See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233486774

Alan Moore, Watchmen and some notes on the ideology of superhero comics

Article in Studies in Comics · July 2011

DOI: 10.1386/stic.2.1.81_1

CITATION READS

1 6,737

1 author:

Marco Pellitteri
Shanghai International Studies University
20 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Manga Network View project

Japanese Animation and European Contexts: International Dynamics, Local Receptions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Pellitteri on 21 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Marco Pellitteri
London Metropolitan University

Alan Moore, Watchmen, and some notes

on the ideology of superhero comics
Keywords

superhero comics
bourgeois ideology in superhero comics
authoritarianism
ubermensch
Alan Moore
Watchmen
The Authority

Abstract

Popular comics, in the particular case of the ‘superhero’ genre here considered through the
lens of Alan Moore’s Watchmen comics novel, are mainly based on conservative ideological
systems. This article focuses especially on some British and American comic books which, by
emphasizing the bourgeois ideological basis of superhero comics, have highlighted the limits of
such comics and have made them possible to overcome. The article finds similarities and
differences between the so-called ‘supermen’ of serial narratives and the Übermensch.

Introduction

Alan Moore has, in many of his works, critically stressed that at the basis of popular comics
(and, among them, in superhero comics)i there is an authoritarian element. Watchmen (1986-87), in
particular, highlights the petty-bourgeois ideologies and the mental frameworks, often borderline
pathological, which characterize most costumed heroes, albeit without the morbidity shown by
those psychologists who have insisted in discussing the subject without possessing a thorough
knowledge of comics and of their readers.ii Watchmeniii is a work whose subject matter and
complexity forces readers to reflect at many levels; in the twenty-five years since it was first
published, Watchmen has proved itself to be a perpetual motion of increasingly deep speculations.
The most interesting suggestions given by Moore on ideology in popular narratives can be
found in V for Vendetta (1982-89) and From Hell (1991-96), but in many ways are still present
more or less in his whole opus. Nevertheless, Watchmen is unique because it is a percipient
conversation on ideology as it has been conveyed for fifty years in adventure comic strips and
comic books starring vigilantes and supermen. The Phantom by Lee Falk and Ray Moore was
published in 1936, whereas Watchmen is from 1986. If we consider the Phantom as the progenitor
of American comics superheroes, then, at the time when Watchmen came out, superheroes had been
around in comics precisely for half a century. Moore’s Watchmen integrate all the ideological,
technological, and discursive tools originally belonging to costumed heroes from the Phantom
onwards, and show readers how—generation after generation—fifty years of evolution of the
superhero genre have brought on nothing more than periodic restyling and a greater narrative and
linguistic ability of the authors, keeping an ideological immutability, or at least ‘consistency.’

