3. Have Peter and Gwen break up for good, and move her out of the book (or keep her on in a minor role, as had been done with Betty Brant). However, this would have seemed problematic to fans, since the idea that Peter and Gwen were deeply in love and would eventually marry had been built up for quite some time.

It might have worked had Peter revealed his ID as Spidey, she feels betrayed, and then they break up for good.

But it's the story structure, James, that makes Watchmen such a satsifying
read. It's hardly nonsense; it's what makes it so complex and absorbing.

I didn't mean that the structure was nonsense, just that me trying to hyper analyse why I like something when it's just a gut reaction.

What makes a hero isn't his powers or his abilities or skills--it's his/her
principles. Without the moral code and the courage to put it into action
there's nothing heroic or super about them.

And these sad characters had been stripped of what made them
extraordinary (except Rorsarch, he was just made crazy--the only one
who still lived by the code had to be insane). If they were even shadows
of superheroes they would've at least tried something against their
former ally.

But should superhero stories only be about the ideal moral figure? If you talk about making Superman or Capt. America one of these "shades of grey" types, I am against it all day long. But it seems perfectly fine to create a new character or as JB puts it, Blue Beetle with a mustache, and take them on a totally different type of story.

Maybe you're right in that a "hero" should have a perfect sense of morality, but I'm also interested in seeing characters who have powers but happen to reflect average people more. I'd like to think that the genre of the superhero can support a variety of approaches.

***

JB: Is it? Not being snarky here -- but what makes WATCHMEN a "terrific story"?

*****

SOME SPOILERS BELOW

For me, WATCHMEN was a good mystery story that delves into some personalities who act out the role of "mystery men"-- along with one genuine superhuman being.

It takes the genre seriously. Many of us may not like the conclusions (or assumptions) Moore draws about the type of people who *might* dress up in costume to become amateur crimefighters, but he isn't saying anything at all about Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, et al... he's keeping his commentary to the pastiches of the Charlton characters that he's created.

It isn't Moore's fault that much of his intent was missed. Rorschach, he has said, was meant to be a pathetic and broken individual, not the "kewlest"-- but that's Wolverine syndrome all over again. Still, Rorschach is the one who stands up for what is basically a heroic principle: crime cannot go unpunished. Heroes cannot look away. He knows that the cost of this principle is unacceptably high, but he forces Dr Manhattan to pull the trigger for him. There's really no way he can take Archie back to civilization-- but he cannot back down from what he knows is right. In that sense, I think Rorschach is a heroic character.

Also, this isn't a story that could be told without "superheroes" (or really costumed vigilantes)-- it's all about postulating some alternate real world, extrapolating what these figures might have meant to our history. It also deals with superhuman, even Nietzchean, concepts of morality: is it moral to kill millions to save the world? Can the world be truly "saved" by a lie?

That WATCHMAN provokes strong reactions and lots of discussion (to me) suggests that it makes people think and think hard. That's a good thing.

That's why I'd say WATCHMEN is a terrific story.