The Watchmen Movie (No Spoilers)

[StoneGold]

The hell? When did this become a personal issue with you? This has nothing to do with "moral superiority." Rorschach is a fantastic character and one that, because he's so fleshed out and so well-written, the reader can come to sympathize with and even root for (his goals, if not his actions), but his actions and his mindset are clearly that of a seriously deranged person. If you don't believe me, ask the person who created him. Moore has gone on record countless times saying that the character is meant to be a commentary on vigilantism and how it intersects with psychological damage.

Yeah, but so is everyone else in the book. You've got two psychos, two emotionless freaks with god complexes, a wimp and a rather annoying woman who smokes a crack pipe. Just going by that, there's no one to root for. Going by your previous statements, you should be cheering when Jon frags Rorschach. Except he is sympathetic. Partially because he is a mentally unbalanced headcase, and partially because Moore did his best to make him cool despite that. He's the one by far with the best costume. He gets most of the best one liners (what can I say, I love the human bean juice line). He's the one actually doing stuff throughout most of the book.

Because crazy douchebags are cool in fiction. Especially when they have a good visual and snappy patter. Even more so when they are the prime causes of action within the story.

[StoneGold]

You can cheer on his moral certainty and his uncompromising attitude, but I really don't think you're meant to cheer on the hot oil to the face or the grappling gun to the chest or ripping a kid's cheek off with his teeth.

The hot oil to the face of the guy who was threatening to murder him in prison?


Grappling gun came off differently in the movie. Frankly, I doubt it would have been as big a thing in the book without Dan talking about how he made it for him. Remove that line, it's kind of a non-event in general. The fire bit was much bigger.

And yes. Because Rorschach was being framed, it was fairly inventive, and the cops were as generic as your average stormtroopers can get.

[Tom]

Yeah, but so is everyone else in the book.

Well...yeah. That's pretty much the whole point of the book. Dan is impotent, Sally does it for sexual kicks, Jon is losing touch with humanity, Laurie's been a plaything her whole life, Eddie's a sociopath, Mothman wound up in an institution, Hooded Justice liked to beat up hustlers after sex.

The whole story was a deconstruction of the superhero genre and Moore's point was that these silly costumed heroes are all a bunch of freaks and nutjobs. One of the things that makes the book a masterpiece is that Moore still gets you to care about them and what happens to them.

[Kid Omega]

Not a Mickey Spillane fan then, I take it? Because not that different than your average Mike Hammer rant.


But whatever, I'll bow to your moral superiority. What can I say, I like rooting on psychologically damaged characters. You think R is nuts, try reading your average Ellroy novel. Or hell, even the movie. Choose between the moral rapist, the completely bent cop and the psycho muscle. But hey, they're not worth cheering on because they aren't up to your level of moral turpitude and mental health.

Geez!

Guy gets laid once and suddenly he's king Internet tough guy!

Dude, Rorshach is Mike Hammer taken to the farthest point. Hammer is a violent macho head case, but not suffering from martyr complexes and paranoid psychosis, with a touch of MPD thrown in. Rorshach is clearly a nut from the start.

[Tom]

The hot oil to the face of the guy who was threatening to murder him in prison?


Yes. Was there another hot oil to the face moment?

[StoneGold]

From the several posts that talk about audiences cheering Rorshach on, I'm guessing a lot of people don't have this facility. That they're more sheep-like and have been trained to cheer whomever the camera is focusing on.

You mean the posts where people are making random judgments on people they don't know based on nothing more than a crowd reaction during a movie? You want to show me the sociological data on that?

[StoneGold]

Yes. Was there another hot oil to the face moment?

The point being when the giant man twice your size (and you can argue whatever racial element Moore was trying to throw into the scene) threatens to kill you while you are incarcerated, you've got two options - be a bitch and get shanked in the shower, or take a little motivation. Its not like he's throwing hot grease on Laurie because he's jealous she's getting close to Dan. He's stopping a criminal from murdering him.

[Valmore]

The hot oil to the face of the guy who was threatening to murder him in prison?

Yeah, but Rorschach totally owned the guy's ass *before* he busted glass and doused the guy. It was that extra step overboard. Nobody's going to think you're a psycho for defending yourself and beating down a guy, but then frying him as finishing move?

[Kid Omega]

Yeah, but so is everyone else in the book. You've got two psychos, two emotionless freaks with god complexes, a wimp and a rather annoying woman who smokes a crack pipe. Just going by that, there's no one to root for. Going by your previous statements, you should be cheering when Jon frags Rorschach. Except he is sympathetic. Partially because he is a mentally unbalanced headcase, and partially because Moore did his best to make him cool despite that. He's the one by far with the best costume. He gets most of the best one liners (what can I say, I love the human bean juice line). He's the one actually doing stuff throughout most of the book.

Because crazy douchebags are cool in fiction. Especially when they have a good visual and snappy patter. Even more so when they are the prime causes of action within the story.

Man, with a grasp on the book as layered and thoughtful and insightful as that, you could have written the screenplay for a Zack Snyder movie!

[StoneGold]

Yeah, but Rorschach totally owned the guy's ass *before* he busted glass and doused the guy. It was that extra step overboard. Nobody's going to think you're a psycho for defending yourself and beating down a guy, but then frying him as finishing move?

OK, when you manage to hit the guy twice your size threatening to kill you, you stop after the first good blow you get in.

[Valmore]

To be fair, it is kind of mean of me to assume everyone cheering on Rorschach's psycho moves are stupid.

[Tom]

The point being when the giant man twice your size (and you can argue whatever racial element Moore was trying to throw into the scene) threatens to kill you while you are incarcerated, you've got two options - be a bitch and get shanked in the shower, or take a little motivation. Its not like he's throwing hot grease on Laurie because he's jealous she's getting close to Dan. He's stopping a criminal from murdering him.

How many times have you seen or read the exact same scene: guy in prison gets threatened by other guy in prison? Now, how many of those scenes ended with the second guy covered in boiling oil? Writers choose how their characters are going to react. Moore could have chosen dozens of other responses for the character but he chose the one that was the most disgusting and the most horrifying and he did that for a reason: to signal how fucked up this guy is.

[StoneGold]

Man, with a grasp on the book as layered and thoughtful and insightful as that, you could have written the screenplay for a Zack Snyder movie!

Well, sightly more clever than touchy touchy. Still adds nothing to the conversation, but hey, if you're gonna random snark, be my guest.

[Fenris]

You can cheer on his moral certainty and his uncompromising attitude, but I really don't think you're meant to cheer on the hot oil to the face or the grappling gun to the chest or ripping a kid's cheek off with his teeth.