______
1
 2

Recent stages and ideology of the superhero in comics

From the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the classical superhero genre was regenerated
thanks to a new emphasis on characteristics such as spectacularity, muscle hypertrophy, violence of
the conflict. But, despite the overall maturation of themes and styles, superhero comic books
remained based on the usual clichés: clashes between heroes and antagonists increased in size,
becoming even interplanetary in scale, but self-awareness of superheroes and a broader political
involvement in the fictitious but still realistic society they belong to remained a taboo topic for
authors and publishers. Concerning the 1980s and onwards, however, these last twenty-five years
have seen the emergence of authorial trends dismantling the aesthetic and communicative
framework of serial comics, and reassembling it in innovative ways and in stories showing a more
conscious desire to undermine, or at least to make more transparent, all those clichés around which
popular production had been based. Along with these waves of innovation, however, it persists, and
in some cases it becomes more marked, the presence of ‘mass’—but also, in recent years, of more
limited distribution, circulating among niche readers—comics, at times centred on a background of
violence and authoritarianism. Which suggests an intermittent but gradual return of strategies, or at
least of ideological impulses, increasingly based on an irrationality and an anxiety which appear
dangerous, and perhaps, to some extent, a sign of the times. This dual path in serial adventure
comics takes place—not just the U.S. but also in Great Britain—through some key ‘stages.’
At the stroke of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, American Frank Miller and especially
Britons Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Pete Milligan, Warren Ellis, Garth Ennis
publish—often for American publishers—a lot of comic books which, despite being part of serial
production, distinguish themselves for their subversive charge. This subversion however is not
always centred around ideas explicitly political, but more often on the willingness to clearly and
controversially indicate the limits of a genre—action comics and its superhero variant—which, in
its popular incarnations, up to that point had always been considered childish, simplistic, juvenile.
As far as superhero comics are specifically concerned, Moore produced the most important
manifesto works: Marvelman (Miracleman in the U.S.) and Watchmen, followed by the 1963
miniseries and by the series Supreme.iv The popular comics industry, however, could not internalize
the message and there was a kind of counter-reaction, resulting in the publication of even more
superficial and authoritarian superheroes, nearly devoid of any mature contentv and paradoxically
mocking the innovative themes of works such as Watchmen. Among others, this was the case of
Image. In this sense, the cultural operation carried out by Moore and other authors who share his
same vision seems to have had a limited effect on the regular production of superhero comics.
The late 1990s and early years of the new century are a period of change. In addition to the
guidelines given by major authors virtually led by Moore, a new type of superhero comics was
born, with its unique mingling of superhuman clichés (superpowers, secret base, group vs
individuality, good against evil, aliens and mad scientists) and a new way of understanding the
activity of superheroes across the world. This is the case of two series, The Authority and Planetary,
written by British writers (Warren Ellis and Mark Millar), but published by the American publisher
DC. Here the main characters have powers similar to or higher than those of historical comics’
figures such as Superman, Flash, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Thor, Doctor Strange and others;
in fact, in terms of psychological characteristics, costumes and nature of their powers, they are
based on the prototypes of the superhero genre. What changes is their attitude toward the reality in
which they act. Instead of being guardians of the established order, respectful of laws and protectors
of private property as a most classic superheroes are, they prefer to create, intentionally or not, a
new world order trying to implement nuclear disarmament, to erase pollution, to shift international
politics towards a new equilibrium. They also tackle global terrorism, acting with violence and a
disregard for human life which can only be partly justified by the fact that the objects of their wrath
are war criminals, corrupt politicians, and armies of terrorists.

______
2
 3

The Authority, in particular, permanently disrupts the unwritten laws of traditional superhero
comics, where the hero acts on a limited and local scale: characters of this series operate
transnationally and are not ‘puppets’ of any system. Instead, they are a regime in themselves. This
leads the authors to question readers about the possibility of ethical limits in the administration of
power by those who have a great deal of it, in a clear reference to current events, and it is no
coincidence that the name of the supergroup highlights the issue of ‘authority,’ implying that of
authoritarianism. The Authority essentially is a somewhat ‘philosophical’ conversation on the
ontological value of superheroes (Baio 2006). Better than any other superhero comic book, The
Authority has absorbed the lesson of Alan Moore, combining it with the needs of the publishing
market of superhero comics. This series, just like Watchmen, ultimately makes us wonder whether
heroes can still be thought of as we have always had, or whether it is time to consider the limits and
ideological traps they hide under their patina of colours and spectacular actions.

For an ‘archaeology of the super-being’ in comics

Umberto Eco identified the ‘fascist’ elements and, more in general, the narrative and
ideological values usually offered in paperback comic books (war, erotic, etc.). For him, they were:

racism; the cult of violence as an affirmation of value; the cult of masculinity (with a
disdain for women, sentimentality, homosexuality, but for no other possible sexual
deviation); the myth of the sanctity of war, arena where strong men show their strength;
frenzied anticommunism (which at times took the form of McCarthyism); cult of the
superman as deliverer of justice above the ordinary laws of weak men; and finally the
expressions of lictorian folklore in the historical sense of the word, including
paramilitary and Nazi symbols, explicit boldness, intensive exploitation of patriotic
symbols. (Eco 1971: 7)

