Stolen Pixels #160: Rorschach Interview, Part 2

[WhiteTigerShiro]

Personally, I ended up liking Rorschach because of

Spoiler

how he dies. He's pretty much the ultimate tragic hero, with every move he makes leading up to him dying for refusing to back down about Ozymandias' plan.

It kind of made up for how he was a complete dick to everyone.

Yeah, I have to agree.

Spoiler: Zomg Watchmen Spoilers

When I read that part of the comic I had to kinda take a moment of silence to reflect on the situation and decide whether or not it felt like a situation I'd have agreed with. But then I'm of the firm belief that killing is an absolute last-ditch effort. It also makes you wonder if Rorschach was so willing to die because he knew he'd already left his journal behind anyway. >.>

Also, just throwing this out there, but I absolutely hated how the movie ruined that moment by having Night Owl do the generic "NO!", complete with the dropping to his knees. But I'll stop there before I really go on a thing about the movie.

 

[qbanknight]

your analysis of Rorschach makes a lot of sense. he shows bravery to bring back a desolate world as he marches on towards oblivion is almost like the story of Christ. only difference between the two is that Rorschach's journey has eaten his mind. this is also what separates him from any other superhero, he's essentially off the brink and completely insane. he's abandoned his real name and alter ego in favor of his costume, his "face". moore was spot on in creating a character like him, since now many other super heroes have this conflict in several of their movies (The Dark Knight and Spider-man 2)

 

[domicius]

Rorschach is plain crazy.... but I don't believe he internally monologues. My reading (hah) was thta in the comic we're reading his journal on "playback" while he goes through the panels in "real time".

Beyond that, Rorschach is a badass, but he also expresses the black & white morality of comic book heroes. He kills and maims those whom he judges to be evil, with little thought as to degree. It's the reason he can't exist in Oz's world at the end - he couldn't compromise his principles to allow for a peaceful world.

But his mask is the coolest thing ever.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Always nice to see Rorschach make an appearance, though it's always annoying when the inevitable Batman comparison comes up.

Rorschach is not Batman [http://drownyourself.com/?p=590] - Moore might have specifically told us he was supposed to represent a Batman-like character if he was in the real world, but Moore is frankly full of it. Read the link and tell me that fellow's analysis is off-track.

Rorschach has far far more in common with the Punisher, except he doesn't use guns.

 

[Robyrt]

I think people like Rorschach because he was right all along - the same paranoia and unflinching goals that make him a dangerous psychopath also let him figure out what's going on long before Nite Owl and the rest of the crew. Clearly he belongs in the madhouse, but he's the protagonist.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Rorshach was intended by Alan Moore to be a sort of "Straw Objectivist", actually, as it's Moore's personal belief that "extreme" ideologies don't and can't work. He said (and you'll have to look up where yourself, I think there was an interview about it) that Rorshach was, in many ways, his response to the sort of writing that Steve Ditko did, Ditko being (sort of) an Objectivist.

Semi-Objectivist-ish characters get this sort of response all the time because just about everyone recognizes on some level that consistency, determination, focus, strong ethics, etc. are all *extremely valuable traits* and *necessary* if one is to accomplish goals instead of just accident-ing one's way through life. The homophobia, paranoia, etc. are incidental traits thrown on as an attempt to "kick the dog" and show that Rorshach is not *supposed* to be a real protagonist. However, this aspect of his characterization (particularly in the movie, where it's all tell, don't show) is completely unimportant and most people recognize it as such.

Authors with mixed or just outright bad philosophical premises (like Moore) often have this problem: those they intended to portray as villains wind up being much more engaging and interesting than the characters they intended to be heroes, or at least protagonists. Add in the fact that most people's philosophies are impossible to enact in real life and the heroes end up as wishy-washy inconsistent twerps while the villains are righteous badasses.

 

[erbkaiser]

Repulsed by Rorschach's behaviour? Far from it. I agree with his actions in a lot of ways -- criminals have placed themselves outside of the law, so they cannot expect its protection either.
Without going into spoiler territory for those three people that have never seen the movie or read the novel, the way Rorschach deals with the last criminal before he is considered to have gone insane (the dog lover) is something I applaud.

It is the boyscout characters I really despise. Someone letting a murderer or child rapist walk over a technicality so they can continue their actions ought to be held equally responsible for all the crimes committed by that person.

CYOA statement: I know this isn't "PC" and am not advocating vigilantism, but I can understand it.

 

[Mysnomer]

I like how you work in the diary/inner-monologue element. I'll keep my opinions of Rorschach to myself, but I will say I'm enjoying this arc.

 

[Eldarion]

Rorschach was THE BEST character in watchmen.

 

[Callate]

The scene in prison that highlights Rorshach's ferocious competence does a lot to boost the character in people's esteem, I think. Stripped even of his costume, Rorshach is still a formidable force.