That's... true, and yet somehow not complete.

It's weird that Moore wrote all of Rorschach's "heroic" scenes in a conventional, cheer-on-the-action-hero fashion; but his more disturbing moments are all ambiguous, and set up to be rationalized.

He threw oil in a guy's face? Yes, because the guy was about to stab him. He bit off a kid's ear? Yes, because he was seven years old and this teenage thug was about to molest him.

What I mean is that most of the disturbing violence is written with an "escape clause"- Moore always gives Rorschach some kind of necessary reason for doing it. Which suggests that Moore is employing the audience's sympathy for him, even as they cringe at his actions.

The one exception I can think of is his killing the dogs. That's something you almost never see- it's a guaranteed sympathy-destroyer with most audiences.

(Or at least, it used to be. It didn't seem to make much of an impact this time around.)

õ
Which is too bad!

[JeffreyWKramer]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. My point is, the very fact of all those character motivations is exactly what sets Rorshach apart from your Bronsons and Stallones. It's a signal to the audience that this isn't a vigilante you're supposed to be identifying with.

I think it's a little more complex than that, or at least was when Moore wrote it.

I think Rorschach is intended as a character with whom one might identify, but at the same time feel very uncomfortable with said identification, thus causing one to question the reasons for the identification and the discomfort, and the whole nature of the vigilante archetype.

Which is why I'd have liked the guy playing Rorschach to up the crazy quotient another notch or two.

[Dreadstar]

To be fair, it is kind of mean of me to assume everyone cheering on Rorschach's psycho moves are stupid.

I took whatever cheers and applause there was to be response to the overall scene. It is kind of a show-stopper.

[Tom]

I think it's a little more complex than that, or at least was when Moore wrote it.

I think Rorschach is intended as a character with whom one might identify, but at the same time feel very uncomfortable with said identification, thus causing one to question the reasons for the identification and the discomfort, and the whole nature of the vigilante archetype.

Which is why I'd have liked the guy playing Rorschach to up the crazy quotient another notch or two.

I can't find the quote (maybe Alex knows where it is) but Moore admitted to being "horrified" that readers were cheering Rorschach on.

You can identify with any protagonist who's written well enough, but that doesn't mean that you approve of all his actions.

[StoneGold]

How many times have you seen or read the exact same scene: guy in prison gets threatened by other guy in prison? Now, how many of those scenes ended with the first guy covered in boiling oil?

Specifically boiling oil? Not too often. Really, it's a poorly written scene from a reality standpoint, just because what prison (or any organization) is going to have the deep fryer on that side of the kitchen? It's always on the opposite wall, so that there's less of a chance of splashing hot grease on whoever is in line. If you've ever been in any lunch line ever, the deep fryer is not within arm's reach of the customer.

Now, if you're just talking about the scene ending in some kind of horrible, maiming/death situation, then plenty.

[Valmore]

OK, when you manage to hit the guy twice your size threatening to kill you, you stop after the first good blow you get in.

Maybe this is me reading more into it, but from what I remember of it, Rorschach completely owned the guy - the dude was on his knees after an ass-kicking when he got doused. Which brings up another point entirely about others have said about the hero deconstruction - it was an overkill, over-the-edge move for a hero, but Rorschach hardly qualifies for the classic term of hero anyway. Which is probably why cheering seems very inappropriate - most people don't feel you should finish a guy off in an entirely violent fashion after you've already totally kicked his ass.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It didn't help any that in the film. Dan and Jupiter were just as violent, maybe even more cold bloodedly leathal, than Rorschach. Other than inter-personal skills, I saw no difference between any of the 'heroes' actions.

I think a lot of people critiquing the other characters' violence are forgetting the way the scene with the thugs in the alley went down in the comic. It wasn't quite so graphic as in the movie, in part due to the beauty of Gibbons' line work, but hell, one of the bad guys practically got his nose ripped off.

Part of the point is that superheroes are fucking violent, and in violence, people get badly hurt.

[Fenris]

Yeah, but Rorschach totally owned the guy's ass *before* he busted glass and doused the guy. It was that extra step overboard. Nobody's going to think you're a psycho for defending yourself and beating down a guy, but then frying him as finishing move?

That was a movie/book difference. In the book, it started and finished with the cooking oil.

õ
So which is the better portrayal? Hmm!

[Tom]

I think a lot of people critiquing the other characters' violence are forgetting the way the scene with the thugs in the alley went down in the comic. It wasn't quite so graphic as in the movie, in part due to the beauty of Gibbons' line work, but hell, one of the bad guys practically got his nose ripped off.


"Practically" getting one's nose ripped off is a far cry from literally snapping a guy's arm in two or plunging a knife into a guy's neck and then using him as a shield while another guy fires at you.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Yeah, but Rorschach totally owned the guy's ass *before* he busted glass and doused the guy. It was that extra step overboard. Nobody's going to think you're a psycho for defending yourself and beating down a guy, but then frying him as finishing move?


It wasn't just about the guy he fried. Rorschach fried him as a statement to the other prisoners, along with his line about "you're locked in here with me", as part of making that same point. He arguably *wanted* to provoke the riot or some other chaotic and violent reaction he could take advantage of to dispense more of his brand of justice/vengeance.

[Valmore]

It wasn't just about the guy he fried. Rorschach fried him as a statement to the other prisoners, along with his line about "you're locked in here with me", as part of making that same point. He arguably *wanted* to provoke the riot or some other chaotic and violent reaction he could take advantage of to dispense more of his brand of justice/vengeance.

Okay, I can see that. But it still shows that the guy has a whole lot of screws loose.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I can't find the quote (maybe Alex knows where it is) but Moore admitted to being "horrified" that readers were cheering Rorschach on.

I think I remember the quote, from the COMICS JOURNAL interview, as I recall. I agree with Fenris' point, and I think Moore stacked Rorschach's portrayal so comics fans *would* identify with him, then be shocked at - and think through - just what they were identifying with, and I think he was horrified at how many people didn't take the "stop and think" step, but instead just happily cheered on the obviously dangerously ill individual.

[Kid Omega]

Well, sightly more clever than touchy touchy. Still adds nothing to the conversation, but hey, if you're gonna random snark, be my guest.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you adding? Last time I checked, getting pussy because people make legitimate points about your favorite "badass" character isn't exactly the height of intelligent discourse.

"oh shit guys... Did you read Denby's piece on the latest NEW YORKER? He called Kael a pussy for not cheering louder when Seagal kicked that dude in the face!"

[StoneGold]

Okay, I can see that. But it still shows that the guy has a whole lot of screws loose.

