period where, after America has become a global superpower through the use of superheroes, now criminalises them following a series of incidents with the American public with the heroes being the aggressors (a plot point that will be used again in The Incredibles and Marvel's first Civil War storyline). The series picks up with someone killing these former heroes, starting with the Comedian in the iconic opening of the series.

The series uses its various characters to demonstrate how fascism avails in various ways with the more obvious examples of The Comedian being a violent enforcer for the government, doing terrible things for them, not just because they asked, but because he got an enjoyment out of it, Rorschach showing how long exposure to violence and crime as well as a terrible upbringing can strip someone of their humanity and turn them into the darkness they set out to stop, and Doctor Manhattan losing himself, his humanity, and those he loves for his pursuit of a goal. There are also other characters who, at first glance, may not show signs of them representing fascist beliefs, but are equal in doing so, such as Nite Owl II, who is shown to fall back into the superhero lifestyle to escape the safety and comfort of civilian life, turning to violence for excitement.

There is one character in particular who upholds these ideals that I am looking to talk about - Adrian Veidt's Ozymandias. Adrian in the Watchmen universe is often hailed as the smartest man in the world, while being successful in not only scientific pursuits, but also in business after making a fortune from merchandise after making his identity public to the world. Adrian is the twist villain of the series, with him orchestrating the deaths of the Comedian and millions of innocent civilians for world peace by blaming their deaths on an alien invasion. While the ending of the comic shows that this was a success and many people arguing that Adrian made the right choice by killing the 'few' to save everyone else, there seems to be an important question that hasn't left me since reading the graphic novel - what next?

While yes, there was certainly tensions and threats of war stopped after the attack, those won't last forever. While people and countries mourn the loss of the millions of innocent people that die during the 'attack' while starting to prepare for the next one, these countries can't mourn forever, particularly one's who had no connections to the civilians, and what happens when another attack doesn't come? Would the countries begin to turn on each other again for answers? Would they look to begin to blame each other for not doing enough to prevent the attack in the first place? Would anyone uncover Adrian's involvement in the event, and if so, then what?

In season Nine of the Modern Doctor Who, in the episode 'The Zygon Inversion', Peter Capaldi's doctor has to prevent a war between humanity and the Zygon, where he asks the question 'So when you've killed all the bad guys, and it's all perfect and just and fair, when you have got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do with the people like you? The troublemakers? How are you going to protect your next glorious revolution from the next one?'

We can apply this to Adrian's plan. At this point in the story, he is a powerful character. He's intelligent, rich, well respected, influential. He's in a lucky position and, like many people in his position in fascist regimes, he intends to keep himself there, but like other fascists, while he may have plans to keep his power, they're not all full proof. Looking at The Doctor's speech, how will he protect his world, his dream, if people, his power, if people uncover the truth of what happened or if the world goes back to war which, if no other alien or interdimensional attacks happen, inevitably will? Will Adrian do it again, killing millions more people? How many people must die before the plan becomes unjustifiable? Would a second attack be justifiable in the eyes of the government and public if it makes them look unprepared for a second attack after being devastated by the first? A fascist regime is only as strong as the oppressed are weak and it needs a group to control in order to keep their power. If the oppressed get fed up of the constant deaths from attacks the government can't prevent, or if the government kill their citizens to keep peace, then what's keeping the government going? What's stopping them from being toppled from either their people or from their own mistakes?

It's all good to say that Adrian began to create world peace, but what happens if and when it begins to fall apart? When family members of the victims begin to ask too many questions or when countries begin to move on and forget, once again fighting between each other. While I always want to believe that there is good in people, and there always is, it doesn't mean they'll use it or use it correctly. How much violence can be justified in the name of power and 'peace'? How many regular people must die in order for people like Adrian to keep their place in society? While there may sometimes be a need for violence, why was it Adrian's first plan? With a mind like his, it can be argued that Adrian could have found a path to world peace without the death of millions, but he didn't. This is because he represents another aspect of fascism similar to the Comedian. Adrian's role is that violence can be justified from those in power to keep themselves in power, as they see those below them as expendable, while using it as a front of protecting the same people who may die in the crossfire. This is, of course, my interpretation of Adrian's character and motivation in the graphic novel, but with how Alan Moore sees comic books, is this much of a stretch?