There's also no question that people, including myself, find a lot to admire in adherence to one's principles even in the face of certain death. I think what many people find most repellant in others' political philosophies, especially ones they think "extreme" is a sense that they have all these grand plans for how the world "ought" to be that demand that other people make all the sacrifices. (Don't pat yourself on the back presuming I'm talking about your political opposite.) However repellant or "extreme" Rorshach's views might be, he adheres to them no matter the cost, and obviously it's cost him a lot.

Next paragraph discusses the ending, so up go the spoiler-screens.

Spoiler

The ending really raises a couple of questions in my mind that I'm not at all sure the author wanted to engage. One, if Rorshach is capable of spoiling Ozymandius' plot with his journal- which seems a likely outcome- how much are we really to buy into Ozymandius' awesome genius, complete with what amounts to the supposed ability to outguess and predict the actions of two thirds of the world's population? Is Rorshach, ultimately, the real winner of the battle?

Secondly, and more grimly, if humanity is really so bent on self-destruction that it cannot continue to endure without a mutual enemy on which to focus its hostility (a premise, outside the comic, which I do not necessarily agree with), does it deserve to be saved at all?

 

[Aptspire]

I liked Rorshach for those reasons

 

[DeadAccountMoveAlong]

Rorschach, along with the other entirely correct things my peers said, had the best monologue/narration. Dr. Manhattan had the worst DEAR GOD. It was interesting, nevertheless.
I liked the Comedian the best >> judge me how you will.

 

[thenamelessloser]

How the heck could Rorschach be considered the most reprehensible of the watchmen? Has anyone read the comic or seen the movie? Yeah, he was homophobic (which I'm not sure they even mention in the movie version) and crazy, but when compared to some of the others, his actions pale in comparison...

Spoiler

Did Rorschach rape or kill women he got pregnant like the Comedian did? Did he kill millions of people (even though it was done to try to stop the Cold War)? For the latter I guess you could argue that Rorschach liked President Truman which made him sort of a hypocrite (even though this can be argued against since it could be the lying aspect of it which bothered Rorschach) }

 

[Prophetic Heresy]

The scene in prison that highlights Rorshach's ferocious competence does a lot to boost the character in people's esteem, I think. Stripped even of his costume, Rorshach is still a formidable force.

There's also no question that people, including myself, find a lot to admire in adherence to one's principles even in the face of certain death. I think what many people find most repellant in others' political philosophies, especially ones they think "extreme" is a sense that they have all these grand plans for how the world "ought" to be that demand that other people make all the sacrifices. (Don't pat yourself on the back presuming I'm talking about your political opposite.) However repellant or "extreme" Rorshach's views might be, he adheres to them no matter the cost, and obviously it's cost him a lot.

Next paragraph discusses the ending, so up go the spoiler-screens.

Spoiler

The ending really raises a couple of questions in my mind that I'm not at all sure the author wanted to engage. One, if Rorshach is capable of spoiling Ozymandius' plot with his journal- which seems a likely outcome- how much are we really to buy into Ozymandius' awesome genius, complete with what amounts to the supposed ability to outguess and predict the actions of two thirds of the world's population? Is Rorshach, ultimately, the real winner of the battle?

Secondly, and more grimly, if humanity is really so bent on self-destruction that it cannot continue to endure without a mutual enemy on which to focus its hostility (a premise, outside the comic, which I do not necessarily agree with), does it deserve to be saved at all?

I think it's more that humanity is focused on differences that lead to hostility. Therefore, we needed something not only hostile towards us, but completely different from us to show our only real allies we have in this universe are other humans.

Spoiler

That's why I like Veidt's plot in the comic more than the movie's. An apparently alien being teleports into New York and lets out some sort of "attack" that kills the entire population. That was good! If we thought that there was a race of aliens capable of destroying an entire city in their death throes we would sure as hell look at each other and realize that our survival as a species relies on each other.

I don't know why they changed it for the movie and, to me, it makes much less sense. Honestly, if Dr. Manhattan decided to blow up cities all over Earth what the hell could either side do about it. Did the we actually know some way to kill him? What would a U.S.-Soviet alliance do against a man who had that kind of power? Besides, I honestly think Veidt respected Dr. Manhattan too much to try and use him like that.

P.S. Adrian Veidt is not a hero, therefore I will never call him Ozymandias.

 

[Dan Shive]

It's a shame the existence of a Jay Leno model is doubtful.

 

[thenamelessloser]

Spoiler

That's why I like Veidt's plot in the comic more than the movie's. An apparently alien being teleports into New York and lets out some sort of "attack" that kills the entire population. That was good! If we thought that there was a race of aliens capable of destroying an entire city in their death throes we would sure as hell look at each other and realize that our survival as a species relies on each other.

I don't know why they changed it for the movie and, to me, it makes much less sense. Honestly, if Dr. Manhattan decided to blow up cities all over Earth what the hell could either side do about it. Did the we actually know some way to kill him? What would a U.S.-Soviet alliance do against a man who had that kind of power? Besides, I honestly think Veidt respected Dr. Manhattan too much to try and use him like that.