Oh, no doubt. But when has that been a bad thing for a movie hero? It's what Lethal Weapon was based on.


Well, technically, Rorschach's crazy is the opposite of Lethal Weapon. Mel was supposed to be a guy with nothing to lose. Rorschach is just pure reptile. Survive and stick to the mission, no matter what.

[Tom]

Last time I checked, getting pussy because people make legitimate points about your favorite "badass" character isn't exactly the height of intelligent discourse.


teh lols
___________

[JeffreyWKramer]

"Practically" getting one's nose ripped off is a far cry from literally snapping a guy's arm in two or plunging a knife into a guy's neck and then using him as a shield while another guy fires at you.

Was it over the top? Sure. But I think that was Snyder upping the ante in attempt to make the point. These days, after 300 and gazillions of other ultra-violent movies, I don't think just playing that bit out as in the book would have had the same impact with the audience.

Did he do it clumsily, and in a manner that undercut Dan's "everyman" role? Yeah. No argument there.

I think he also wanted to portray Laurie as real bad-ass, so nobody could complain about her being a weak character or whatever, when actually all he did was make her lack depth in a different way.

[SOGG]

Wait.... Jon STILL kills Rorshach in the movie? WTF?

[Asmith]

Yeah, but so is everyone else in the book. You've got two psychos, two emotionless freaks with god complexes, a wimp and a rather annoying woman who smokes a crack pipe. Just going by that, there's no one to root for.
Why the desperate need to always have someone to cheer for? There's nothing wrong with not having someone to cheer for in a story. You can still enjoy it.


You mean the posts where people are making random judgments on people they don't know based on nothing more than a crowd reaction during a movie? You want to show me the sociological data on that?
Oh that data? It's right next to your head... but don't fart, or you'll get shit on both.


OK, when you manage to hit the guy twice your size threatening to kill you, you stop after the first good blow you get in.
This seems very personal to you. Were you ever attacked in prison?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Okay, I can see that. But it still shows that the guy has a whole lot of screws loose.

Oh, yeah. Rorschach is nuts.

Like I said, I would personally have liked the movie version to come off as a bit more nuts. I didn't think his vocal mannerisms did a very good job of portraying his paranoia and obsession.

[Tom]

Was it over the top? Sure. But I think that was Snyder upping the ante in attempt to make the point. These days, after 300 and gazillions of other ultra-violent movies, I don't think just playing that bit out as in the book would have had the same impact with the audience.

Did he do it clumsily, and in a manner that undercut Dan's "everyman" role? Yeah. No argument there.

I think he also wanted to portray Laurie as real bad-ass, so nobody could complain about her being a weak character or whatever, when actually all he did was make her lack depth in a different way.

Cursed with a film school degree, I am incapable of watching a film without processing it at the same time and I remember thinking during the first couple of action scenes "I guess this is the genre convention now. If you put on a costume in a superhero movie, that automatically makes you superhuman in your fighting abilities." For a second, I was okay with it, looking at it, like I said, as a convention of the genre. But the Laurie/Dan fight scenes really undermined the characters and didn't differentiate them at all from the violent sociopathy of Rorschach, which I think is crucial to the story. Rorschach is the nutjob that outdoes all the other nutjobs.

[Valmore]

I think I remember the quote, from the COMICS JOURNAL interview, as I recall. I agree with Fenris' point, and I think Moore stacked Rorschach's portrayal so comics fans *would* identify with him, then be shocked at - and think through - just what they were identifying with, and I think he was horrified at how many people didn't take the "stop and think" step, but instead just happily cheered on the obviously dangerously ill individual.

Actually this makes a whole lot of sense, and in the director's heavy-handed way that sort of got across in the film. At times I *wanted* to like Rorschach, and I can't even say I wouldn't be tempted to cleave in a child killer's head if given the opportunity, but I probably wouldn't be able to (unless the child in question were my own, then cleaving his head in would be too good). And yet at the same time, a lot of his actions repulsed me.

This is actually making me want to pick up the graphic novel now.

[StoneGold]

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you adding? Last time I checked, getting pussy because people make legitimate points about your favorite "badass" character isn't exactly the height of intelligent discourse.

"oh shit guys... Did you read Denby's piece on the latest NEW YORKER? He called Kael a pussy for not cheering louder when Seagal kicked that dude in the face!"

Yes, I am getting pussy, ask your mom.


However, saying that people who cheered for a seen are stupid because they cheered for a character you are saying you don't like... I'm not saying it isn't a legit point, but it's an opinion, and a relatively weak one at that, as it doesn't call into factor any of the other reasons someone might be cheering for a scene.

On the other hand, dismissing someone who doesn't agree with the points that you didn't make as (what I'm assuming is supposed to be) pissy?

Now that's pussy.


Now, if you want to discuss, be my guest. Sit, we talk. If you're just trying to tear down points by some kind of weak association BS without ever actually engaging in the argument, well, nothing I can do to stop you.

[Tom]

Wait.... Jon STILL kills Rorshach in the movie? WTF?

Yeah, why not? The ending was changed but all the characters' reactions to it remained pretty much the same.

Except there had to be a big fight scene, of course.

[Asmith]

"Practically" getting one's nose ripped off is a far cry from literally snapping a guy's arm in two or plunging a knife into a guy's neck and then using him as a shield while another guy fires at you.

You're forgetting the guy who has his neck snapped, by Dan, I think.

[Kid Omega]

Yes, I am getting pussy, ask your mom.


However, saying that people who cheered for a seen are stupid because they cheered for a character you are saying you don't like... I'm not saying it isn't a legit point, but it's an opinion, and a relatively weak one at that, as it doesn't call into factor any of the other reasons someone might be cheering for a scene.

On the other hand, dismissing someone who doesn't agree with the points that you didn't make as (what I'm assuming is supposed to be) pissy?

Now that's pussy.


Now, if you want to discuss, be my guest. Sit, we talk. If you're just trying to tear down points by some kind of weak association BS without ever actually engaging in the argument, well, nothing I can do to stop you.

What the hell are you talking about?

[Tom]

Yes, I am getting pussy, ask your mom.


However, saying that people who cheered for a seen are stupid because they cheered for a character you are saying you don't like...

You really don't seem to be getting the main point. It's perfectly fine to like the character. He is, after all, arguably the main protagonist and probably has the most attention paid to his inner thoughts and backstory. That doesn't mean he was written in a way to get the audience to cheer on his acts of violence. If anything, the acts of violence were character bits, meant to illustrate how fucked up he is.

[Tom]

You're forgetting the guy who has his neck snapped, by Dan, I think.

Ah, yes. Chubby, impotent Dan, snapping necks like a pro.

