"Yeah, Rorshach did the right thing...when he wasn't picketing nonexistent conspiracies, doing a rip off of that scene from Mad Max, or breaking fingers for information, or stalking and killing cons or scaring the hell out of everyone."

**********

Emery, but didn't the conspiracy picketed by Rorschach actually exist? Furthermore, I would argue that it becomes more meaningful, even inspiring, that it is Rorschach who dies heroically. He a.) rises above his madness to do the right thing and b.) illustrates that heroic acts aren't exclusive to a certain type of person. Rorschach illustrates that anyone could be a hero.

++++++++++

"It isn't about superheros, it is about how a madman kills a huge chunk of New York because he thinks he is right AND he gets away with it. Seriously if you think this is a superhero story then the bad guys must not win enough for you."

**********

James, how do you explain away Rorschach's final actions, if it's not a superhero story?

Moore parallels throughout the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan; Veidt's actions are clearly meant to be juxtaposed against Truman's decision. Just as, I believe, Truman made the decision partly because an American invasion of Japan would result in more American casualties, Veidt makes the decision because he believes the death of New Yorkers will be less than that of a Russian-American War. You can call him the story's villain or a madman, but I feel this oversimplifies Moore's points and metaphors, which to me, are to make you question what the right or heroic thing is. Using Truman as the basis for Veidt, you could very much argue that Ozymandias is a hero.

Lastly, does he get away with it? Remember, the final panel has the newspaper copyboy poised to pick up Rorschach's journal.

Everything - EVERYTHING - that achieves any measure of success gets imitated.  Usually it get imitated badly.  Those poor imitations are not the fault of the original creators.

The only way to avoid being imitated badly is to never create anything.

"Oh...so Viedt was elected by the people and had openly declared war on New York ? And do you honestly think anyone is going to allow the new world order to crumble cause of a sexually abused pyscho wrote in a ratty ass journal ?"

**********

I said Veidt was supposed to be compared to Truman not that he was wholly analogous to him or that the story was an allegory about WWII. I don't think I even said that it was intended or a flawless comparison; it is a personal interpretation that I had made based around motifs employed by Moore and the decisions made by Ozymandias and my understanding of Truman.

And yes, I do think they'll publish it and believe because a.) it was a disreputable tabloid that published items like that and b.) I don't think that Moore would have ended this story on that note if it wasn't intended to be implied or asked.  

It could be argued that his status as smartest man in the world (not, as you reduce him to, a masked vigilante: he's retired), might give him the authority to do so, especially with the portrait Moore paints of a corrupt United States government. Isn't it implied that Nixton has the Comedian kill Kennedy? With Watergate apparently covered up in this universe, does he have the authoirty, then, do decide what to do? If so, why? Does it boil down to who is most capable or who is officially in charge? I see it one way; you see it another, but there's no conclusive answer to this question or who is right. Also, I don't side with Veidt, I just said that it was possible to do.

Do I really think anyone will allow the infrastructure and new world order to crumble? Yes, in time. It has an ambiguous ending though. You can't impose your interpretation as proof of how it will end and be dismissive of other people's interpretations, it's deliberately inconclusive.

I would argue that your suggestion, including Reed Richards and the Mad Thinker, is flawed because Moore does not use a pre-established character; for either of the Marvel characters you propose to do this would go against what has been established about them, previously. A better analogy would be, "if I invented my own character to do what was done in Watchmen, would it be okay," with the answer, I would argue, being, "sure, why the hell not".

You ignore that Moore uses his own characters, albeit those based loosely on preexisting ones, and, if I'm not mistaken, that the book said on the cover that it was marketed for older audiences (I could be wrong about this). So, if I'm understanding you correctly, let me ask why was Moore wrong to tell a story he wanted to tell with characters that he had created that explore themes that he, Moore, wanted to explore?

You write that Veidt is a villain, and you know what, I agree with you, James! I agree that Veidt is a villain and, as one of the characters calls him, an asshole. I think he did the wrong thing, but I also thing it's possible, with the way Moore presents the story and using the parallels that he makes, for people to come to the opposite conclusion without much mindreading or leaps in logics.

It is this level of craftsmanship, with numerous ingenious parallels and layers, and no easy answers that Moore easily and painlessly leads the reader to, that I would argue make Watchmen the brilliant piece of storytelling that it is.