Dr. Manhattan: “The Superman exists…”

by Dave the Longwinded on March 9, 2009

Figure 1. Dr. Manhattan working to isolate a "gluino."

“…and he’s American” (IV.13).  His backstory comes straight out of a Marvel comic, a company famous for its heroes who are made so by exposure to some form of atomic energy.  He begins life as Jon Osterman, a kid predisposed toward ingenuity.  He becomes a physicist, working in high-tech tests for the federal government concerning “intrinsic fields.”  An accident in the lab one day disintegrates his body, but leaves his consciousness intact, which begins reassembling its parts:

It’s November 10th now.  There is a circulatory system walking through the kitchen…

November 14th: A partially muscled skeleton stands by the perimeter fence and screams for thirty seconds before vanishing…

Really, it’s just a question of reassembling the components in the correct sequence…  (IV.9)

The last portion is a narrative bubble overlaying a panel showing watch pieces laid out on Jon’s desk when he was a teenager.  As the son of a watchmaker, he begins life trying to learn the trade, only to have his father push his life in a different direction.  When Einstein unveils his theories concerning time and space, the father is so distraught that he declares “If time is not true, what purpsoe have watchmakers…?” (IV.3).  And that sentence belies his view of humanity that runs through most of the novel– we are primarily material determined through the laws of a nature that is a “maker-less mechanism” (IV.28).

He spends much of the book on Mars, having left behind Earth and completely destabilizing the balance of the Cold War.  He has found dealing with people too limiting and constricting.  In one of Watchmen’s books-within-the-book, one of Osterman’s former colleagues take a more overtly metaphysical viewpoint compared to the title of this post, though one no less political:

I never said, “The superman exists and he’s American”.  What I said was “God exists and he’s American”.  If that statement starts to chill you after a couple of moments’ consideration, then don’t be alarmed.  A feeling of intense and crushing religious terror at the concept indicates only that you are still sane.

I do not believe that we have a man to end wars.  I believe that we have made a man to end worlds.  (Dr. Manhattan: Super-Powers and the Superpowers II)

This power underscores his disconnection.  When Eddie Blake/The Comedian murders a pregnant woman out of a fit of revenge, Dr. Manhattan protests, “She was pregnant.  You gunned her down.”  Blake says “Yeah, yeah…And you know what?  You watched me…You don’t really give a damn about human beings” (II.15).  He has the ability to change so many things, but often chooses to simply observe from a detached scientific perspective.  No one fully understands his perspective within the universe, largely because he stands in a strange place with respect to time’s flow, seeming to experience it all at the same time.  Nothing is linear in his frame of reference.

Figure 2.  iWatchmen/is most famous icon.

Figure 2. Watchmen's most famous icon.

The watch becomes a dominant metaphor in Dr. Manhattan’s character, and for the book as a whole.  The infamous smiley face image with the trickle of blood (Figure 2) is a visual reminder of the Doomsday Clock inching ever closer to midnight and armegeddon.  It’s hard not to read the symbol on Dr. Manhattan’s forehead (Figure 1) as another visual analogy to the same.  Once he rematerializes in the lunchroom for the lab in which he met his accident, he is immediately tagged as a political specimen, even finding himself asked to adopt a symbol: “If I’m to have a symbol, it shall be on I respect” (IV.12).  Even his name is chosen for political reasons: “for the ominous associations it will raise in America’s enemies.  They’re shaping me into something gaudy and lethal…” (IV.12).  He becomes a walking reminder of the dehumanizing force of technology, especially when it is applied to politicized ends.

In addition, the watch metaphor indicates a steady, measurable march of events with discernible cause and effect relationships.  Those chapters focusing on Dr. Manhattan, particularly Chapter IV (“Watchmaker”), demonstrate his viewpoint that there is no discernible causal relationship between events, at least not in his viewpoint.

But his disgust at his politicized situation drives the reader to a sense that he does, indeed, care about something.  In his climactic discussion with Laurie about their relationship and humanity’s worth, he says this:

I said, often, that you were my only link, my only concern with the world.  When you left me, I left Earth.  Does that not say something?

Now you have replaced me, and that link is shattered.  Don’t you see what that means?  Don’t you see the futility of asking me to save a world that I no longer have any stake in?  (IX.8)

Yes, he is detached from people, but that does not mean he has completely forsaken his humanity.  His detachment stems more from his incessantly politicized position, turned into a weapon and used to enforce a position he sees no clear justification for.  He is a man in need of a miracle, and he finds it once Laurie realizes who her father is.  Dr. Manhattan finds a miracle he overlooked:  humankind’s ability to persevere, both physically and psychologically.  As Laurie is crying, his revelation leads to a strange moment of poetry:

Come…Dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly.  (IX.28)

Moore forges a moment allowing his reader to feel hopeful and reassured — Dr. Manhattan has found a reason to fight for humankind! In the final scene, he returns to take on Adrian Veidt and stop his final plan, intoning to Veidt that “this world’s smartest man means no more to me than does its smartest termite” (XII.18).  In this moment, we, the readers, want Dr. Manhattan to kick Veidt’s behind, and the tone of his rhetoric indicates that this is exactly his intention.