[StoneGold]

Why the desperate need to always have someone to cheer for? There's nothing wrong with not having someone to cheer for in a story. You can still enjoy it.

The number of stories without a character that can by related to/sympathized with that both work and are commercially succesful are few and far between. How many can you name?


Oh that data? It's right next to your head... but don't fart, or you'll get shit on both.

Oh, that's cute, you can't have a discussion without resorting to random insults.


This seems very personal to you. Were you ever attacked in prison?

You should know. Maybe use some Vaseline next time?

[SOGG]

Yeah, why not? The ending was changed but all the characters' reactions to it remained pretty much the same.

Except there had to be a big fight scene, of course.


Well.... mainly because the reason he killed Rorshach in the book (I believe) is because although Rorshach has little credibility as a witness, he could raise some very important and non-ignorable points. If the movie has Jon being the threat, all Jon has to do is tell the people of Earth : "No, Rorshach is nuts, I really AM going to kill you all if you don't behave.".

[Valmore]

You really don't seem to be getting the main point. It's perfectly fine to like the character. He is, after all, arguably the main protagonist and probably has the most attention paid to his inner thoughts and backstory. That doesn't mean he was written in a way to get the audience to cheer on his acts of violence. If anything, the acts of violence were character bits, meant to illustrate how fucked up he is.

That part is directed at me, because in a post I did say the people cheering were stupid, when I probably should have said, "I found the cheering of this action to be stupid."

[JeffreyWKramer]

This is actually making me want to pick up the graphic novel now.

I can't recommend it highly enough. It's a masterpiece, and it rewards repeat readings like very few other comics.

[Tom]

Well.... mainly because the reason he killed Rorshach in the book (I believe) is because although Rorshach has little credibility as a witness, he could raise some very important and non-ignorable points. If the movie has Jon being the threat, all Jon has to do is tell the people of Earth : "No, Rorshach is nuts, I really AM going to kill you all if you don't behave.".


Well, if you really wanna know...

Jon leaves earth to go "create life" just as he did in the book. It's implied that people believe he's still on Mars, sitting in judgment of humanity.

[Tom]

I can't recommend it highly enough. It's a masterpiece, and it rewards repeat readings like very few other comics.

Ditto that. Val, you should really give it a shot.

[Paul McEnery]

Oh, no doubt. But when has that been a bad thing for a movie hero? It's what Lethal Weapon was based on. .

Exactly.
....

[JeffreyWKramer]

Cursed with a film school degree, I am incapable of watching a film without processing it at the same time and I remember thinking during the first couple of action scenes "I guess this is the genre convention now. If you put on a costume in a superhero movie, that automatically makes you superhuman in your fighting abilities." For a second, I was okay with it, looking at it, like I said, as a convention of the genre. But the Laurie/Dan fight scenes really undermined the characters and didn't differentiate them at all from the violent sociopathy of Rorschach, which I think is crucial to the story. Rorschach is the nutjob that outdoes all the other nutjobs.

I don't think it undermined Laurie nearly as much as it undermined Dan, because she really doesn't play the Everyman role.

It does make her into something other than Moore intended, but given that and her actions in the fire scene, that's obviously intentional on Snyder's part.

[Tom]

That part is directed at me, because in a post I did say the people cheering were stupid, when I probably should have said, "I found the cheering of this action to be stupid."

No, I get his annoyance at being called stupid. I'd have said that people who cheer on Rorschach's actions simply aren't getting Moore's point. What I have an issue with is him boiling it down to a simple like or dislike of the character.

[Paul McEnery]

The number of stories without a character that can by related to/sympathized with that both work and are commercially succesful are few and far between. How many can you name?

So what? That's not the point. The point is "identify with".

[SOGG]

Ditto that. Val, you should really give it a shot.

Yeah. I agree with whoever wrote that this is about as close to a perfect comic as it gets.

[jessecuster3]

Just out of curiosity, I didn't stay, but did anyone stay until after the credits?


It actually would have been decent commentary to have something there at the end.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ah, yes. Chubby, impotent Dan, snapping necks like a pro.

I think, aside from Snyder's desire to show over-the-top badassness, that is also an intentional shift on Snyder's part. As I noted earlier, the guy playing Dan shifted every aspect of his body language and demeanor as that scene started. I think this was Snyder trying to show the audience "This is what the guy really is - or should be - underneath." It doesn't stick, though, until he reembraces the hero role.

Which also further undercuts the Dan's everyman role, but like I said, the scene was clumsy on lots of fronts.

[Fenris]

Why the desperate need to always have someone to cheer for? There's nothing wrong with not having someone to cheer for in a story. You can still enjoy it.

That may be true in a theoretical sense; but the vast, vast majority of stories do have sympathetic characters. Or, at least, the writer tries to make them so.

Why is there a need for it? *Shrug* For the same reason that we prefer to hang out with people we like, I suppose, and avoid the people we dislike. It's the same social instincts at work.

Can you give me an example of a story you like in which you dislike all the characters? I'm not sure if I'm following you here.

õ
But we'll see!

[Asmith]

The number of stories without a character that can by related to/sympathized with that both work and are commercially succesful are few and far between. How many can you name?
um... Watchmen? Sex And The City also comes to mind...


Oh, that's cute, you can't have a discussion without resorting to random insults.
Oh please! That insult was anything but random!

[JeffreyWKramer]

That part is directed at me, because in a post I did say the people cheering were stupid, when I probably should have said, "I found the cheering of this action to be stupid."

And to follow up on earlier comments you, Tom and I made here... I think Moore would have agreed with you, and I think he was appalled at that aspect of the comic audience's stupidity (or, at very least, their lack of critical thinking).

[JeffreyWKramer]

Just out of curiosity, I didn't stay, but did anyone stay until after the credits?


It actually would have been decent commentary to have something there at the end.


I did, and there was nothing.

[Tom]

I think, aside from Snyder's desire to show over-the-top badassness, that is also an intentional shift on Snyder's part. As I noted earlier, the guy playing Dan shifted every aspect of his body language and demeanor as that scene started. I think this was Snyder trying to show the audience "This is what the guy really is - or should be - underneath." It doesn't stick, though, until he reembraces the hero role.


I just don't think Moore's intent was to cast any of these characters in anything approaching a "hero" role. Dan is largely ineffectual throughout the entire story. He does manage to get Rorschach busted out of prison, but he had a lot of help on that front. Aside from that, what else did he accomplish? Even in the flashback scenes when he's supposed to be in his prime, he's never depicted doing anything but piloting the owlship.

