No, it's called dyslexia.
I enjoyed Watchmen for what it was, but I still maintain that doing a direct literal adaptation of the book (which Snyder did very well for the most part) is not
the best way to go about it. It was a faithful adaptation yes; that does not necessarily translate into "good movie." What we got was an overlong, poorly paced, tonally confusing monster of a movie with, granted, quite a few awesome moments and unfortunately, more than a few moments that fell flat.
Most egregiously, I hated what they did with Ozymandias. It was way too obvious that he was supposed to be the "villain" in the movie, whereas in the book Moore went for a much more nuanced approach. Snyder by contrast had Ozymandias come across as almost cartoonishly supervillainesque. Bleah. Also, during Ozymandias' "35 minutes ago" speech, I felt nothing. Not shock, not horror.... nothing. Hell, I almost missed it, it was so nonchalantly delivered. Nonchalance isn't necessarily a bad thing, but how they framed it in the book really hit home the horror of What Had Just Happened.
On the other hand, I think Ozymandias' master plan itself worked much better in the movie. Giant Cthulu-esque squid thing? Sure, works great in the comic. Xanatos-esque plot to harness Manhattan's destructive power and at once alienate him from the human race? Y'know, I hate to say it, but it works. It works damn well. And you know what? This is exactly the kind of adaptation that I wish Snyder had done more of: Rather than literally adapting the source material, he made a clear shift away from the book in favor of something that would work better on the big screen, and it worked fine.
(And yes, you could argue that the Ozymandias-tonal-shift thing was another example of Snyder changing aspects of the book to better fit the film; the big difference here is that the Ozymandias thing didn't work for me at all, whereas the changes to the nature of his plan did. Taking risks is all well and good, but its up to you to actually make them, yknow, work).
As I said, I did enjoy the movie for what it was. But, "what it was" in this case is more of a Greatest Hits of the book, rather than a well-crafted film that stands on its own merits.