And then, Moore rips the rug out from under us again…  Veidt’s masterstroke isn’t the giant squid that levels half of New York, but the use of the world’s media to demonstrate to his fellow Watchmen that his plan has worked — peace is breaking out between the US and Soviet Union to tackle some new threat to both.  Veidt has united all of mankind toward one end.  And Dr. Manhattan sees the logic in what Veidt has done.  His newfound respect to life and its rarity now drives him to accept some death for the greater good, no matter how horrible the massacre. He tells Laurie of his conclusion:

Logically, I’m afraid [Adrian is] right.  Exposing this plot, we destroy any chance of peace, dooming earth to worse destruction.  On Mars, you demonstrated life’s value.  If we would preserve life here, we must remain silent.  (XII.20)

He goes on to state that he “understand[s] without condoning or condmening” Veidt’s actions, saying he wants to leave Earth and “create” life (XII.27).  Jon has come to accept his identity and ability.  And then he drops the most important words in the entire book.  Adrian asks if he did the right thing “in the end.”  Dr. Manhattan replies “Nothing ends, Adrian.  Nothing ever ends” (XII.27).

I’m suspicious of reading the author’s intentions into any character, but Manhattan’s statement I think (thanks to some discussion with Red Rocker) is a clear indication of at least one of Moor’s positions: that there is no teleology in the universe, but that life is certainly worth fighting for in all its mess.  Manhattan, as a deconstruction of the overtly political superheroes of yore, manifests a rather dire warning.  The world isn’t ordered, and the order we try to impose upon it through simple binary means of thinking predispose us only toward killing each other needlessly.

  • Share/Bookmark

{ 1 trackback }

The Graphic Novel · Dr. Manhattan: The Superman Exists and He’s Human
September 21, 2009 at 11:41 pm

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Red RockerNo Gravatar March 9, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Two points.

First, I read Osterman’s last words to Laurie many times. At first I thought he was talking about the sheer improbability – approaching miraculousness – of the formation of human life. But as she quickly reminds him, there’s 6 billion of us, give or take. That’s a lot of miracles.

Then I thought: what makes her so miraculous is the fact that he loves her. Rorschach, or Veidt, or Nite Owl are all similarly improbable – thermodynamic miracles – but their existence doesn’t cause Dr. M. to resolve to save humanity.

Assuming that Dr. M. does speak for Moore, and not for Dr. M., then what we’re being told is that the only thing that makes this whole darn mess significant and gives it meaning is the love we have for one another.

Which is a really old fashioned truth to find in such a medium.

My second point – actually it’s a question – is this:

Why does Moore make Dr. M do Veidt’s dirty work with respect to Rorschach? Because if you think about it, Rorshach gives his life for truth: No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise. And Dr. M zaps him for it.

So what’s the message? To hell with abstract principles like truth and justice, the only thing that matters is life?

Why does Moore make Dr. M zap Rorschach?

2 revgeorgeNo Gravatar March 10, 2009 at 1:16 am

I would argue that truth & justice are not abstract principles, just as love is not an abstract principle, although all of them are often taken as such & debated as such. But hey, I still have to read the book…

3 Red RockerNo Gravatar March 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm

revgeorge, Rorschach – and I – w0uld agree with you that truth and justice are not abstract principles. As mentioned above, Rorschach gives his life for them. Other protagonists have a different view. Viedt/Ozymandias, cares nothing for either truth or justice. And while he seems to be coming at the book’s central moral dilemma from the perspective that the end justifies the means, his real concern is that he is the deus-ex-machina who intervenes to save mankind. The real deus-ex-machina, Dr. Manhattan, takes the stance that the end – the survival of the many – justifies the means – the death of a few, give or take a few million. Laurie and Dan, on the other hand, are minor players. Although Laurie is the means by which Dr. M agrees to help save mankind, Dr. M’s actual role is limited to doing Veidt’s dirty work. This is the outcome that bothers me: for all of Dr. M’s cosmic powers, it’s the “less than a termite” narcissistic psychopath who does the heavy lifting.

You really have to read the book so we can talk about it.

4 Dave the LongwindedNo Gravatar March 10, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Yes! Someone else read this thing!

5 RandyNo Gravatar March 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm

I haven’t read or seen Watchmen, though I have been enjoying Dave’s posts and will probably do so soon. I’m curious about one of revgeorge’s comment and thought it deserved a little fleshing out; it seems incredibly relevant to what Watchmen is trying to say.

I would argue that truth & justice are not abstract principles, just as love is not an abstract principle.

If they are not abstract principles, what are they?