[Paul McEnery]

However, saying that people who cheered for a seen are stupid because they cheered for a character you are saying you don't like... I'm not saying it isn't a legit point, .

I'm saying that's not the point at all.

An audience cheering for Rorshach? At all? Under any circumstances? No an audience I want to be part of.

Not just stupid, but viciously sociopathic, too.

Seen it before, a whole load of times. Saw it all the way through Platoon when it first came out. Which I rather doubt was Stone's intent.

Bunch of fucking animals.

[Tom]

Can you give me an example of a story you like in which you dislike all the characters? I'm not sure if I'm following you here.


I can! Watchmen!

Seriously, I love how well-written all those characters are and I sympathize with how wounded they all are, but I wouldn't want to spend any time with any of them. Not even Dan, who's relatively innocuous.

Oh wait. I would kind of love to spend an afternoon drinking gin and tonics with Sally while we go through her scrapbooks and play bridge.

[StoneGold]

You really don't seem to be getting the main point. It's perfectly fine to like the character. He is, after all, arguably the main protagonist and probably has the most attention paid to his inner thoughts and backstory. That doesn't mean he was written in a way to get the audience to cheer on his acts of violence. If anything, the acts of violence were character bits, meant to illustrate how fucked up he is.

But again, since when is fucked up something bad in a protaganist? Especially when it fuels the plot and action? Take DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver spent a lot more of its time showing how dude was a complete nutbag, a dangerous waste of space. And then the end of the movie becomes a power trip fantasy for a crazy guy. But if it didn't work as a power trip fantasy, it doesn't work as a movie. If "You talkin' to me" doesn't work as a cool scene, you lose the film.


And I find that DeNiro in the movie is far less sympathetic than Rorschach. R got messed over as a kid, so he became a messed up superhero. Yeah, it's hinted that Bickle had a bad time in Nam, but he was all taking dates to porn films and assassinating politicians.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ditto that. Val, you should really give it a shot.

To go into this a bit more:

WATCHMEN is a masterpiece of comics craft, on every level.

The storytelling is truly multi-layered, as are the characters.

The reader is left to decide a lot of things for him/herself, rather than being told who - if anyone - they should regard as the hero or villain.

It is rare for a work not written and drawn by the same person to divide up the storytelling duties between the art and the text in a way that gives equal weight to both, but on WATCHMEN, the team of Moore and Gibbons manages this even better than do most writer/artists.

There are lots of subtle bits -clues, character bits, visual motifs - that add depth the first time one reads it, but which really, really reward repeat readings.

The art is beautiful. The way the narrative builds as the story develops, and the way various bits stand and work on their whole but become even more important when viewed in the context of the entire work, is truly masterful.

The symbolism and metaphors and motifs really serve a purpose in WATCHMEN, as opposed to simply demonstrating a creator trying to show off how smart he is.

There are few comics I recommend without reservation to the degree I do WATCHMEN.

[Asmith]

I can! Watchmen!

Seriously, I love how well-written all those characters are and I sympathize with how wounded they all are, but I wouldn't want to spend any time with any of them. Not even Dan, who's relatively innocuous.

Oh wait. I would kind of love to spend an afternoon drinking gin and tonics with Sally while we go through her scrapbooks and play bridge.

Another one is Sopranos. Great show. Very enjoyable. Every single character is a monster.

And I wasn't joking about Sex in the City before either. Very enjoyable show - loath each and every single one of the characters and think they deserve their misery. Fun to watch though.

[Paul McEnery]

But again, since when is fucked up something bad in a protaganist? Especially when it fuels the plot and action? Take DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver spent a lot more of its time showing how dude was a complete nutbag, a dangerous waste of space. And then the end of the movie becomes a power trip fantasy for a crazy guy. But if it didn't work as a power trip fantasy, it doesn't work as a movie. If "You talkin' to me" doesn't work as a cool scene, you lose the film.


And therefore we're supposed to be cheering him on like the current state of the audience would?

[Kid Omega]

That may be true in a theoretical sense; but the vast, vast majority of stories do have sympathetic characters. Or, at least, the writer tries to make them so.

Why is there a need for it? *Shrug* For the same reason that we prefer to hang out with people we like, I suppose, and avoid the people we dislike. It's the same social instincts at work.

Can you give me an example of a story you like in which you dislike all the characters? I'm not sure if I'm following you here.

õ
But we'll see!

Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Barton Fink
Raging Bull
Rosemary's Baby
MacBeth
The nutty professor
Goodfellas
Confederacy of Dunces

How many more do you need?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I just don't think Moore's intent was to cast any of these characters in anything approaching a "hero" role. Dan is largely ineffectual throughout the entire story. He does manage to get Rorschach busted out of prison, but he had a lot of help on that front. Aside from that, what else did he accomplish? Even in the flashback scenes when he's supposed to be in his prime, he's never depicted doing anything but piloting the owlship.

Oh, agreed. Moore doesn't really want us to trust the whole concept of a hero, and certainly not of the superhero.

I am unsure whether Snyder didn't catch that, or just didn't like that level of deconstruction.

[Tom]

But again, since when is fucked up something bad in a protaganist? Especially when it fuels the plot and action? Take DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver spent a lot more of its time showing how dude was a complete nutbag, a dangerous waste of space. And then the end of the movie becomes a power trip fantasy for a crazy guy. But if it didn't work as a power trip fantasy, it doesn't work as a movie. If "You talkin' to me" doesn't work as a cool scene, you lose the film.


And I find that DeNiro in the movie is far less sympathetic than Rorschach. R got messed over as a kid, so he became a messed up superhero. Yeah, it's hinted that Bickle had a bad time in Nam, but he was all taking dates to porn films and assassinating politicians.

Holy shit. THAT'S your reading of Taxi Driver?

And just to reiterate: it's not "bad" that Rorschach is fucked up. You keep trying to apply moral distinctions or simple like/dislike to something that's a little more complicated than that. From a writing/story/character point of view, it's GREAT that he's so fucked up because it deepens the narrative. That doesn't mean that the audience is meant to be cheering on his violence.

[StoneGold]

You really don't seem to be getting the main point. It's perfectly fine to like the character. He is, after all, arguably the main protagonist and probably has the most attention paid to his inner thoughts and backstory. That doesn't mean he was written in a way to get the audience to cheer on his acts of violence. If anything, the acts of violence were character bits, meant to illustrate how fucked up he is.

Point seems to be changing quite a bit. Maybe because there are multiple people in this thing. Because I'm pretty sure there have been a few people who have said it's not OK to like Rorschach. Paul's thing (posted way after this quote) is pretty definite about that.

