FromWikipedia:
Dick Giordano, who had worked for Charlton Comics, suggested using a cast of old Charlton characters that had recently been acquired by DC. However, the Charlton heroes were being slowly integrated into normal DC continuity. Because Moore and Gibbons wanted to do a serious storyline in which some of the newly acquired characters would die and the world would be drastically altered by story's end, using the Charlton heroes was not feasible. Giordano then suggested that Moore and Gibbons simply start from scratch and create their own characters. So while certain characters in Watchmen are loosely based upon the Charlton characters (such as Dr. Manhattan, who was inspired by Captain Atom; Rorschach, who was based upon the Question; and Nite Owl, who was loosely based on the Blue Beetle as well as Batman), Moore decided to create characters that ultimately would only casually resemble their Charlton counterparts.
Well there goes my finely constructed (or is that deconstructed?) thesis. Now I will never get that PhD.! Just kidding, I already have a MA and do not want to go back to school again, ever (unless I am the one at the front facing the students instead of the one at the front facing the lecturn).
Anyway, the Rorschach and Nite Owl characters do bear more than a passing resemblance to The Question and Blue Beetle. The can be no doubt that Moore and Lloyd based R/NO on ?/BB. I am still fond of my whole psychotic, split personality Batman idea (but mostly 'cause it's mine, bwahahahahaha), and it does make sense in a intertextual way; and I think that the argument gets stronger as the past relationship is revealed and the new relationship is developed (pre- and post-Keane Act). As Nite Owl is drawn deeper into the conspiracy Rorschach has uncovered, he continually acts as a restraining force, dulling the violence that Rorschach has (and continues to) indulge in. Nite Owl interrogates, Rorschach snaps fingers (which is something I can see Batman doing). Two semi-opposing personalities working together for a common goal. In the case of Batman, we can see these two influences as well (I really should re-read
Dark Knight and
Watchmen again with an eye for this). In Miller's
Dark Knight we see in Batman/Bruce Wayne a constant struggle between the opposing personalities of restraint (old, pre-retirement, pre-Richard/Robin death) and the ultra-violent (new, post-retirement Mutant fighting, Joker killing, Superman stomping). This, were I asked, is the core of the narrative of
Dark Knight. Batman has always been a violent character; he relies on violence (and a hefty dose of intelligence, but those things are often found together) where other superheroes rely on their powers. In fact, one could argue that Batman
must be violent, it is the only way he can compete. Anyway, I digress.
I think that there is some meat there for the enterprising essayist. If I ever get to meet Moore, I will ask him (yeah, like
that will happen).
