The real origins of Mr. A/The Question/Rorschach

[Captainhulk]

I don't know if anyone has seen this.

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/296/

 

[RustyCage]

Very interesting... Did anybody else make the connection with the 'no gray/black and white' to Rorschach, and the non-colored version of the lady in the spotted black and white dress as well? t: Brilliant.

Never compromise.. gray is a choice toward corruption. Rorschach may be the only good guy in the book now that I think about it.

 

[Axtech]

Very interesting... Did anybody else make the connection with the 'no gray/black and white' to Rorschach, and the non-colored version of the lady in the spotted black and white dress as well? t: Brilliant.

Never compromise.. gray is a choice toward corruption. Rorschach may be the only good guy in the book now that I think about it.

Rorschach is a character who refuses to see anything other than black and white in a book about how the world is painted in shades of gray.

 

[RustyCage]

I don't think so. He sees the gray, he just doesn't forgive it as the rest of the heroes do.. he wouldn't forgive Ozymandias. Gray is a choice toward black, it's an act of evil. Even if the intent seems like it's for a greater good, it costs your innocence, it dirties your hands, it's not right. I completely understand and agree with him. Sure there are different shades of gray, and Rorschach would logically react accordingly. Kind of like the difference between the way he handled the rapist compared to the scum at the bar. Rorschach is more intelligent than people seem to give him credit for, even outside of the book. Unfortunate.

 

[laudanum09]

i agree rustycage. what makes him so admirable is that he has such great fidelity to his own ethics. in that sense he is pure in a perverted way, maybe suggesting that purity in general has a perverse ground. I like how much he values truth above all else. It's absolutely insane in the end, everyone is put into this really terrible ethical compromise, a choice between crap and crappier (something americans are used to!) and they choose practically.

Rorschach is admirable because he sees the BS behind the entire dichotomy and refuses to play the game. Rather than choosing to support the coddling of humanity into unity, I think despite some of his words, he is respecting the integrity of humanity more than veidt. he wants them to have to face things without any machinations or illusion. very awesome, makes his death that much sadder.

 

[The Mighty Wind]

It might be admirable but its also a wholly stupid (or more accurately, insane) way of approaching the world. Rorschach causes an inordinate amount of harm to the world around him, is needlessly cruel in punishing those who break his own (often subjective) moral standards, and discards many of the personal freedoms that allow humans to exist. He breaks a man's fingers for saying he stinks and you view him as a model for morality?

 

[MonBeeb]

Rorschach is admirable

The entire point of Rorschach's character is that he is not admirable. His philosophy is fundamentally flawed in the most extreme way possible. Of all the major characters in Watchmen (with the exception of maybe the Comedian), Rorschach is the least sympathetic. He's not supposed to be admirable. We're not supposed to like him. We're supposed to see what a twisted idiot he is.

 

[StorminNorman]

People believing that Rorschach is "admirable" miss the point entirely.

 

[BirdsDoThus]

The entire point of Rorschach's character is that he is not admirable. His philosophy is fundamentally flawed in the most extreme way possible. Of all the major characters in Watchmen (with the exception of maybe the Comedian), Rorschach is the least sympathetic. He's not supposed to be admirable. We're not supposed to like him. We're supposed to see what a twisted idiot he is.

This isn't true either. You guys AREN'T supposed to see the character in black and white. While we are supposed to note that he IS flawed and IS a lunatic at this point, he still has a lot of good qualities. He could have thrown off his morals like the Comedian when he realized how bleak everything was, but he didn't. Bitterly almost, and to an irate level even, he follows his code the the T. Rorschach is the only one who wont compromise himself. He is the only one who never gave up because he didn't have permission to fight the unjust anymore. These are all admirable things, and they sit right next to the parts of him that are NOT admirable.

 

[MonBeeb]

This isn't true either. You guys AREN'T supposed to see the character in black and white. While we are supposed to note that he IS flawed and IS a lunatic at this point, he still has a lot of good qualities. He could have thrown off his morals like the Comedian when he realized how bleak everything was, but he didn't. Bitterly almost, and to an irate level even, he follows his code the the T. Rorschach is the only one who wont compromise himself. He is the only one who never gave up because he didn't have permission to fight the unjust anymore. These are all admirable things, and they sit right next to the parts of him that are NOT admirable.