Many of these traits, watered down in intensity, stand out in the classic version of many
American adventurous characters in vogue from the late 1930s to the early 1960s, decade in which
these trends begin to disappear from the superhero genre because of the introduction of the tortured
Marvel heroes. Above all, these are the traits which give us the identikit of the Comedian, the
Watchmen vigilante whom Moore created to remind readers what the true face of the traditional
superhero is, a little à la Superman and a little à la Captain America. This group of characteristics,
however, is also present in various degrees in two other Watchmen characters, Rorschach and
Ozymandias; and Kidder (2004) is right in writing that ‘portions’ of classic superheroism are
distributed in all Watchmen characters. Moore’s vigilantes are formats, containers within which one
can see a wide range of comic books’ superheroism. In this way, it is possible to see how, taken out
of their narratives, the characteristics of these heroes seem unlikely and ideologically questionable:
because there is a menacing right-wing imprint,vi suggesting that the entire framework of superhero
comics—in the opinion of Moore—is based on aberrant ‘political’ bases.
In the aforementioned article, Eco identified various traditions of comics which, in hindsight,
could be defined ‘crypto-fascist,’ and the latest of them were superhero comics: traditional
superheroes, under the universal pretence of defending the weak, also tend to protect special
interests. Theirs is a ‘provincial,’ petty-bourgeois superheroism, hence almost limitless superhuman
powers often do not reflect true cosmopolitanism in their administration. Eco, however, predicted
the increase in the scope of heroes which eventually occurred in the 1990s and noughties—and
which occurred also thanks to the revealing function of Moore’s Watchmen. With supergroups like
StormWatch and the aforementioned Planetary and The Authority, the size of the playing field of
superheroes has grown enormously, finally reaching the consequences, as extreme as they are
obvious, ingrained in the concept of ‘superentity:’ as feared by Eco, superheroes with divine powers
take political decisions and become arbiters of humankind, as well as of their protégés. In these new

______
3
 4

superheroes there is no trace of that middle-class sentiment mentioned by Eco, but rather a desire to
take political action on the world and a wish for power intended in the Nietzschean sense. The
resulting superhero is somewhere half-way between the new Superman written by Dan Jurgens in
the 1990s, with renovated connotations and messianic ambitions, and a surrogate of a Übermensch
that is no longer indifferent to the common man but becomes his protector.
If the Phantom and Superman are the starting point of superhero stories, and The Authority is
the arrival point, then what is Watchmen? This work is for superhero comics what Michel Foucault
in The Archaeology of Knowledge calls a ‘breaking point’ which leads to a historical change in a
‘discursive regularity’ (Foucault 1969; It. trans. 2005: 13). Adapting the issue to the field of comics
history and to the corresponding debate, this means that with Watchmen Moore writes down a new
way of understanding superheroism: he highlights the backbone of the genre, makes its fragility
clear and thus offers the possibility—not always exploited by later writers—to overcome its
limitations. Watchmen is ‘breaking point’ and ‘limit,’ expression of a transformation. In short, this
work is the pivot between the past and the future of the superhero genre, a filter from which one
can—or perhaps should—start in order to trace a story, or rather an ‘archaeology,’ to use Foucault’s
terminology again,vii of the thoughts, values and ideologies of superheroes.

‘Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we were Nazis, and all those things that people say’

