Watchmen and Ethics

Almost three decades since it's written, Watchmen, by Alan Moore, still manifests itself as one of the best works of fiction ever written. It established graphic novels as a tool to deliver groundbreaking plot and to convey message that still echoes in the modern times. One particular topic that is still debated by the public is its ending. The ambiguity of Watchmen's final moments left a tinge to the minds of its readers, because it presents the conflict between two opposing bodies of ethics: Deontology/Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. 

In deontology, a person believes that there are certain things that are morally right or wrong based on their nature. In Utilitarianism, a deed being right or wrong depends on the benefit it produces. Since most human beings are not absolute when it comes to detecting right deeds from wrong, no matter how many times we think about who's the person who did the right thing in the end of the novel, our mind is conflicted between Rorschach and Ozymandias. The two characters fully embodies the two ethical concepts, including their strengths and weaknesses. 

Rorschach, also known as Walter Kovacs, being the righteous guy of all the Watchmen, sees the horrid thing inflicted by Ozymandias an unjustifiable act even though it is clearly for the better. He didn't compromise because he has his principles; he will never compromise unjustifiable acts even in the face of armagedon. In deontology, it's someone's conscience that imposes what's right and what's wrong, and killing lots of people by implanting horrid images that tend to make them kill themselves is a huge ripple in one's conscience.The problem with him and deontologists is they don't think about the consequences of their act. They have certain rules that if broken, the act a person did is already a wrong thing. They will continue to do the thing that they think is morally correct even though the results will impose a greater threat. At the end of the book, if Rorschach successfully exposed Ozymandias, he will then make the deaths of millions of people all for nothing, amd yet in a way will avenge their fate.

Ozymandias or Adrian Veidt on the other hand, uses logic to know what to do next; measuring what act will impose more happiness to people. In utilitarianism, one good basis on measuring the benefit of a deed, which in the book Ozymandias uses, is the number of people that will benefit from it. Surely, it is better to have a million deaths than seeing the perish of billions of people. Also, the end of the book tells us that his plan really did work in unifying the world. It's the logical thinking that works when you are utilitarian, and most of the time you should not listen in your conscience. There are certain problems in a utilitarian thinking. One problem is the unpredictability of future. There are certain instances that we thought our deeds would improve a situation, but it does not. What if Ozymandias's plan didn't work out to be as he anticipated? One million people just died for a lost cause. Another problem is the limit on measuring the benefit of the deed. When will we stop measuring the happiness that an act would give? This weakness of utilitarianism is highlighted by Dr. Manhattan. He had a conversation with Ozymandias before he disappeared from their world. Adrian asked whether he did the right thing in the end, but Manhattan just replied that nothing ever ends. 

A lot of other works also utilizes these two concepts in order to make a big impression to the audience or reader. Another work by Moore, The Killing Joke, has an ambiguous ending that tests Batman's morality and also the readers'. The last page presents a possibility that Batman killed the Joker once and for all. Killing the Joker would violate his principles, yet letting him live may impose greater danger to the public. On the game The Last of Us, in order to create a vaccine for the pandemic tha killed almost all human beings, the Fireflies need to extract the substance inside Ellie's brain that would evidently kill her. Joel is unwilling to sacrifice Ellie, that's why he rescued her from the camp and killed the members of the Fireflies. These kinds of endings works because most of the people are not absolute when it comes to their ethical beliefs. We always use both our conscience and logical thinking that causes imternal debacle in our brain. At the same time, it also tests a person's response whenever s/he encounter dilemmas.

The Killing Joke ending

I rewatched Battle of the Bastards and a thought came to my mind. It concerns the ending of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke. 

At the final moments of the book, we are shown Batman and Joker sharing laughter after the Joker tells a joke about two patients escaping an asylum. And then the laughter of the two abruptly ended. A lot of people suggest that maybe Batman already snapped and ultimately killed his foe by chocking him or breaking his neck.

But it doesn't make any sense if he really killed the Joker. Although there's no questioning that what he did would be for the greater good and Batman had already enough cause to kill him, it still doesn't make any sense. It mirrors Jon Snow's cause in killing Ramsay Bolton. When he saw Sansa, Jon knows that she has the right in deciding Ramsay's fate because she is the one raped repeatedly by him. Gordon has the right in judging the Joker's fate. It's his daughter that was paralyzed and (possibly) raped. It's him that was also sexually assaulted by the Joker and shown pictures of his naked daughter. Yet he still insists in not killing the Joker because like Batman, Gordon has principles and he chooses to uphold them. Before Bats confronted the Joker, Gordon says to Batman that he has to show the Joker that their way works.

