Watchmen Through Barthes

Barthes and Watchmen

Perhaps on the greatest insights into literary interpretation encompasses the relationship between the author and the reader.  Much of literary theory is solidly placed on the shoulders of the author.  It is their responsibility to craft and write in a manner consistent with their selected audience.  Criticisms of success or failure are promptly applied.  However, what responsibilities are given to the reader?  Roland Barthes in “From Work to Text” illustrates the relationship between the author, the text and the reader.  He posits notions that readers interpret information from their approach and craft of writing as well as reading (1330).   The movie Watchmen is primarily an action hero story, but it contains multi-level complexities that can only be enjoyed with knowledge of literary theory.  More Specifically, “From Work to Text,” with the aid of Gayle Rubin and Ferdinand de Saussure, can be applied to Watchmen to illustrate the value and enjoyment brought forth by literary theory and criticism.

Barthes suggests works are “normally the object of a consumption …” (1330).   He describes how works are physical objects and texts are not (1326). He also identifies that readers experience texts through “the activity of production” (1327).  Barthes is forward that the reader’s attitude and aptitude determines the quality of interpretations and not possessing literary interpretive skills is the equivalent of listening to music, but not understanding how to play an instrument (1330).  The listener can still enjoy the music, but they cannot perceive the nuances and craft that a learned musician can identify and enjoy.

Watchmen can be viewed and enjoyed without literary skill.  It will be viewed as several super heroes moving through a complex maze of events only to identify one of their own has gone mad and plans the death of millions.  Attitudes, notions, and assumptions are filled in by the viewer’s own experiences and ends with agreement, or not, to the movies moral ending.  However, with interpretive help from Rubin and Saussure, a completely different experience can be had.  Two of the main characters are paired against each other.  Viedt is representative of chaos and associated with wealth, power, intelligence, fitness, and lives physically above it all.  Rorschach is representative of a sharp black and white morality.  He his associated with living in filth, engaging with undesirables, narrow minded, and poverty.  Familiarity with Gayle Rubin will identify how dominant views tend to be paired against opposing views, with one associated with positive rewards and the other with hardships (2388).  Moralities associated with tradition and change are established through pairing.  A third character, John, is associated with logic, reason, and god.  He is physically different, emotionally distant and his origin derives from nothingness.  Aristotle would identify the fourth character, Night Owl, as “someone like us” (98) and Saussure would identify that his persona of an owl is reflective of wisdom.

The ending reveals viedt killing millions of people.  However, he replaced mutually shared destruction, and the lives of six billion people, with peace.  With the exception of Rorschach, the other heroes agree to keep the secret to maintain world peace.  John kills Rorschach to prevent the release of the secret.  The viewer watching for consumption will ponder the question as to if they agree with Viedt’s morality or not.  The viewer with literary background will understand that the Rorschach’s morality was bound for extermination.  Viedt representing change and chaos was paired with positive attributes.  John, representative of god and logic, agreed to keep the secret.  Night Owl, who is “someone like us” and wise also agreed to keep the secret.  The author wasn’t posing a question as to which morality was right, he was telling us.  Rorschach’s inability to change meant his destruction by the dominant view.

            Barthe intended to demonstrate that the closer one understands reading with writing, the better they are able to “decant” (1331) information from texts.  In the presented sense, understanding writing better enables the viewer to savor and appreciate the skill, craft and messages from the author.  Learning literary interpretive skills can be daunting and challenging, However, deeply satisfying rewards and understanding abound for the reader who puts in the time and effort to learn them.

  

            Works Cited

Aristotle.  Poetics.  The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010. 88-115. Print.

Barthes, Roland.  “The Death of the Author.”  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010. 1322-1326. Print.

---.  ‘From Work to Text.”  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010. 1326-1331. Print.

---.  Mythologies.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010. 1366-1322. Print.

Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010.  1469-1490. Print.

Moore, Alan and Dave Gibbons. Watchmen. New York: DC Comics Inc. 1986. Print.

Rubin, Gayle. “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of Politics of Sexuality.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010.  2372-2402. Print.

Saussure, Ferdinand De. Course in General Linguistics. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010.  845-866. Print.

Zizek, Slavoj. “Courtly Love, or, Woman as Thing.”  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010.  2402-2427. Print.

---. Epistemology of the Closet. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.  Ed. Vincent B. Leitch et al.  2^nd ed. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 2010.  2470-2477. Print.