"Twenty million die by fire... if I am weak..."
I think we're often put under Asperger Syndrome (AS) (also called Asperger Disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, ass-burgers, and My God He's A Weirdo), which falls under either Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD).
AS is often considered to overlap with High-Functioning Autism (ASD without mental retardation) and, in fact, a change being considered for DSM-V would eliminate AS entirely and lump us in under ASD, which would be rated on a severity scale.
That said, the diagnostic criteria for all of those diagnoses are a bit more involved than 'is a hyperanalytical geek'.
As from someone the other side of the political spectrum, I think "incredibly liberal people" would take the law in their hands pretty easily if they had superpower. They (at least many of them) have a pretty self-righteous attitude and would make good villains. The difference is, the conservatives could patrol the street but would give the criminals to the police/justice system. They would not start redistributing stuff taken from others.
Anyway, superheroes are an US phenomenon and they are the epitome of individualism. They always start alone and act alone. They are individuals first, groups second. So they will prefer a society with extensive individual freedoms and negative rights.
Characters are "interesting" in the "comic book/fantasy storyline" but not realistic. There's not much to gain from analyzing them other than the stereotypes they stand for.
Nothing new under the sun, literary-wise.
If the ends don't justify the means, what does?
The problem is actually on the other side. The means produce the end. Not intentions, not the morals of the persons involved, but the means. Fascism, for example, is the result of fascist acts, no matter who does them or their reasons for doing so.
That fact seems to be lost on "good people".
The end (solved food shortage) does not justify the means (mass murder).
The means must be able to stand on their own.
No, there's a distribution problem, but I'll play along.
> One way to solve this would be to kill 80% of the African population.
Nope. Killing 80% of the African population will not solve the food shortage. (It also won't solve the distribution problem.) Why? Because Africa's food production is roughly proportional to its population and not limited by anything that will be helped by killing lots of people.
The "end" of killing 80% of the African population is that 80% of the population has been killed. Some "good person" might have thought that some good (less starvation) would result from killing them, but the end was a lot of dead people who got killed by said good person.
Thanks for providing an example of where "he meant well" had a horrendous result, as it typically does.
I don't recall it being very well played out in the movie, but I can make a pretty strong case that what Ozy does is necessary and that he's hardly either a "villain" or a "fascist", at least in the novel.
First, he could have followed through on that cheap unlimited energy business. Second, he could have convinced Dr Manhattan to play the terrorist without killing so much people. Like, targeting most high-profile military installations and civilian symbols. Oh, and while we're at it, he should have financed a (Friendly) AI program as well.
I get that the guy wants to create a Bostromian Singleton. But come on, it's only level 3 on the Yudkowsky ambition scale[1]. No need for such massive killing, especially when the glowing blue ape right next to you is at least at level 5.
[1]: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ehd/the_yudkowsky_ambit...
I didn't get that, although it's been a long time since I read it (and I have a general rule against taking movies too seriously). The world in the graphic novels was hyper-'80's bleak: a high threat of nuclear holocaust and extreme stagnation in every other area. (I can't remember, did the extremely popular but hideously depressing pirate comic book make it into the movie?) My impression is that Ozy wanted to break the stalemate, altruistically. If he wanted to rule the world, he could have done that easily enough, and cheap energy, etc., would likely reinforce the status quo.
Instead, he comes up with a complete game change: He removes Doc Manhattan, who is very bad influence; who is going to want to do anything with Manhattan standing around? (IIRC, that works out the same as in the movie.) And he arranges for humanity to discover an outside enemy, one which requires humanity to pull together and work like crazed gophers to advance science, technology, and likely general society in a way that hadn't happened since WWII. The outside enemy turns out to be giant, psychic, trans-dimensional aliens, which have the advantage of not actually existing.
The death toll involved is significantly less than the movie, since he only has one of the things and uses it to destroy New York. On the other hand, I have a friend who's favorite character is Rorschach, because he's the only one who is in on the story who doesn't go along with the murder of millions of people.
(By the way, I'm humming "Sympathy for the Devil" right now.)
I believe the ultimate theme of Watchmen is this:
"In an irrational world, only the irrational becomes rational."