I definitely do not think Rorschach is supposed to be sympathetic. He inadvertently created a character archetype that Moore completely detests. He might have a few admirable qualities but that doesn't mean he's a character that's supposed to be admired. He's supposed to be disturbing. A subversion of the superhero archetype. A savior that we don't look up to as a God.

We are not supposed to like Rorschach. That's the entire point of his character. He's disgusting. If he wasn't disgusting, the question of "Who watches the watchmen" wouldn't come up. The entire punch of the story is rendered moot. If superheroes are likable then why should we care that they have power?

 

[BirdsDoThus]

I definitely do not think Rorschach is supposed to be sympathetic. He inadvertently created a character archetype that Moore completely detests. He might have a few admirable qualities but that doesn't mean he's a character that's supposed to be admired. He's supposed to be disturbing. A subversion of the superhero archetype. A savior that we don't look up to as a God.

We are not supposed to like Rorschach. That's the entire point of his character. He's disgusting. If he wasn't disgusting, the question of "Who watches the watchmen" wouldn't come up. The entire punch of the story is rendered moot. If superheroes are likable then why should we care that they have power?

I don't think he is a huge favorite because he is a classic hero. I think it is the opposite. He is liked because he is so disturbing.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

The most sympathetic thing about Rorschach is his upbringing. When we see how screwed up his life was as a child, our hearts go out to him.

When we see him in tears, asking Dr. Manhattan to do him in, our hearts go out to him because it's the culmination of one truly screwed up life. He's done some good things, but he's also done plenty of bad.

Rorschach is actually a pathetic character, when you look at him. The idea that he actually thought he could take on Adrian Veidt was just preposterous. The idea that he thought he could beat up muggers and rapists, and intimidate lowlifes in the hopes of making a difference is just sad.

 

[November Rain]

rorsarch was probably the greyest character in the entire book.

he failed to see the bigger picture of everything and was able to use violent acts to punish violent people effectively becoming that he wished not to be.

He also was happy to advocate violent acts towards people 'he' saw as guilty.

It's funny, when i first read watchmen and I saw those dogs eating those bones, it never occured to me that they were eating up a dead child. He saw this and punished that dude accordingly. He ultimately sees what he wants to see which is the bad in people.

with this repect, his mask should be fully black rather than black and white.

he is beyond good or evil, he is ultimately righteous and unwilling to answer for his actions.

I do think all the characters in the watchmen book are somewhat heroes and all ultimately had the same goal but rather looked upon it on different scales and their perception of what was to blame for the problems in society differed as well, not to mention their ways of dealing with it.

the problem with rorscharch was that he never dealt with the core problem and he would always be needed while missing out on the larger scale problems.

the comedian saw his allegiance to the government and happily played the political tool while like any politician saw himself above the normal laws of you and I while saw the problems of america purely being issues with others (other nations other powers) and acted out rather than wanting to deal with things within.

The problem with adrian was he was willing to sacrifice others and take on the big problem without accepting responsibility for it, ultimately tricking the world is not going to solve problems rather postpone them

dr manhatten's problem is he was capable of seeing all of this and ultimately knew with all his powers he could make no real difference to it all and rejected himself from all forms of responsibility

the whole spectrum is there and the viewers can relate to each hero type with one specifically capturing them.

the great thing about dr manhatten's final words is that even though it's supposed to say adrian won't have the long lasting peace he wished for, he also implies that the brink of nuclear war that was on the cars may not have ever happened in the first place to me which kinda puts the character in his place. Adrian wanted grandure but he can never get it because he didn't earn it, and he knows it and he'll forever be doubtful of his actions.

 

[MonBeeb]

I don't think he is a huge favorite because he is a classic hero. I think it is the opposite. He is liked because he is so disturbing.

Well, yeah, but that's why Moore detests the Anti-hero archetype, which Rorschach essentially spawned. We're not supposed to like a character like Rorschach. Moore never expected that we would.

He's my favorite Watchmen character but I definitely don't think he's "admirable" in any respect.