[Asmith]

But again, since when is fucked up something bad in a protaganist? Especially when it fuels the plot and action? Take DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver spent a lot more of its time showing how dude was a complete nutbag, a dangerous waste of space. And then the end of the movie becomes a power trip fantasy for a crazy guy. But if it didn't work as a power trip fantasy, it doesn't work as a movie. If "You talkin' to me" doesn't work as a cool scene, you lose the film.


And I find that DeNiro in the movie is far less sympathetic than Rorschach. R got messed over as a kid, so he became a messed up superhero. Yeah, it's hinted that Bickle had a bad time in Nam, but he was all taking dates to porn films and assassinating politicians.
So you relate to DeNiro in Taxi Driver and Rorshach in Watchmen. You cheer them on... I'm beginnig to think that this is a bigger issue than just not understanding a story.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I can! Watchmen!

Seriously, I love how well-written all those characters are and I sympathize with how wounded they all are, but I wouldn't want to spend any time with any of them. Not even Dan, who's relatively innocuous.

Oh wait. I would kind of love to spend an afternoon drinking gin and tonics with Sally while we go through her scrapbooks and play bridge.

Eh, I think Dan would probably be pleasant enough to hang with for awhile, at least until one gets tired of the same old "those were the days" maudlin stories.

Rorschach, on the other hand... I've been in a room with guys close enough to that vibe more than enough times to know it's an experience I can do without repeating.

[Fenris]

And to follow up on earlier comments you, Tom and I made here... I think Moore would have agreed with you, and I think he was appalled at that aspect of the comic audience's stupidity (or, at very least, their lack of critical thinking).

I guess I'd have to read the interview. I can't figure out what Moore expected to have happen.

You don't critique violence by setting someone up as an action hero, and then having his behavior be somewhat more violent than normal. That just plays to the audience's preexisting reflexes, and further inures them to what they're seeing.

You critique violence by showing the consequences, in characters that you've made the audience care about. And that pretty much never happens in Watchmen- Rorschach's victims all deserve it, and are throwaway characters besides.

Anthony Lane said something (that I will have to try and find, now) about how modern movies know everything about violence and nothing about suffering. You can't critique violence without addressing that difference.

õ
I have lots of things to look up, apparently!

[JeffreyWKramer]

I guess I'd have to read the interview. I can't figure out what Moore expected to have happen.

You don't critique violence by setting someone up as an action hero, and then having his behavior be somewhat more violent than normal. That just plays to the audience's preexisting reflexes, and further inures them to what they're seeing.

You critique violence by showing the consequences, in characters that you've made the audience care about. And that pretty much never happens in Watchmen- Rorschach's victims all deserve it, and are throwaway characters besides.

Anthony Lane said something (that I will have to try and find, now) about how modern movies know everything about violence and nothing about suffering. You can't critique violence without addressing that difference.

õ
I have lots of things to look up, apparently!


I think that might be one of the more reasonable critiques of WATCHMEN I've ever read.

Mind you, I think Moore does make his point quiet effectively - if nothing else, the chapter that focuses on Rorschach brings it home in a big way - but there are some elements of him playing it both ways, which perhaps do undercut some of his intent.

[Kid Omega]

But again, since when is fucked up something bad in a protaganist? Especially when it fuels the plot and action? Take DeNiro in Taxi Driver. Taxi Driver spent a lot more of its time showing how dude was a complete nutbag, a dangerous waste of space. And then the end of the movie becomes a power trip fantasy for a crazy guy. But if it didn't work as a power trip fantasy, it doesn't work as a movie. If "You talkin' to me" doesn't work as a cool scene, you lose the film.


And I find that DeNiro in the movie is far less sympathetic than Rorschach. R got messed over as a kid, so he became a messed up superhero. Yeah, it's hinted that Bickle had a bad time in Nam, but he was all taking dates to porn films and assassinating politicians.

Holy crap. You are missing everyone's point amost as much as you missed the point of TAXI DRIVER.

[thespianphryne]

Identifying with a character i.e her feeling state and internal response to events/circumstances is not the same thing as identifying with her actions.

I can identify with a character and be sympathetic but I can also abhor the character's choices.

In fact, it's important for me to be able to make that distinction if I want to be considered a relatively well adjusted human.

Basically this is what all dramatic work is: the tension between the internal and external.

[Asmith]

You don't critique violence by setting someone up as an action hero, and then having his behavior be somewhat more violent than normal. That just plays to the audience's preexisting reflexes, and further inures them to what they're seeing.


You do if you want to lead the reader along a familiar path. Get them to admit that this is the type of character they like. Then painfully illustrate how messed up the reader is for even thinking that.

It's the same sorta trick Umberto Eco did with Faulcault's Pendulum. Though his point was about gulibility and wanting to believe.

[Paul McEnery]

Anthony Lane said something (that I will have to try and find, now) about how modern movies know everything about violence and nothing about suffering. You can't critique violence without addressing that difference.


Just one more reason I have loved Anthony Lane for going on three decades.

[Paul McEnery]

Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Barton Fink
Raging Bull
Rosemary's Baby
MacBeth
The nutty professor
Goodfellas
Confederacy of Dunces

How many more do you need?

How about the whole of Shakespeare?

[StoneGold]

Holy shit. THAT'S your reading of Taxi Driver?

And just to reiterate: it's not "bad" that Rorschach is fucked up. You keep trying to apply moral distinctions or simple like/dislike to something that's a little more complicated than that. From a writing/story/character point of view, it's GREAT that he's so fucked up because it deepens the narrative. That doesn't mean that the audience is meant to be cheering on his violence.

No, just that one part of Taxi Driver. It's a total tonal shift from the rest of the movie with a complete change in both character and action.


But then you're missing part of what I'm saying to. I'm not saying just like a character from a detached "Oh yes, it's quite a fine character portrait" kind of way, I'm talking about becoming involved with a character. Perhaps even reveling in their insanity. Eastwood in the Leone stuff was a sociopathic douche. Yeah, all three, despite them all being different characters. But how many people don't get a smile when he bushwacks Tucco? There's a scene where he's holding up his partner in a con and leaving him to die in the desert. About the most dishonorable thing you can do. But Clint looks cool, and he has a good one liner when he does it, so it's fine.


But for that matter, I like Tucco as well. "If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."

[Brian Cronin]

Quickly...

1. Discuss each other's points, not the poster him/herself or their "style" or whatever.

2. Reply to each other directly, don't talk about another poster with other posters.

-Brian

[Gilda Dent]

You critique violence by showing the consequences, in characters that you've made the audience care about. And that pretty much never happens in Watchmen- Rorschach's victims all deserve it, and are throwaway characters besides.