Moore, fan of adventure novels but also of authorial literature, as a young man grew up with
readings showing the authoritarianism of English society, which, under the anachronistic pseudo-
Victorian morals, hid a past of injustice.viii In addition, there was the shock brought upon him by the
national politics of the late 1970s and early 1980s, period of gestation and creation of V for
Vendetta and Watchmen. In a famous interview, the author gives his personal definition of populist
fascism: ‘Fascists are people who work in factories, probably they are kind to their children. They
are ordinary people. They are like everybody else except for the fact that they are fascists.’ix It is a
picturesque way to define next door Fascists, but it is also one of the indicators which clarify some
aspects of Watchmen, in particular the fact that Watchmen is a ‘world-work,’ precisely narrating a
consistent and credible world.x When Wright claimed that Watchmen is a work showing ‘what
superheroes might be if they really existed’ (Wright 2001: 271), Kidder pointed out, quite rightly,
that Watchmen instead ‘depicts what the world would be like if superheroes existed’ for real
(Kidder 2004).
In short, Moore wonders: what would the world be like if in reality—or in a world
realistically designed, narrated, and represented—in some individuals were born the irresistible
desire to become costumed vigilantes and to act outside the law even if with the intention of
assisting it? And what if society allowed their existence and their actions? The answer Moore gives
himself and the readers is a world strongly oriented towards the right wing—as it can easily be seen
by reading the work. But in the subtext Moore also implies another answer, one which is much
more annoying for the reader, particularly for the American reader: he says that this world would be
right wing oriented since the USA (and, Moore pointedly adds, Great Britain) are mostly right-
winged, and superheroes are an American/Anglo-Saxon cultural product. The syllogism is cruel and
sharp in its simplicity, and largely true, whether we like to give credit for it to Moore or not. Moore,
moreover, in several pages of the book depicts a variety of aptly designed publications, highlighting
the ideological direction in which he wants to focus the attention. They are the macabre and lurid
pirate comic books read by the kid who is often near a newsstand, and the political magazine The
New Frontiersman, not surprisingly bought by Rorschach who, together with the Comedian and
even within a different attitude, represents the extreme right wing of the Watchmen.
Particularly evident is the connection—be it real or alleged—between superhero comics and a
range of philosophical concepts often attributed to superheroes, which go back to the Nietzschean
notion of Übermensch. Several scholars and critics who have either analyzed superheroes in general
or have focused specifically on Watchmen, at one point or another of their contributions—more

______
4
 5

often at the beginning—have mentioned an ideological and behavioural familiarity between the so-
called Nietzschean ‘superman’ and the superhero. The fact that Moore himself quotes the
philosopher through the words of one of his characters, Ozymandias, has convinced many that it is
appropriate to assign the status of Nietzschean ‘superman’ to some Watchmen characters, as well as
to many other superheroes, at least to some extent.
However, it is necessary to distinguish between four concepts, encased in terms which
sometimes are used interchangeably: hero, superhero, superman, superhuman. As we all know, the
hero, in the classic definition, is an exceptional individual born of a human being and a god; he or
she has a mission and can be worshipped by men. For their exceptional nature and physical gifts,
