Comparison Of Watchmen By Alan Moore And Dave Gibbons

Despite the real authors, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, nobody truly knows who the designated narrator of Watchmen is. A quick reading of the novel and, more specifically, the last few pages may lead the reader to believe that the novel is narrated by an extradiegetic narrator that simply pieces together the stories. Nevertheless, Sara J. Van Ness argues in Chapter 5, “Parallel Histories” of Watchmen as Literature, that the narrative’s conclusion should spark a conversation concerning the possibility of a diegetic narrator within the world of Watchmen. Which characters are potential narrators of Watchmen and what contextual evidence do Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons provide for each? At the very least, the answer to this question can provide context

Van Ness states that if this is true, “The end of the novel is actually the beginning: what readers have just finished reading is the narrative that Sermour pieces together after discovering the contents of Rorschach’s journal” (71). Seymour’s name is the initial point of focus, as Van Ness states that “ironically, Seymour’s name, a homophone for the two words ‘see’ and ‘more,’ literally sees more in the sense that he may serve as the narrator” (71). Then, Van Ness turns the attention to the contextual evidence of Seymour’s publication experience. As an employee of a newspaper, Seymour understands the journalistic process and copyright laws necessary to publicize a research project (72). Therefore, Van Ness draws a connection between Seymour’s experience and the numerous copyright notes found throughout the novel. If Seymour wanted to publish the narrative, he knew that he’d have to give necessary credit. With illustrated paper clips, tape, and notes, Seymour’s publishing experience would also find that Watchmen is obviously unfinished. As Van Ness states, the incompleteness of Watchmen and the primary positioning of Rorschach’s journal “would explain why the other notes are haphazardly paper-clipped to the documents rather than more formally labeled” (72). In short, this theory would conclude that Watchmen is the unfinished narrative originating from Seymour’s discovery

That being said, she could have expanded further on certain concepts. To follow her starting point, Seymour is a very likely candidate for the narrator of the novel. Yet, Van Ness fails to expand on the consequences of his narration. Although she mentions that Seymour has to fabricate the story based on Rorschach’s journal, there is vast illegitimacy that accompanies this. Is Rorschach a reliable source to create such a groundbreaking story? Would Seymour release a story with such little credibility? Would Watchmen be considered a conspiracy because of the unconfirmed events in Antarctica? These questions shadow the possibility of Seymour being the narrator, and others follow the theory of Dan and Laurie’s narration. How do Laurie and Dan escape Veidt’s lair? This seems almost impossible under Veidt’s supervision, and even more so Dr. Manhattan’s, considering his killing of Rorschach. Van Ness fails to provide answers to the challenging questions that legitimate theories must answer and, although adequate for the casual reader, there are truly doubts left on the table by Watchmen as