R. Crumb's Illustrated Genesis.

I've been reading R. Crumb's illustrated version of the Book of Genesis, and I've been meaning to blog about it for a while, because it routinely floors me. Unfortunately, every post I can think to write about it would sound like this:

You know that part when Judah hires a prostitute, and he doesn't know it is his daughter-in-law because she is wearing a veil, and he gets her pregnant, and then when she is going to be burned at the stake for being a whore she says "Judah is totally my baby daddy, and here I've got his ceremonial seal to prove it."

That's fucked up, man.

Crumb totally made the right decision to simply illustrate Genesis at face value. He even portrays God as a man with a long white beard. By taking Genesis at its word, Crumb transforms his amazing comics mojo into a conduit for the total fucked-up-edness that is the Bible.

Also fucked up: the fact that Tamar (the daughter-in-law) is pretending to be some kind of temple prostitute and that her fee is a baby sheep.

People are talking about the book I am in!

The website Watchmencomicmovie has put up a thread to discuss Watchmen and Philosophy, a book that I have an essay in. In the thread, people are asked to pose questions which will be put to the book's editor, Mark White, in an upcoming interview. One of the first questions to come up, from EmPiiRe x, is actually about the topic of my essay, deontology and utilitarianism. Annoyingly, EmPiiRe x suggests that we made a mistake I went out of my way to avoid: treating Veidt as a straightforward utilitarian, rather than a megalomaniac who uses utilitarianism to rationalize his actions. I've posted a response you can check out at the end of the thread.

The amount of attention the book is getting is a pleasant surprise. Molly and I went into Borders last weekend and there was a whole display dedicated to Watchmen, including two piles of copies of Watchmen and Philosophy. I've never been in a book that gets displayed like that.

Also interesting this thought on livejournal about the contradiction between Dr. Manhattan's own existence and his professed materialism. (The blogger also mentions the book I'm in!)

Watchmen News

The trailer for the movie is up. It looks nice, but we'll see what they do with the characters, plot, and theme. The trailer also focuses on the parts of the book that make for Summer Action Thrill Rides, especially Dr. Manhattan, the only real supernatural character. They certainly made Laurie Juspeczyk hella sexy. I want to see how Zach Snyder handles the visuals for the parts of the book that happen in the 30s. It is fairly important that the superheroes of the 30s look really cheesy. From the way Snyder's been talking, he will use visual feel of 30s serial movies for those parts. That should work.

My big fear, really is that they will take all the nuance out of the politics. If they made it a simple story about power corrupting, it would fit well with Hollywood norms about the moral content of movies: A movie should have a bland message that everyone will find uplifting. That's what they did to V for Vendetta. One of the things that makes Watchmen interesting, though, is that we see different kinds of power represented and according different ways it gets corrupted. Hurm.

In other news, the final version of my Watchmen paper has been accepted. So at least I have accomplished one thing this summer.

"and if you film him from strange angles, he looks quite sinister"

Interview with Alan Moore about his decision to worship a Roman snake god.

hrrm

So I'm rereading The Watchmen and calling it work, because, well I can, and I've had a couple thoughts one of which made me a little dizzy.

I've been wanting to say that the real critique of consequentialism comes from Dr. Manhattan, esp with his comment to Veidt implying that the ends can't justify the means because nothing ever ends. I took this to embody at least two standard critiques of consequentialism. The first is simply the law of unintended consequences, which is illustrated well by events in the book. The second, and more interesting is the idea that since the future is infinite, outcomes in the distant future will always swamp (infinitely!) good outcomes here and now. More broadly, it is impossible to reason consequentially with an infinite time span. So you have to add some sort of discount rate, something that lowers the utility of outcomes as they recede into the future. But any discount rates are artificial and post hoc. So consequentialism doesn't work.