That's why Batman killing the Joker doesn't fit his persona and the situation presented by the book. In doing so, he will fail, not only his principles, but also his friendship with Gordon. He should respect Gordon's decision in letting the Joker live, because Gordon has every right in choosing what he will do to the Joker, no matter how bitter that sounds to Batman.

Hawkeye by Matt Fraction

don't like Hawkeye in the Avengers films. No powers and has to rely on his paleolithic weapon, truly he is my least favorite avenger. But this book just turned the reason why we don't like this Avenger to someone we can relate to. Truly he resembles most of us: no super special abilities and not as rich as Bruce Wayne. Matt Fraction turned that bad aspect of the character as the thing that makes Hawkeye special among other supers.

It is ironic that even though the background has a feel of bleakness and melancholy, it has tons of hilarious moments. This is one of the funniest books I've read. Definitely one of my favorites.

We Stand on Guard Review

Vaughan is a genius in creating new concepts for a science fiction piece. Sometimes they're too great that they need a lot of issues to give the story more depth for the readers. That's the case with We Stand on Guard. A war involving United States and Canada needs more than 6 issues for the reader to grasp the conflict. This is also the problem with The Private Eye, which is another book by him.  It is still great though. His ideas for new technology and future environmental problems are better and more realistic than most of other sci-fi writers.

I think the book is still open for continuation for a lot of members of the rebel group are still alive and they didn't technically won over the Yankees. I hope Image Comics will pass this project to other writers because we know how busy Vaughan currently is for other series.

"Daytripper" Review

You know that feeling when you read a book and after closing it, you suddenly changed your outlook in life? Daytripper is one of that books.

Daytripper tells the life of Bras de Olivias Dominguez, a former writer of obituaries on newspaper. The interesting thing on the story is that he always die in every chapter of the book. Fabian Moon and Gabriel Bo offered an explanation on what is life all about by letting us look on death, as death after all is a part of our lives. As for the art, it's so good you will look for every panel a little longer than usual because the drawings and colors are a feast for the eye.

At the end of the book, you will ask yourself whether you are already satisfied with your life if you die right now.

Reading Daytripper is an astounding experience. I suggest everyone, even those who doesn't read graphic novels to give this book a try.

"Only when you accept that one day you'll die can you let go, and make the best out of life."

Batman Earth One Volume 2 Review

If you think a Batman origin story will fail to surprise you, think again.

Batman Earth One Volume 2 is a one of a kind follow-up to a great Batman origin story that features most of his celebrated villains whose origins are told in a different way. There is something in the end of the book that will startle even a veteran Batman fan. Give this book a try and I tell you, you will not regret reading every bit of it.

Batman Earth One Volume 1 Review

This is a spoiler free review.

There had been countless adaptations of Batman's origin story that it already imprinted itself  inside the hearts of many people. We all know how the rich kid, son of Gotham, Bruce Wayne decided on wearing a bat suit and pursuing a lot of criminals that proliferated the Gotham's streets. We are all familiar on the tragedy on Crime Alley. That's why every time a new book, featuring how the Batman mythos started will always be in the brink of the "seen that" "done that" area of the public eye.

But Batman Earth One Volume One is a different story.

One of my cousin suggested me to read this comic book because he said he was mesmerized by it. So I take this book on the comic book shop and read it as soon as I bought it. And oh my, it's an awesome book.

It is a refreshing take of every aspect surrounding the too familiar story. Geoff Johns' comic book writing is strange. It's the panels that communicate most of the times with the readers. The art is also pretty great. I have read a lot of Batman books but the drama between the lines in this book is too good. The best parts of the book are the conversations between Bruce and Alfred. There is an unexplainable bond between them in this book. Yeah I know, Alfred will always be Bruce's guardian in any comic book universe, but this version features a deeper father and son connection between them. Oh, and I forgot to tell you that this version of Alfred is not that gentle butler we all commonly know. This Alfred is a badass Korean War Veteran.

Harvey Bullock is the one of the few sane man in Gotham's corrupt system you will root for. Most of the times it's Commissioner Gordon that is full of principles in the police part of Gotham, but in this book, Harvey is the star of the police force. He is the hope that there are still people in Gotham who believe in goodness.

All in all, it is a good book and will left you in amazement after closing it. Although you only get few glimpses of many characters, they all feel whole to you. There are a lot of building blocks of a new Batman series in this book and I suggest everyone who doesn't know the origin of Batman to read this book.