heroes are already ‘super.’ Superhuman thus indicates a subject exceeding the normal
characteristics of a man, and the term implies a positive meaning. For example, a man with two
heads is not considered superhuman, unlike someone who can set objects afire with a thought, or
who can fly; however, both types of people, whose qualities go beyond what is humanly normal,
can be negatively seen as ‘monsters.’xi Now, the word superhero is a strange linguistic-semantic
object, because it combines the prefix ‘super’ with something which, as I just noted, is already
‘super’ in itself: a hero. The union makes sense solely if taking in consideration a meaning of the
term ‘hero’ only mildly related to the classical world, and instead mainly referred to a modern idea
of hero. Modern heroes do not have special powers and are yet to accomplish any mission, being
heroic for their selfless spirit, for their courage, and for the mission they feel called to carry out. In
this case, on the surface the ‘super’ intensifier is motivated by the ‘superpowers’ of the superhero,
but the profound nature of their superiority lies in their moral qualities.xii
What is left to clarify is the term ‘superman,’ which, for a semantic misunderstanding and—
one would believe—for a careless interpretation of Nietzsche’s Übermensch philosophy (1885 and
1886), in the studies on comics has often encompassed both the Nietzschean idea and the word
‘superhuman.’xiii This was probably influenced by Jerry Siegel’s and Joe Shuster’s decision to name
their character Superman: a good choice in terms of ‘advertising’ and storytelling, but ambiguous
from the conceptual point of view,xiv in a period where Nazi leaders were busy misinterpreting the
Nietzschean philosophy of Übermensch. A more correct translation of Übermensch then is
‘overman’ or ‘ultraman,’ as correctly translated into English by Kidder (2004): an individual who
has exceeded human limits and who, like Nietzsche said, has reached the harmonious union of the
three elements composing a man: mind, body, and feelings; above all, an individual who, through
the ‘will of power’ (Wille der Macht), is able to break away from common morals to experience a
level of existence ‘beyond good and evil’ (jenseits von Gut und Böse).
And so here we are. The lesson of Gramsci (1950 [1929-35]) and then Eco: neither the
‘superman’ of popular novels, nor the comic book superhero come from Nietzsche, but rather, in
many ways, they negate his very philosophy. The former is vindictive, selfish, often criminal; the
latter, conservative, bourgeois, mindful of values such as justice and freedom. Both are ‘human, too
human’ characters, which do not fit in the Nietzschean category.
The fact remains that Alan Moore’s Watchmen explicitly refers to Nietzsche, but this is to be
seen as an attempt to clarify the ambiguity of this common approach between superhero and
Übermensch, rather than as desire to mix the two concepts. Moore uses two characters to outline the
differences between the Nietzschean ‘overman’ and the Watchmen vigilantes: Dr Manhattan and
Ozymandias. The first is the only real superbeing in Watchmen, a scientist who, due to a scientific
accident, has really exceeded human limits and obtained powers allowing him to travel through
space and time as a god. Changes in his atomic structure and new-found fantastic powers also
change his way of relating to the human world: in this sense, Moore modelled him after Superman
and the Martian Manhunter—whose moody personality is similar to that of Manhattan—and used
him to show a more realistic way in which a person with divine powers would act and behave: he
would tend to alienate himself from society, in a sort of existential solipsism.
For its part, Ozymandias, while ‘normal’—he did not obtain superpowers from external
sources, and is not a mutant either—can be defined superhuman because he manages to use the full