Spoiler

{The alien looked like a giant vagina... Also, the alien is tied into the pirate comic book a bit and the movie is already pretty long so I think the Dr. Manhattan fake attack is just easier and simpler to do for film. One thing I actually liked more about the movie than comic is that the attack was not just on New York in the movie but on multiple cities... I mean shouldn't there be suspicion maybe that it was some kind of Russian plot?

 

[ccesarano]

Stolen Pixels #160: Rorschach Interview, Part 2

The most reprehensible of the Watchmen is also the most popular. Why?

Read Full Article

In most simple terms, a lot of people like him because he's a bad ass. He is not only physically capable, but he is merciless. People see him more as a warrior.

I like him for various reasons. I think a few people may have just the right political or philosophical alignment to agree with some of what he says. I may be a political moderate, but at the time I read the comic I was in College and surrounded by loud-mouthed liberals whose ignorance was as broad as the red neck spouting idiotic hate on Obama. Hence Rorschach's opening monologue got me all giddy to read, because while it's not necessarily correct it isn't necessarily wrong either. Thus from the start Rorschach becomes a character we can like.

Also, that first issue does a lot for the story as well. As you can see from the comments, people mistake him as being the protagonist. In truth, he's merely there to kick start the narrative. He's not the protagonist, and if you were to try and pin point one you'd probably have trouble. I'd say Nite Owl is the closest thing to the hero of the story, but even that is debatable.

In an interview Alan Moore confessed that Rorschach was supposed to be a hated character due to being such an extremist. However, deep down inside all of us wish we could take extreme measures once in a while. Not to mention that it becomes revealed that Rorschach wasn't always like this. He even says he used to allow criminals to live. It's only when he is confronted by a crime so horrific that he finally and truly snaps, seeing the flaw in the system. While a character like Batman (who Nite Owl is more a reflection of) refuses to kill, believing that the system CAN work, Rorschach feels it doesn't. The criminals just deal with it until they can get out and do it again. So Rorschach finally snaps and does the only true solution: to kill them.

It's not repulsive or reprehensible. It's something we can all understand. By allowing readers to see that Rorschach is so messed up because 1) a fucked up childhood, and 2) his naive ideals being torn away by a most horrific crime, we can see the human inside of him being torn asunder until he becomes what we see in the comic. A once hero that no longer believes in the system of justice, especially since they don't hold up to his own high expectations.

By being so extreme Rorschach becomes the most interesting of all the characters. And there comes the deeper reason he resonates with fans. Not everyone thinks this hard about it, and many still hate him, but a lot of people like him because 1) he's a bad ass, and 2) he's the most interesting psychologically of all the heroes.

 

[Break]

EDIT: though I think it's interesting, Moore tries very hard to make the characters relatable, giving them very human issues. But the one character that actually is a hero all the time (almost) and doesn't seem to have a social life, is being criticized for not having a solcial life, IE being too much of a hero. If Superman didn't have a life as Clark Kent he could probably save a lot more people... (If you disagree, please don't get caught up on my comparing Rorschach to Superman... please.)

I personally find Rorschach-Superman comparisons to be one of the most interesting things to do with the character. It's the inversion of that old peculiarity about Superman; that his false identity is Clark Kent, that his identity-concealing mask is his thick glasses and well-pressed suit. Rorschach, despite being human, is so psychologically broken, that he thinks of his superhero persona as his true identity, and becoming Kovaks is something he has to endure in order to make use of ordinary day-to-day conveniences. His mask is his face, in more ways than one.

 

[llafnwod]

For the last time Rorschach isn't BATMAN, he's nothing like Batman, he's THE QUESTION taken to the ultimate extreme, not Batman. Granted to two characters have a lot in common, but the Question has always been more Hard Boiled Private Eye less Sherlock Holmes + Cape. He's also a crazy conspiracy theorist nutter, you know, like Rorschach!

In an interview for the BBC's Comics Britannia, Moore stated that Rorschach was created as a way of exploring how an archetypical Batman-type character?a driven, vengeance-fueled vigilante?would be like in the real world. He concluded that the short answer was "a nutcase."

Far be it from Alan Moore to question your judgement, though.

RR was both. He was originally designed to show both the noble and ignoble facets of Ditko's signature heroes (like The Question and Mr. A), but he was also sociopathic hobo version of Batman.

 

[Xanadu84]

I think that a major part of Rorschach is that he is supposed to be a sympathetic character in spite of his failings. You're supposed to admire his determination and dedication, as a way of seeing the good in even the most depraved of villain. I mean really, can you name an actual villain in Watchmen? There's really no good or evil people, there's just people, flawed and trying there best. A lot like real life. The Comedian might be the most villainous of the bunch, but even he has his own justifications and moral limits.

Of course, Rorschach does seem to get Carte Blanche from fans, and his redeeming qualities seem to outweigh his most obvious shortcomings. That isn't such a good thing. I grudgingly had to concede respect for him by the end, but I have to admit that seeing him blown to bits for being an extremist was kind of satisfying, because his philosophy deserved to die. Regardless, long live Ozymandias, king of kinds, look on his works ye mighty and despair!

Damn Ozy rocks.