Re-reading the issue Watchmaker, however, I remember just how hard it is for Dr. Manhattan to embrace any moral worldview. He can only critique consequentialism to the extent that he critiques all human morality. Perhaps this fits with the general thrust of my essay, since I want to say that the book has small critiques of consequentialism and deontology which it uses to get to a critique of authority. Mostly, though, re-reading Watchmaker gives me that dizzy feeling you get when objectivity sucks away morality and feeling, the feeling Nagel writes about in The View from Nowhere. It leaves me unable to decide what to do at all, let alone write in my silly essay.

Other, less dizzying thoughts:

1. I hadn't noticed before that the history of superheroes in the fictional world of The Watchmen mirrors the history of the comic book in the real world, with a lively golden age in the 30s and 40s, a dead period in the 50s caused by public distrust of nonconformity, and a revival in the 60s.

2. What is the technical term for the kind of transition in movies and comics where a phrase or image is carried over into the next scene, acquiring new meaning?

Critique of pure super heroes. First outline.

So my essay idea on The Watchmen was accepted. The editor said they had a lot of submissions on consequentialism and Ozymandias vs deontology and Rorschach, which doesn't surprise me in the least. They picked mine because "we thought you had the best approach (and the authoritarian angle set it apart as well)."

I need to get cracking on this. These essays books are generally cranked out on a fast time table. No doubt they will want to time the book with the release of the movie slated for March 6, 2009. (Remind me to start bitching about the movie now.) So I've put together an outline below. Mostly this is just re-arranging the elements of the proposal, and figuring out what needs to be added to make it into an essay. Notice that I've somehow managed to keep the structure of the classic five paragraph theme, just like I push on the undergraduates!

First outline
Means, ends, and the critique of pure superheroes

I. Introduction [Make this snazzier/lighter, introduce section with quote]

A. Background: The central conflict in The Watchmen is the face off between cosmopolitan liberal Ozymandias and the right-wing loon Rorschach. In addition to having easily identifiable politics, both these characters have diametrically opposed ethical viewpoints, which underlie their politics. Ozymandias, with his grand, murderous scheme to end the cold war, represents consequentialism, the belief that all action should be judged by their consequences, so that the ends will sometimes justify the means. Rorschach, with his unbending principles in the face of apocalypse, represents the contrasting idea, deontology. The deontologist says that we should not think of morality in terms of ends and means at all, and instead only act in ways that express moral rules. During the course of the comic, both these ethical viewpoints gets a searing critique. The prominence of these themes and critiques makes many people think the comic is really all about liberalism, conservatism, consequentialism and deontology. But these are really only stepping stones to the real point of the comic.

B: Thesis: The ultimate target of the comic’s critique is authoritarianism, the idea that anyone should set themselves up as a guardian of society, an idea captured by image of the superhero. The critiques of consequentialism and deontology, and indeed of liberalism and conservatism, support this anti-authoritarianism, which is a more central theme throughout Moore’s work. The comic is not a purely negative work, however. It provides a positive moral image in the person of Hollis Mason, a rather ordinary man who used to dress up in a very corny costume and, when the book opens, is running a car repair shop (“Obsolete models a specialty!”)

C: This chapter will: This essay will highlight the critiques of consequentialism and deontology in the comic, focusing on the parallels to the classical philosophical arguments from people like Mill and Kant. I will also touch on the interaction between normative ethical theories like consequentialism and deontology and political theories like liberalism and conservatism, both in history and in the lives of the characters. The main focus of the chapter, however, will be seeing these themes as steps toward the broader critique of authoritarianism in this book and in other work by Alan Moore.

II. “‘In the end’? Nothing ends, Adrian, nothing ever ends.”

A. Ozymandias a consequentialist.

B. Consequentialism and liberalism history with parallels to Ozymandias.
C. Critique of consequentialism imbedded in structure of the story. Ozy has the villains role: Rorschach is the viewpoint character, the audience learns of the nefarious plot as he does.

D. Critique of consequentialism imbedded in theme of the corruption Ozymandias. The most prominent theme of The Watchmen—the one alluded to in the title, the one most clearly signaled by the development of the characters and the history of the alternative universe the comic takes place in—is the easy corruptibility of the guardians of society. This is obviously part of Moore’s overall critique of authority. More on that latter. Right now we just need to see that consequentialism is the means by which Ozymandias is corrupted.