______
5
 6

potential of his brain and, through special training, has increased his already excellent athletic
qualities, to the point of being able to win any kind of physical confrontation, and even to intercept
and stop bullets.
So, Moore plays on elements which, at a superficial analysis, could be associated with the
general idea of Übermensch. But both Ozymandias and Dr Manhattan, in different ways, use
humanity as their anchor, and this proves that they are far from being beyond the concepts of good
and evil: as it has been pointed out by several parties, Ozymandias’ plan, insane as it is, is aimed at
avoiding World War III, while Dr Manhattan, after a proper training experience about the inner
nature of human beings, concludes that, more than any other event in the universe, every single
human life is a miracle in itself, a conclusion bordering on faith.
There are still a few final points to briefly discuss. Here I shall very briefly focus on the way
in which Moore illustrates the fantasies of power, the self-assigned mission, the narcissistic
personality, the fetishism and the other ‘diseases’ inherent in superheroes. His favorite target is
Rorschach, paranoid character based on The Question and Mister A (by Steve Ditko), and on
certain obsessions of Batman and Nite Owl, mélange between the insecurities of Clark Kent and the
mediocrity of the average man, incapable of having sex like a normal person and needing to wear
his vigilante costume or to stay near his paraphernalia. Moore of course, through other characters,
outlines other negative superhero clichés, as Ozymandias’ megalomania, the sense of detached
superiority of Dr Manhattan, or the inferiority complex and embarrassment of Silk Spectre for her
revealing costume. Many of these clichés, however, lead back to a central topos in the
representation of superheroes: that of the body as a smooth and perfect machine—like that of
Ozymandias, who represents the model to aspire to—an element lacking in the skinny and dirty
Rorschach, or in Silk Spectre and Nite Owl, inevitably grown heavier with age. The fact remains
that Moore, through the body and its flaws, highlights the ‘phallic’ nature of a perfect physique, and
its symbolism as demonstration of the power and supremacy of the superhero (McRae 2001).
Finally, in the epilogue of Watchmen, Moore makes fun of the origins of superheroes,
staging an ironic conversation between Dan Dreiberg (Nite Owl) and Laurie Juspeczyk (Silk
Spectre). The latter, discussing the possibility of the two of them resuming their vigilante activities,
expresses the desire for a new costume, this time made of leather, so that it can cover and protect
her, for a mask, and also for a gun. In short, the look of the original Batman, who, as everybody
knows, in his early stories (from 1939) had a gun and used it, sometimes killing. In other words,
Moore seems to wrap the myth of superhero onto itself, showing that what might look like a new
beginning and a modernization of the genre, actually is just a return to the origins and to an even
more backward authoritarianism and ideology. The fact that the ideologies visible (and implicitly
accepted by most readers) in so many popular comics are still so uncomfortably topical prompts us
to consider that the words of one of Moore’s vigilantes, ‘Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we
were Nazis, and all those things that people say,’xv is more revealing than it would appear,
disclosing the huge amount of ideology exhisting in superheroes.