Rorschach's first victim's "crime" in the book is making a sarcastic remark about how Rorschach smells. For this Rorschach breaks two of his fingers. When he later returns to the same bar, we see a random character with his hand to his face, blood streaming from beneath, and Rorschach tells us that they visited two other bars before this, at which we can reasonably assume he acted in a similar manner.

This is at least four characters who have been the target of a vicious assault primarily because they were in a seedy bar, and thus, in Rorschach's judgment as seen in his journal, unworthy of being treated with even the slightest respect.

This second encounter is immediately followed by Dan having a similar one upon hearing of Hollis's murder, but pulling back before he hurts anyone, horrified at what he was about to do to someone he had no reason to believe was involved.

Moore is explicitly showing us the line that Rorschach doesn't just cross, but routinely ignores, highlighting it by setting up a nearly identical situation for Dan and then having Dan stop short.

It's fine to sympathize with the motivation, the desire for revenge, but this doesn't mean accepting every action taken in pursuit of that goal as admirable, or even acceptable.

[Davideaux]

Identifying with a character i.e her feeling state and internal response to events/circumstances is not the same thing as identifying with her actions.

I can identify with a character and be sympathetic but I can also abhor the character's choices.

In fact, it's important for me to be able to make that distinction if I want to be considered a relatively well adjusted human.

Basically this is what all dramatic work is: the tension between the internal and external.

Tony Soprano is the perfect example of this.

[Tom]

No, just that one part of Taxi Driver. It's a total tonal shift from the rest of the movie with a complete change in both character and action.


But then you're missing part of what I'm saying to. I'm not saying just like a character from a detached "Oh yes, it's quite a fine character portrait" kind of way, I'm talking about becoming involved with a character. Perhaps even reveling in their insanity.

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it. I can see getting a cathartic release from watching acts of violence. That is, after all, exactly what action films are designed to do. I just can't get behind the idea of "reveling" in a character's insanity. This has nothing to do with morality. I think it's dangerous to go down that road when you're talking about people's reactions to art. But I'm gonna be perfectly honest: I do think that kind of reaction is on the low end of the intellectual scale, especially when it's applied to works like Taxi Driver or Watchmen, where the author's intent was clearly the opposite of what you're talking about.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it. I can see getting a cathartic release from watching acts of violence. That is, after all, exactly what action films are designed to do. I just can't get behind the idea of "reveling" in a character's insanity. This has nothing to do with morality. I think it's dangerous to go down that road when you're talking about people's reactions to art. But I'm gonna be perfectly honest: I do think that kind of reaction is on the low end of the intellectual scale, especially when it's applied to works like Taxi Driver or Watchmen, where the author's intent was clearly the opposite of what you're talking about.

Bottom line is that it's the wrestling audience, baying for blood in nice safe fake violence.

They should all be forced to watch the fight scene in They Live until they catch a clue.

[StoneGold]

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it. I can see getting a cathartic release from watching acts of violence. That is, after all, exactly what action films are designed to do. I just can't get behind the idea of "reveling" in a character's insanity. This has nothing to do with morality. I think it's dangerous to go down that road when you're talking about people's reactions to art. But I'm gonna be perfectly honest: I do think that kind of reaction is on the low end of the intellectual scale, especially when it's applied to works like Taxi Driver or Watchmen, where the author's intent was clearly the opposite of what you're talking about.

It's the same like how any anti-war movie inevitably glorifies war. I can't remember who said it, but there's a truth to it. I can know a character is a bad person, someone not to be imitated, admired, whatever, and still be able to enjoy their antisocial actions. I can enjoy a character's dysfunction, revel in their dysfunctional actions, even though it's not a character who should be admired. What can I say, it's a staple of noir, something I dig. And Rorschach was nothing if not a Mickey Spillane knockoff, turned into a miserable charichature with a mask.

[Asmith]

Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it. I can see getting a cathartic release from watching acts of violence. That is, after all, exactly what action films are designed to do. I just can't get behind the idea of "reveling" in a character's insanity. This has nothing to do with morality. I think it's dangerous to go down that road when you're talking about people's reactions to art. But I'm gonna be perfectly honest: I do think that kind of reaction is on the low end of the intellectual scale, especially when it's applied to works like Taxi Driver or Watchmen, where the author's intent was clearly the opposite of what you're talking about.

Now Shwarzenegger's Commando you can just sit back and munch popcorn while enjoying the insane violent bastard's crazy antics!

[howyadoin]

Yeah, but Rorschach totally owned the guy's ass *before* he busted glass and doused the guy. It was that extra step overboard. Nobody's going to think you're a psycho for defending yourself and beating down a guy, but then frying him as finishing move?Wow, that's a pretty drastic - and baffling - change from the book. Say what you will about Rorschach, but the hot grease incident was clearly self-defense.


Yeah, I get it. I just don't agree with it. I can see getting a cathartic release from watching acts of violence. That is, after all, exactly what action films are designed to do. I just can't get behind the idea of "reveling" in a character's insanity.What about Olivier as Richard III?

[Tom]

What about Olivier as Richard III?

You mean do I think Shakespeare meant for his audience to "revel" in the character's insanity? No, not at all. It's a tragedy, after all.

[howyadoin]

You mean do I think Shakespeare meant for his audience to "revel" in the character's insanity? No, not at all. It's a tragedy, after all.Fair enough. My views on the performance will always be coloured by Johnny Rotten's appropriation of it anyway.

[Paradox]

Asmith has me on board:

And I wasn't joking about Sex in the City before either. Very enjoyable show - loath each and every single one of the characters and think they deserve their misery. Fun to watch though.

No reason you should be joking. That's one of the things I think the rabid fans of the show always missed. The Sex and the City characters are all just as reprehensible human beings as the Seinfeld characters. They're not role models, they're cautionary tales. They're all so self-absorbed, superficial and fucked up, but only the Cynthia Nixon character seems to be aware of it (and for the most part, doesn't care...or is unable to do anything about it). It's actually not a badly done show if you look at it like that.

[Tom]

No reason you should be joking. That's one of the things I think the rabid fans of the show always missed. The Sex and the City characters are all just as reprehensible human beings as the Seinfeld characters. They're not role models, they're cautionary tales. They're all so self-absorbed, superficial and fucked up, but only the Cynthia Nixon character seems to be aware of it (and for the most part, doesn't care...or is unable to do anything about it). It's actually not a badly done show if you look at it like that.