 

[BirdsDoThus]

Well, yeah, but that's why Moore detests the Anti-hero archetype, which Rorschach essentially spawned. We're not supposed to like a character like Rorschach. Moore never expected that we would.

He's my favorite Watchmen character but I definitely don't think he's "admirable" in any respect.

See, I dunno...I don't really get that.

Take the Comedian. Do you like him during the course of the novel? No! Most people despise him. We only see the ugly, crude side. We only see the rapist. We only see him shooting pregnant woman. But somehow, it all begins to make sense. You get further insight into the character, and while you do not necessarily forgive and forget you just...understand. He is one of the top favorites out of all the characters it is safe to say.

It is the exact opposite with Rorschach. You find out the ugliness after the fact, after you become attached. The story begins from his point of view, with his Journal entry narrating the world for us. Right away it feels like it is the whole world again him, and in turn us. And even when you realize all the crazy principles, and all the hypocritical things he does, there is still that redemption in that character. There is still him holding onto justice by his fingertips, as he said to Dan, the only way you can survive on the edge.

So to say you aren't supposed to like the character seems a little absurd. Moore is a phenomenal writer, if he wanted us to hate the guy...we would hate the guy. Are you supposed to worship him and want to be like him? I mean, kind of no, considering. But it is not incorrect for people to enjoy and celebrate the character, for all of his insane flaws.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

But do you really get attached to Rorschach at the start of the novel? Sure, we're in his head, but do we automatically like what he has to say? Maybe he speaks to the adolescent in all of us--which was probably the target market at the time this graphic novel was released--and, in a Holden Caufield way we can relate to Rorschach's angst, but Alan Moore himself said that the he never expected people to see this character as the "hero." I think hate is too strong a word in this instance.

One of the first things we see Rorschach do is break an innocent man's finger in order to extract information. We see the way he's basically a little bully that goes around scaring people into "respecting" him. He (literally) wallows in his own muck and is a "small picture" person to the highest degree. While it's always admirable to see someone stick to their convictions, it's also Rorschach's greatest weakness: his inability to truly grow and adapt to the world around him. He was permanently stained by his experiences, and has never truly healed. That was the lesson of the entire story of him and Dr. Long. Dr. Long let Rorschach's mindset get him down momentarily, but just before his death he was able to reach past it and confront the world, not let it corrupt his humanity, much like Rorschach let it corrupt his own.

While Rorschach confronts certain aspects of his little world, he is much like Dr. Manhattan in that he lost touch with what makes him human. It wasn't until the very end that my heart went out for him when we see tears in his eyes, asking to be killed by God himself. He probably knew he was too far gone to be saved, and a person like Rorschach has no place in Veidt's new world--much like the Comedian.

And to follow up on November Rain's brilliant post, I think that's really the brilliance of this book. We're given all of these complex characters, we're sucked into their worlds, we see where they are coming from and how they've arrived there, and we see how they respond to this crazy world around us. If you really think about it, Dan and Laurie are the role models here. They were able to constantly adapt to their environment, even after the squid attack. I mean Dan doesn't even feel like a complete man unless he's doing something heroic!

 

[BirdsDoThus]

You have some excellent points to make. I think a lot of confusion comes because the argument doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T like Rorschach, just perhaps not like him for certain reasons (Like him being an anti-hero, as was mentioned).

What I keep coming back to is how just a few pages in, the explanation of his death was set up. The amount of set up is just incredible. It happens right after he has tried to warn everyone of the Comedians death, and no one really cares. "Why does one death matter against so many? Because there is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of armageddon I shall not compromise this."

Motive for how the end plays out a mere few pages into the book. Superb.

 

[MonBeeb]

So to say you aren't supposed to like the character seems a little absurd. Moore is a phenomenal writer, if he wanted us to hate the guy...we would hate the guy. Are you supposed to worship him and want to be like him? I mean, kind of no, considering. But it is not incorrect for people to enjoy and celebrate the character, for all of his insane flaws.

People can enjoy the character. I definitely do. But if you think of him as "admirable" then I think that's kind of missing the point of his character. He's not supposed to be admired. He's not a hero. We're not supposed to rationalize him. He is such an extremist that all by himself he makes the point that we need somebody watching the watchmen.

By Rorschach's own creed, Rorschach is "evil."