REFERENCES

Abruzzese, A. (1988), Archeologie dell’immaginario (‘Archeologies of Imagination’). Napoli:

Liguori.
Aicardi, G. (2006), M for Moore. Il genio di Alan Moore da V for Vendetta e Watchmen a
Promethea (‘M for Moore: The Genius of Alan Moore from V for Vendetta to Watchmen and
Promethea’). Latina: Tunué.
Altemeyer, B. (1988), Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. San
Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Baio, I. (2006), Supereroi™. Araldica e simbologia dell’eroismo dai miti classici a Superman e The
Authority (‘Superheroes™: Heraldry and Symbologies of Heroism from Classic Myths to
Superman and The Authority’). Latina: Tunué.

______
6
 7

Coogan, P. (2002), The Secret Origin of the Superhero: The Emergence of the Superhero Genre in
America from Daniel Boone to Batman, East Lansing : Michigan State University.
Darius, J. (2002), ‘Comic Book Morality.’ Http://www.sequart.com/articles/index.php?article=487
(September 2006).
Eco, U. (1971), ‘Fascio e Fumetto’ (‘Fascists and Comic Books’). L’Espresso/Colore, issue 13, 28th
of March, 4-14.
Foucault, M. (1969), L’archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard (It. trans. [2005], L’archeologia del
sapere. Milano: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli).
Gramsci, A. (1950), Letteratura e vita nazionale (‘Literature and National Life’, 1929-35). Torino:
Einaudi.
Hughes, J. A. (2006), ‘Who Watches the Watchmen? Ideology and ‘Real World’ Superheroes.’ The
Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 39, issue 4, 546-57.
Kavanagh, T. (2000), ‘The Alan Moore Interview.’ Http://www.blather.net/articles/amoore/ —
Http://www.hellshaw.com/barry/index.html, October (It. trans. Smoky Man [edited by] [2000],
‘Alan Moore, scrittore supremo. Parte prima: da V for Vendetta a Watchmen,’
Http://www.ultrazine.org/ultraparole/alanmoore.htm, October (September 2006).
Kidder, O. U. (2004), ‘A World with Contradictions: Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s Watchmen
and the Revisionist Superhero Story,’ Http://www.staticred.net/four-color/archives/002274.html.
Accessed July 2006.
Marx, K. (1867), Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Band I, (It. trans. [1980], Il
Capitale. Critica dell’economia politica. Libro primo). Roma: Editori Riuniti.
McRae, L. (2001), ‘Rollins, Representation and Reality: Lifting the Weight of Masculinity.’ M/C
Journal—A Journal of Media and Culture, vol. 4, issue 4, August, Http://journal.media-
culture.org.au/0108/Rollins.php. Accessed July 2006.
Mongai, M. (1983), Chi ha paura di Lucy Van Pelt, ovvero Psicoanalisi e fumetti (‘Who is Afraid
of Lucy Van Pelt, or Rrather Psychoanalysis and Comics’),. Roma: Edizioni Psicoanalisi Contro.
Moore, A. (1988), ‘Introduction’ to A. Moore and D. Lloyd (1990), V for Vendetta (1st ed. [1982-
’83], in Warrior, issues 1-26, March 1982 ff. London: Quality Communications, Ltd). New York:
DC Comics (It. trans. [2002], Ariccia [RM]: Magic Press).
Moore, A. (et al.) (1996-98), Supreme, issues 41-56. Image Comics/Maximum Press/Awesome
Entertainment.
Moore, A. and Campbell, E. (1991-’96), From Hell, issues 1-10, March 1991 ff. Mad
Love/Thundra/Kitchen Sink (It. trans. [2005], Ariccia [RM]: Magic Press).
Moore, A. and —Gibbons, D. (1986-’87), Watchmen, New York: DC Comics (En. ed. [1987],
London: Titan Books).
Moore, A., Leach, G. et al. (1982-’89), Marvelman in Warrior, issues 1-21. London: Quality
Communications, Ltd.
Moore, A., Leach, G. et al. (1982-’89), Miracleman, issues 1-7 and 9-16. Guerneville—Forestville:
Eclipse Comics.
Moore, A. and Lloyd, D. (1990), V for Vendetta (1st ed. [1982-83], in Warrior, issues 1-26.
London: Quality Communications, Ltd). New York: DC Comics (It. trans. [2002], Ariccia [RM]:
Magic Press).
Moore, A.—Veitch, R. and —Bissette, S. (1993), 1963, issues 1-6. Berkeley: Image Comics.
Nietzsche, F. (1885), Also sprach Zarathustra (It. trans. [2002], Così parlò Zarathustra). In Id.,
Opere filosofiche, vol. I. Torino: UTET).
— (1886), Jenseits von Gut und Böse (It. trans. [2003], Al di là del bene e del male). In Id., Opere
filosofiche, vol. II. Torino: UTET).
Pellitteri, M. (2010), ‘From Daddy Warbucks to the Watchmen: General notes on ideology in
popular comics,’ presented at the conference Magus: Transdisciplinary approaches to the work of
Alan Moore, University of Northampton (United Kingdom), May 28-29.