6 revgeorgeNo Gravatar March 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Randy,

I mean they are not abstract principles in the sense of being merely theoretical. As if they were disconnected from the world or from concrete reality. Truth, justice, & love are very real things & have real world impact. In a sense they are abstract but that’s not all they are nor do they remain in the realm of abstractness.

7 Red RockerNo Gravatar March 12, 2009 at 9:13 pm

Well Dave, you now know exactly how much intersection there is between the world of comic book fans and Potter fans: almost none.

Funny that; I would have thought there would be more, given how both universes are niche-breakers. Watchmen transcended comics to make it into mainstream sci-fi and Potter transcended kid lit to make it into mainstream fantasy. And they both have messages to convey that takes them a fair distance into mainstream mainstream.

Maybe the answer is that the worlds of fantasy and sci-fi do not intersect?

I enjoyed the posts, btw. I’m hoping you have a few more in you.

8 revgeorgeNo Gravatar March 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm

I was a big comic book geek back in the day. I still have several hundreds of them down in my basement that I need to get on eBay. I’ve just never read Watchmen before & still haven’t had the time to read it.

But at least in my case the worlds of sci-fi & fantasy do intersect quite heavily.

9 BIGBOYNo Gravatar March 16, 2009 at 11:30 am

If, as in the movie, the true reason for war is a quest for power (in the sense of energy, not political power), and DM was working with Veidt to develope a power supply with the same source as DM, so that it would be endless, and DM is able to replicate himself without any apparent decline in power for each copy, why not just make as many copies of DM as are needed by every person, and the problem is solved? If there are a billion people, make a billion copies of DM so that each person can command their own personal DM to do as they please, have as much power as they need, etc…

10 Red RockerNo Gravatar March 16, 2009 at 12:51 pm

BIGBOY, what you suggest is another possible solution to the dilemma. It may or may not be feasible (we don’t know the limits of Dr. M’s ability to replicate himself) but it is certainly a peaceful and positive solution. My own suggestion that Dr. M. should simply annhilate the nukes was another peaceful solution.

Obviously, however, Moore was not trying to generate peaceful solutions. His view of the world – and of mankind – is a very bleak view, where people are frequently motivated by selfish and destructive goals and use destructive means, and where there are no happy endings. Only breaks in the misery and despair. From that world view, Veidt’s solution would be horrible and yet in keeping with the nature of mankind: the only way we can stop killing each other is through the death of millions. And even that only buys us a little window of peace before the next war.

That’s why.

11 Jim BonesNo Gravatar August 20, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Here I am thinking I’m the only one appreciating the metaphorical depth of The Watchmen…

There are many aspects of the story that intrigue me, including Moore’s apparent awareness of the world’s depressing cyclical pattern of massive de-population that follows massive overpopulation, but I am compelled to make note of something.

DM’s perspective of humanity and existence as a whole is an obvious metaphor for what a god-like being’s would be, but yet if present in a typical human being, (like Veidt’s for instance), would be considered amoral and/or evil.

I suppose what I’m asking is this: why is it that comic book readers are able to immediately grasp the profound inconsitency of what a supposed God’s viewpoint on humanity would be with his supposed purity, but the rest of modern man cannot?

12 Dave the LongwindedNo Gravatar August 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm

Jim Bones, I don’t know if I would go quite that far. In mainstream comics/graphic novels, Dr. Manhattan was fairly unique as a depiction of the human-become-god. Even now, in this darker era of comic book heroes, comics are overflowing with highly idealized god-like characters who synthesize the best of humanity and the divine. So, I don’t think I would agree that comic book readers understand something that others don’t vis-a-vis “God’s viewpoint on humanity.”

And ultimately, it’s also debatable if it’s DM’s god-like attributes or his human qualities that bear the brunt of Moore’s critique. Yes, he’s godlike in his abilities. But, it’s his coldly material rationality/ethics that makes him truly chilling. I don’t think DM is so much a critique of religion, faith, or God as much he’s a critique of human frailties in the hands of someone with too much power. Think of him as perhaps a parallel to Moore’s version of Richard M. Nixon.

Not only is Moore’s indictment of putting godlike abilities in human hands (a la a lot of mainstream superheroes), but he’s also a device for Moore to explore a society’s relationship with such a being. He’s what is held up as the ideal hero in American culture: i.e. a weapon.

13 Jim BonesNo Gravatar August 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm

Dave,

I see what you mean in that Moore was primarily concerned with the weight of moral perspectives and how they are shaped, if not determined, by personal vantage point and not so much with theologically-motivated philosophical conundrums.

However, whether direct or indirect, Moore does highlight a good query: How could a being so far more advanced than ourselves truly relate to us? After all, the only thing tethering DM to mankind is, as you said, his being a former human. Had DM always existed the way he does, he would not identify with humanity in any recognizable form.

In regards to society’s relationship with such a being, it is clear that Moore suggests that society’s relationship with DM would be very similar to its current relationship with God, driven by self interest and utitlity-based.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: