who's you favorite watchman?

[Silk Spectre]

I liked Doctor Manhattan the best. In some odd way I could relate to the character.

 

[Crashley]

My favorite is Rorschach closely followed by the Comedian. However I was a bit surprised at how many people favor Nite Owl II for I personally dislike him. For he is rather awkward socially and misunderstands Rorschach. Also he would not be nearly as valued without his gadgets, while others suffice without such toys.

 

[BubbaGump]

I liked Doctor Manhattan the best. In some odd way I could relate to the character.

You like having your wang hang out all the time?

 

[Gexmeister]

NiteOwl II is actually my favourite. I think in some ways he's the more human one among them, with his porblems with impotence, etc. Besides, he reminds of batman, and that's always a good thing

 

[Silk Spectre]

You like having your wang hang out all the time?

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have a wang.

 

[QueenChaos]

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have a wang.

^ lol

I personally like Rorschach best, but all characters seem to have qualities which i'm interested in for some reason or another.

 

[Comics N' Toons]

dr. manhattan & the comedian (if I want somone lik Rorschach, i just read THE QUESTION)

 

[Drizzle]

My favorites are Rorschach and Nite-Owl (Dreiberg). Rorschach is the most interesting of the group, and Dan's got the best gadgets. I actually love all of the characters except for Ozymandias. He just never appealed to me.

 

[Closerframe]

My favorite is Ozymandias he was pretty much the only true hero besides Nite Owl II. Vedit's clothing and history is so rich and he can be compared to Julius Caser and Alexander. He is the all time best.

 

[gap5ewl]

I just finished the book and I think the most interestin characters are

Rorschach-A little mentally unstable but also very intelligent and probally the most truest hero

Spoiler

He was the only one who planned to reveal what really happened in New York

Silk-Spectre-So strange everyone here ignores her (my guess is because she's women). Laurie in particular is interesting because of her complex relationship with her mother, Manhattan and Comedian. Her speech with Manhattan at the Mars palace was one of the best scenes in the novel and shows her to be much more intelligent then we thaught.

Dr. Manhattan- Don't really need to explain this one. Very fascinating

The Comedian- He's particulary interesting because he starts of as looking like a scumbag, but at the same time there's something about him that makes you like him. It's like he knew more thant he was willing to admit.

 

[squeekness]

Rorschach was my favourite. He has a great look and is pure bad ass. After that its Dr. Manhattan, and the 2nd nite owl

I guess it's no fluke that my favorite was Rorscharch as well. I am a Wolverine fan. I like my heroes a little dirty and rough around teh edges. I loved how he kept going into the houses of the people he questioned and would just help himself to their food and booze. Priceless.

 

[thedanmachine]

I have to go with The Comedian. His character is not so much deep as it is interesting to me. He pretty much represents stereotypical foreign countries views of America as this over powering, loud, and sometimes brutal force.

 

[Anubis]

Doctor Manhattan.....Because I DO like having my wang hanging out at all times.

 

[Silk Spectre]

All this talk about the docs wang has me wondering. You know that part where Laurie kisses/licks his finger and says something comparing it to licking a battery. Well I think you get my drift.....

 

[DarkReflections]

my top 3 favorite crimebusters are:

1. Rorschach
2. Dr. Manhattan
3. The Comedian

 

[SuperSarah!]

my top 3 favorite crimebusters are:

1. Rorschach
2. Dr. Manhattan
3. The Comedian

same here

 

[November Rain]

As a hero, i do like hollis mason, he never really did anything wrong but i guess he counts as a minute man

as for the new breed, I have to say it was the comedian...

even though he was a nasty bastard who was a government dude who did vengeance killed, dude knew where the line was.

Everyone else was willing to let adrian get away with it except for rorscharch who wouldn't let himself get away with it due to his moral code.

eddie is a flawed being but accepted his flaw and learnt to ultimately carry the guilt but couldn't live with his way of life being destroyed (the american dream).

he couldn't stomach the lie and he never stomached the lie, he was all seeing, nearly even more so than dr manhatten.

It's a shame all we get pretty much are negative bias about the comedian, i continually wish to seek the redeeming qualities in him but maybe because not many are shown, i naturally am more willing than i would be normally.

 

[John Galt]

You have no understanding of Objectivism, and Moore had very little. Rand was not a racist in any way, shape or form. She wrote flat out that racism is stupid, not to mention unprofitable. But when you believe in freedom you have to allow people to be stupid. Her point was that the government has no right to interfere with who a business is willing to serve or employ, and I agree with this 100 percent. It is affirmative action that is the joke. It's like the saying, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I support your right to say it." Her position was always to hire the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender. Affirmative action undermines this.

I agree that she had some sexual issues, but I think that is mostly irrelevant to her philosophy. I don't think she was okay with rape, she just liked powerful men. Not brutal men, like the Comedian, powerful, like Jon or Ozy before he goes off the deep end.

Oh and my favorite character is obviously Rorschach.

I think the Moore quote was dead on, Objectivism is a bad joke. Rand was very racist and espoused her views openly. You don't particularly get that from Objectivism itself, but if you look into her other writings and speeches she was quite unpalateable, especially in today's politically correct world.

I guess it depends on what you equate as racist. Rand would say things like I think anyone should be able to discriminate against anyone and if you don't want a Black in your store throw them out and if you hate Jews refuse to sell to them. She stated that civil rights were unimportant that it was more important that you should be able to treat people the way you choose, because after all it is the rights of the individual that is is important and if they choose to discriminate that is their right.

She also hated homosexuals. The fact that Rorschach had very deep sexual problems is also very Randian. Considering Rand had some real sexual issues of her own making statements in her books like... a woman in chains was the definition of femininity, and constantly depicting her female characters being raped but somehow enjoying it.

She also hated Native American's and stated in interviews that they were savages and deserved to be beaten by the white man, and that it was the White man's destiny to bring civilization to the continent and that Natives still today deserved nothing and should be forced to stay on reservations or assimilate.

Her philosophy promotes individual morality and ethics based on whatever the individual chooses with no absolutes, or principals and nothing is sacred , so if the individual chooses to be a racist and that makes them happy then kuddos for them.

It is also easy to point a finger at her in a racist conversation in conjunction with her views on WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, which in all instances she said it would have been morally fine to have let the Nazis, Fascist and communists of those wars take over whatever they wanted because those people were of no benefit to America. She believed that America or any country should never help another in war unless they were attacked. Unless of course you are able to steal a whole continent from tribal people because that sort of war would stimulate her ultimate belief, which was a pure laissez faire capitalist society.

Apathy toward the world's Hitlers but believing in manifest destiny in the name of the dollar doesn't help her to not look like a racist hater... but selfishness, lack of empathy and apathy are the foundation of her beliefs... that and being able to make as much money as possible.

When compared to the John Birch Society she said she agreed with their views but they needed to promote capitalism more. If ever a group has been labeled as racist it is the John Birchers and her beef with them was they weren't capitalist enough not that they were the Klan in business suits.

Please, Ayn was a racist's racist as well as a homophobe and a sexual deviant, not to mention selfish and greedy, uncaring and ammoral.

Granted she is one of the greatest novelist of all time, but she had some serious ethical, moral and political problems.

 

[Sandman138]

You have no understanding of Objectivism, and Moore had very little. Rand was not a racist in any way, shape or form. She wrote flat out that racism is stupid, not to mention unprofitable. But when you believe in freedom you have to allow people to be stupid. Her point was that the government has no right to interfere with who a business is willing to serve or employ, and I agree with this 100 percent. It is affirmative action that is the joke. It's like the saying, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I support your right to say it." Her position was always to hire the best person for the job, regardless of race or gender. Affirmative action undermines this.

All of this is well and good until you find out about how happy she was to take on the role of cult leader of her merry band of "enlightened" men and blacklist anybody who pissed her off. Her whole failed relationship with her "proof of concept" Nathaniel Branden should be a tip that her philosophy was far too idealistic for her to even reconcile with herself regardless of whether you think it was a crock of **** to begin with; and make no mistake, a philosophy that contains its conclusions in its premises as blatantly as Objectivism does deserves the title of crock of ****.

 

[John Galt]

and make no mistake, a philosophy that contains its conclusions in its premises as blatantly as Objectivism does deserves the title of crock of ****.

Maybe the wrong place to continue this discussion, but can you elaborate on this? Why is this bad and how is Objectivism guilty of it? Aren't conclusions supposed to recap hypotheses/premises?

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

1. Rorschach
2. The Comedian
3. Dr. Manhattan

 

[Alex The Bloody]

like someone said earlier even though i have completely conflicting beliefs i would have to say Rorschach. i admire his never compromise your beliefs attitude

the rest would go like this

1. NiteOwl II
2.Dr. Manhattan
3.The Comedian
4.Silk-Spectre
5.ozzy

 

[Eggyman]

Rorschach.

By far.

 

[-Arya-]

Rorschach.

By far.

Agreed. None of the others come close IMO.

 

[DrawingBlanks]

It's fairly predictable by this point: Rorschach. t: There are good reasons why he is well-liked; Moore invested a lot of time into the character's back story and role, he is a representative of the morally ambiguous vigilante archetype that people gravitate towards, and of course, he's a badass (Which ties into the vigilante thing.)

My reasons for liking Rorschach tend to revolve around his character development, and moral ambiguity.
In terms of character development, he is quite well fleshed out. We see his childhood, which plants the seeds for the Rorschach persona that emerges later on, we see him as a fairly normal man when he first gets into the hero business, and then we see him transform into the ruthless, uncompromising vigilante.
What interests me is how this actually works, because in spite of a harsh childhood, he is relatively normal in his adult years prior to the transformation. As Rorschach, we see Kovacs having an unusual aversive tendency towards women - though in earlier years, he handles and works with women's clothing without flinching and is in part motivated to become a hero because of the murder of Kitty Genovese, for whom his dress was supposedly meant for. Generally, we don't actually see any abnormalities in what we're shown of the time period, though we see it from the modern Rorschach's viewpoint, and his opinion is jaded for obvious reasons. And of course, he operated much like a normal hero back then, not murdering at the drop of a hat and seeming to believe in the usual heroic morals to some degree.
But then he fully becomes Rorschach, and all of these odd insecurities and issues rooted from his childhood emerge, and he sort of embraces them - he does not see them as flaws or as peculiarities within himself, and does not consider them abnormal. So it's interesting (To me, anyway) to wonder who the real Walter Kovacs is: the well-adjusted Kovacs of late-teens/early-adult years, or the maladjusted Rorschach Kovacs whose persona is directly influenced by his formative years as a child?
I also particularly like the parts of the story where he apologizes to Dan after the outburst and shows an understanding of how difficult a person he is to deal with, and when he refrains from further intimidating and threatening the woman in his apartment building when he takes notice of the children. It demonstrated a human side to Kovacs, and I like how Moore further reiterated the shades of gray theme by showing these instances of Rorschach showing some sense of empathy and restraint where one would not otherwise expect the character to.

And that sort of thing contributes to why I like this character the most.

Very well said.