______
7
 8

Pustz, M. J. (1999), Comic Book Culture: Fanboys and True Believers, Jackson: University Press of
Mississippi.
Wertham, F. (1954), The Seduction of the Innocent, New York: Rinehart & Co.
Wolf-Meyer, M. (2003), ‘The World Ozymandias Made: Utopias in Superhero Comics,’ in Journal
of Popular Culture, vol. 36, issue 3, Winter, 497-517.
Wright, B. W. (2001), Comic Book Nation: The Transformation of Youth Culture in America.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
i
Alan Moore began his reflection on superheroes in the early 1980s with Marvelman (Aicardi 2006: 27-31 and 100-1).
ii
There are many examples of psychologists who, by venturing away from their usual areas of interest, unconsciously and with a
certain degree of superficiality, have tried to find in comics causes of deviance of their readers. Obviously, Wertham 1954 is an
emblematic example; in the Italian context, cf. Mongai 1983.
iii
The present work takes for granted a reader’s knowledge of the work Watchmen and of the other major works of Alan Moore. As a
starting point for a critical reflection cf. Hughes 2006.
iv
For a detailed discussion of Moore’s career, cf. Aicardi 2006. It is worth noting that Moore and other authors with similar cultural
and narrative strategies have often published their innovative works for popular publishers. The case of Moore is emblematic: he
has always produced his most important works for big publishers, and between 1993 and 2001 has written an extensive amount of
stories for Image—publisher otherwise mostly known for the inconsequential hyperspectacularity of its comic book series. Moore
did not just write miniseries or cycles of stories under his total control (which allowed him to discuss metanarrative issues of a
certain completeness and relevance) but also individual stories, part of hyperspectacular series such as Spawn, WildC.A.T.s, The
Maxx, Youngblood. In these stories, probably written for curiosity and/or financial needs more than anything else, one can
nevertheless notice Moore’s attempt to make a mature contribution within the narrative clichés imposed by others.
v
With the exception of a few authors like Peter David, Kurt Busiek, Joseph Michael Straczynski, Chris Claremont, Brian M. Bendis.
vi
On right wing authoritarianism in the United States cf. Altemeyer 1988.
vii
The semantic suggestion was also borrowed in the classic and illuminating Archeologie dell’immaginario (‘Archeologies of
Imagination,’ Abruzzese 1988).
viii
As a young man, Moore was member of various political left wing groups. He may have read Marx, and expecially The Capital,
documenting centuries of oppression towards the farmers and sharecroppers by English noblemen, until the Industrial Revolution
of the 18th-19th century (Marx 1867, It. trans. 1980, Chapter XXIV, ‘The so-called primitive accumulation’).
ix
Moore’s sentence is quoted from the interview in Kavanagh 2000, It. trans. Smoky Man 2000.
x
Watchmen has been called a story of ‘revisionist superheroes’ (Pustz 1999: 137). It is an effective definition and it has been used by
many. However, we should clarify that ‘revisionism,’ as it is generally understood, is a reading process very different from what
Moore did with his characters. The English author, through his vigilantes created specifically for Watchmen, does not review
superhero clichés to update them, to positively revaluate them or to lessen their impact on the history of comics; indeed, he does
quite the opposite. Moore highlights the ‘absurdities’ of superhero comics, the contribution of this genre to the definition of comics
in the cultural industry and, like I am trying to show here, the ideological concepts which have always been dominant.
xi
This ambiguous element is exploited, for example, in the stories of mutant superheroes.
xii
On this issue cf. Darius 2002, highlighting the morals of superheroes as role models.
xiii
Matthew Wolf-Meyer (2003), in particular, in an interesting contribution reckons that superheroes in general, and the vigilantes of
Watchmen in particular, are a fantastic representation of Nietzsche’s Übermensch. In my opinion, as I try to show briefly in this
closing Section, Wolf-Meyer’s interpretation needs to be revised. However, the author’s claim that Moore has conceived the
character of Ozymandias as a true Übermensch is partly shareable; partly, because it is right to say that Ozymandias is close to the
‘overhuman’ position intended by Nietzsche, but also because he has ‘limits’ which keep him firmly on the human level, as I try to
explain below. Against the opinion of Wolf-Meyer is also Kidder 2004.
xiv
Many studies have dwelt, with detailed and illuminating arguments, on the many shades of meaning related to the cultural and
narrative origin of Superman, his thick Jewish, saving, messianic symbolism. Above all cf. Coogan 2002.
xv
It is a sentence from the excerpts of the fictional novel written in Watchmen by Hollis Mason, the alter ego of the first civilian
incarnation of Nite Owl, in memory of the period in which he was active as a hero. Moore—Gibbons 1986-87, Chapter II: 30.

Contributor Details

Marco Pellitteri (Palermo 1974). Sociologist and specialist of communication. Currently a

honorary research fellow at the Faculty of Applied Social Sciences of the London Metropolitan
University. He has worked for the CERI (Sciences-Po) in Paris, the University of Trento, the IARD
Institute (Milan), the AESVI, and is currently a consultant for the ISICULT institute on cultural
industries (Rome). Author of five books on comics, animation, mass media and youths. Translator
for several publishers; for Tunué publishing house he is the scientific director of the essay series
‘Lapilli,’ ‘Lapilli Giganti,’ ‘Le virgole,’ and ‘Frizzz.’ He is also the scientific director of the annual
International Cartoonists’ Exhibition of Rapallo (Genoa). His doctorate thesis has won two prizes,
among which the 2009 ‘‘John A. Lent’ Scholarship in Comics Studies,’ an academic award
assigned by the International Comic Arts Forum. His most recent book, The Dragon and the
Dazzle: Models, Strategies, and Identities of Japanese Imagination (It. ed. Tunué 2008, Engl.
edition Tunué 2010), has been published thanks to two money grants of the Japan Foundation for
the translation and worldwide distribution. His personal e-mail address is maapee@tin.it.

______
8

View publication stats