E. Critique of consequentialism imbedded in the perspective and explicit statements of Dr. Manhattan. Ozymandias’s worldview doesn’t just corrupt him, it is ultimately futile. This is where the connection to the Shelly poem becomes important.

F. Discussion of philosophical examples of the critiques in (D) and (E) and how consequentialists like Mill have responded to them.

III. [Quotation about how crazy Rorschach is]

A. Rorschach as deontologist. Emphasize that this portrayal is as much a critique of deontology as the portrayal of Ozymandias is a critique of consequentialism.

B. Deontology and conservatism history with parallels to Rorschach.

C. Deontology in the structure of the story: The critique of consequentialism does not come from the story’s deontologist, Rorschach, but from Dr. Manhattan.

D. Critique of deontology imbedded in the theme of corruption of Rorschach.

E. Rorschach’s deontology not just futile but counter productive, especially his potentially world ending act of sending the details of Ozymandias’s plan to the New Frontiersman magazine.

F. Discussion of philosophical examples of the critiques in (D) and (E) and how deontologists like Kant have responded to them.

IV. “Who watches the watchmen?”

A. The role of anti-authoritarianism in the comic

B. The role of anti-authoritarianism in Moore’s work in general.

C. Anti-authoritarianism & anarchism as a real political philosophy,

V. Conclusion: I said I was going to do it, and now I done did it.

Means, ends, and the critique of pure superheroes

Article Proposal.
Rob Loftis

Means, ends, and the critique of pure superheroes

The most prominent theme of The Watchmen—the one alluded to in the title, the one most clearly signaled by the development of the characters and the history of the alternative universe the comic takes place in—is the easy corruptibility of the guardians of society. This easy corruption is shown to transcend political lines: it afflicts both the cosmopolitan liberal Ozymandias and the right-wing loon Rorschach. For different characters, this corruption is enabled by the abuse of different ethical theories. Ozymandias, with his grand, murderous scheme to end the cold war, represents consequentialism, the belief that all action should be judged by their consequences, so that the ends will sometimes justify the means. Rorschach, with his unbending principles in the face of apocalypse, represents the contrasting idea, deontology. The deontologist says that we should not think of morality in terms of ends and means at all, and instead only act in ways that express moral rules.

The comic contains a clear critique of consequentialism, indicting Ozymandias’s worldview not just for corrupting him, but for being ultimately futile. This critique is embedded in the structure of the story and in the perspective and explicit statements of Doctor Manhattan. It is significant that this critique does not come from the deontologist, Rorschach, as The Watchmen has a less obvious but still real critique of deontology. Rorschach’s actions are not just futile, they are genuinely counter-productive, especially his potentially world ending act of sending the details of Ozymandias’s plan to the New Frontiersman magazine. Rorschach, too, is a corrupted figure.

The ultimate target of the comic’s critique is authoritarianism, the idea that anyone should set themselves up as a guardian of society, an idea captured by image of the superhero. The critiques of consequentialism and deontology, and indeed of liberalism and conservatism, are supports this anti-authoritarianism, which is a more central theme throughout Moore’s work. The comic is not a purely negative work, however. It provides a positive moral image in the person of Hollis Mason, a rather ordinary man who used to dress up in a very corny costume and, when the book opens, is running a car repair shop (“Obsolete models a specialty!”)

This essay will highlight the critiques of consequentialism and deontology in the comic, focusing on the parallels to the classical philosophical arguments from people like Mill and Kant. I will also touch on the possible relationships between normative ethical theories like consequentialism and deontology and political theories like liberalism and conservatism. I will finally suggest virtue theory as a way to understand the positive moral images of the comic and its underlying anti-authoritarianism. This framework is probably not explicitly intended by either Moore or Gibbons, but provides the best philosophical understanding of their deepest themes.

Our selves revealed

via elbee at unfogged