_ Regular people donning masks to fight crime at little personal gain and great personal expense.
_ Horrific and violent crimes disregarded as minor indiscretions of a time past.
_ An all-powerful god, resigned to do nothing due to the ineffectiveness of doing anything.
This theme climaxes when Ozymandius, the universally recognized "most intelligent man in the world," (translated, "most rational") illustrates exactly this point when in order to save a world on the brink of irrational self-destruction, theatrically stages an alien invasion, something which simultaneously changes nothing, yet everything, in order to save it.
Even the all powerful god recognizes this seemingly illogical and horrific solution as the ultimate most perfectly rational means to save an irrational world from itself.
In the end, the story's hero, Rorschach, the consistent (and author appointed) voice of reason amidst a delusional world, is rendered ineffective and unable to make a difference, an impediment on the path to salvation to be destroyed by its god, Dr Manhattan.
Let that last point sink in for a moment, and you'll understand the implications of this theme; it's the final scene of an epic novel:
__the world's last rational man is an obstruction to the survival of an irrational world.__
The theme itself is startling in its simplicity, and the impact of watching its very real once impactful characters, heroes and anti-heroes, struggling to come to grips with their irrelevance in an irrational world can be moving and profound in its implications.
Watchmen is a postmodern thesis. Whether you share in the postmodern sentiment, understanding the context is incredibly rewarding, emotional and thought provoking.
Tragically, the movie's creators did not understand this and lost the the whole point and very soul of the novel, transforming the antihero, Ozymandius, into a lunatic and villain. Understandably, this is likely the source of your misunderstanding. Ironically, the replacement of the antihero with a villain could itself be construed as an unintended commentary on the persistence of our world's delusions.
The theme itself is metaphorically mirrored internally within the "Tales of the Black Freighter" story. The Black Freighter is a tale of a hero's lamentable decent into darkness as he loses his grip on reality to become the villain he was running from by ultimately in ignorance murdering his last tie to his world (the light), his wife. It's a commentary on the world of Watchmen itself (the world in which the heroes exist, not the heroes themselves), and the manner in which they metaphorically murdered their once heroes and only hope of salvation to descend into irrational darkness. Make no mistake too, the salvation brought about by Ozymandius is no salvation, but instead the coup de grace of a once rational world's beyond salvation ultimate embracement of the darkness, the conclusion of the novel.
The greatest tragedy of all though, is the spiritual death of its heroes. Alan Moore sums it up well with his inversion of the famous satirical quote, modernly taken as a criticism against political corruption, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?"):
"'They're watching out for us, who's watching out for them?'"[1]
Or do we embrace the darkness, as Ozymandius did, or as so poignantly put by Harvey Dent / Two-Face in The Dark Knight:
"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."
This post led me to read a little more on Moore's own interpretation of his work, and while Alan intention is for us to question the need for heroes, and a call to personal responsibility, specifically anti-Reagan, I don't find this to be inconsistent with my analysis. I would add this:
My romanticism of the heroes may at first blush seem inconsistent with Moore's intent. However, as you can see in my conclusion, I point out that the heroes themselves become corrupted by their own roles in a world that rejects them. Moore himself is equally inconsistent in his own analysis of his work, claiming it to be a criticism of the Reagans ("invulnerable" "heroes") of the worlds that lead us to the brink of madness, yet it's the world that rejects the heroes in its madness that drives itself to brink of extinction.
Moore said writing Watchmen allowed him "to purge himself of his nostalgia for superheroes." Something I feel is best illustrated in the inconsistencies between his own motivations and my analysis.
[1] http://www.tcj.com/a-portal-to-another-dimension-alan-moore-...
Disagree with this so much. Knowing the depth and psychology of the characters is what makes the Watchman so much more interesting than say Superman or even my favorite superhero, Batman. Watchmen is very open and honest about the fact that people who would do this are probably riddled with psychological issues. I also like the subtle suggestion the book makes that most superheroes would fall onto the reactionary side of conservatism. I doubt there would be many incredibly liberal people out there taking the law into their own hands, but for some reazon the first time I noticed this mentioned was in Watchmen. Just a brilliantly written story with incredibly deep and realistic characters.