Because I am occasionally a walking cliche, I was a fan of the show at the time. To further the cliche, my place was where a half dozen or so women came to watch each new episode. These were mainly women in my age group. All of them understood that the characters were shallow and self-absorbed but to them, that was part of the fun. After the episode they talked about the characters as if they were women they knew well, but didn't particularly want to be around. "I can't believe what an asshole Carrie is." That sort of thing. This is a huge generalization, I'll cop to that, but women like to judge other women. The fact that these characters were so godawful was a feature of the show, not a bug.

It seems to me that the type of women who want to emulate these characters tend to be significantly younger than them. It's the early 20's girls you'd see drunkenly wandering around my neighborhood, fresh in from the suburbs, tottering on their 4-inch heels and smelling like spilled Cosmopolitans.

[Paradox]

Oh, certainly no disagreement with any of that. And, yeah, my old roomie was one of those latter you mentioned (except for the heels...with her cankles, she never drew attention to her legs), except a bit older (had a little Peter Pan syndrome of her own to deal with).

[Cotton]

Here's the thing......I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if I didn't already read the book. I really liked it because it had a lot of references and winks at the original story, but as a stand alone film it was kind of average. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie, but two and half hours into the film, my girlfriend starts passing out and can't follow the story anymore.

What I would've liked to see was maybe a 12 episode maxi-series like how they did with dune on Watchmen.

[Tages]

That may be true in a theoretical sense; but the vast, vast majority of stories do have sympathetic characters. Or, at least, the writer tries to make them so.

Why is there a need for it? *Shrug* For the same reason that we prefer to hang out with people we like, I suppose, and avoid the people we dislike. It's the same social instincts at work.

Can you give me an example of a story you like in which you dislike all the characters? I'm not sure if I'm following you here.

õ
But we'll see!

To ad a couple more modern examples to Alex's list...

Seinfeld and Cheers both have main casts that are really, really unlikable. You find these people hilarious, but would you want to know any of them?

Also, to add to the Shakespearean comment Merchant of Venice. The most sympathetic character in the play is the villain. The second-most is the man asked to finance his own romantic disappointment. Then there's the daughter who stabs her dad in the back only to get jerked around and the selfish, superficial Elizabethan-era yuppie fuck oblivious to all the suffering around him. And this is in a fucking comedy.

I find the Hollywood insistence on root-forable protagonists to be very peculiar.

[Michael P]

No reason you should be joking. That's one of the things I think the rabid fans of the show always missed. The Sex and the City characters are all just as reprehensible human beings as the Seinfeld characters. They're not role models, they're cautionary tales. They're all so self-absorbed, superficial and fucked up, but only the Cynthia Nixon character seems to be aware of it (and for the most part, doesn't care...or is unable to do anything about it). It's actually not a badly done show if you look at it like that.

No argument here, although I'm not sure the creators of the show were aware of this.

[Agent Helix]

East Bound and Down. Now there's a show without likeable characters.

[Valmore]

Seinfeld and Cheers both have main casts that are really, really unlikable. You find these people hilarious, but would you want to know any of them?

You know, I remember a couple years ago when Tom was defending the series finale to Seinfeld and the more I think back on the series, the more I've come to agree with him that the ending was actually more brilliant than I first thought. The characters in the show essentially are funny, but jerks. Who finally get their just desserts.

[Tages]

It's the same like how any anti-war movie inevitably glorifies war. I can't remember who said it, but there's a truth to it.
Francois Truffaut. His critique was that any war movie inevitably makes combat look exciting and adventurous.

Pity he never lived to see Full Metal Jacket.


I can know a character is a bad person, someone not to be imitated, admired, whatever, and still be able to enjoy their antisocial actions. I can enjoy a character's dysfunction, revel in their dysfunctional actions, even though it's not a character who should be admired. What can I say, it's a staple of noir, something I dig. And Rorschach was nothing if not a Mickey Spillane knockoff, turned into a miserable charichature with a mask.
Spillane is one of my favorite punching bags precisely because his novels, while ingeniously plotted (most of the time; a major character in My Gun is Quick appears almost literally out of nowhere) and with an ear for dialogue, are precisely the kind of ego-tripping power fantasies Rorschach as a character is supposed to take apart.

If you want to, pick up some Jim Thompson sometime. Borrowing the Lane quote Fenris gave us, that's suffering. Spillane is just violence.

And neither have any likable characters.


No reason you should be joking. That's one of the things I think the rabid fans of the show always missed. The Sex and the City characters are all just as reprehensible human beings as the Seinfeld characters. They're not role models, they're cautionary tales. They're all so self-absorbed, superficial and fucked up, but only the Cynthia Nixon character seems to be aware of it (and for the most part, doesn't care...or is unable to do anything about it). It's actually not a badly done show if you look at it like that.

My best friend loves the show. The few times he convinced me to watch it I found it irritating in its reveling in superficiality and consumer culture.

What you just wrote makes me think that maybe I missed the point. Now I may have to try watching it again.

[Paradox]

One of my favorite parts is when the Cynthia Nixon character spends half the episode saying "I am SO fucked up!" over and over and meaning it. :biggrin:

EDIT: I mean in the messed up in the head way, not the drunk way, just to clarify

[Joe Rice]

Not a Mickey Spillane fan then, I take it? Because not that different than your average Mike Hammer rant.


But whatever, I'll bow to your moral superiority. What can I say, I like rooting on psychologically damaged characters. You think R is nuts, try reading your average Ellroy novel. Or hell, even the movie. Choose between the moral rapist, the completely bent cop and the psycho muscle. But hey, they're not worth cheering on because they aren't up to your level of moral turpitude and mental health.

Spillane characters are pretty despicable to begin with, but R is really exponentially worse. He's fascinating and an amazing character, but cheering him on misses the point quite badly.


Touchy, touchy.

Heh, yeah.


I guess I'd have to read the interview. I can't figure out what Moore expected to have happen.

You don't critique violence by setting someone up as an action hero, and then having his behavior be somewhat more violent than normal. That just plays to the audience's preexisting reflexes, and further inures them to what they're seeing.

You critique violence by showing the consequences, in characters that you've made the audience care about. And that pretty much never happens in Watchmen- Rorschach's victims all deserve it, and are throwaway characters besides.

Anthony Lane said something (that I will have to try and find, now) about how modern movies know everything about violence and nothing about suffering. You can't critique violence without addressing that difference.

õ
I have lots of things to look up, apparently!

He's set up as something of an action hero in order to highlight how awful such a person really would be. It's a challenge to the reader to go beyond facile western post-modern "morality."

[jesse_custer]

Just a quick point about Taxi Driver.

Screenwriter Paul Schrader mentioned once that Bickle was still crazy at the end of the film and that he would not be so heroic in the future. This statement implies that one could view Bickle as heroic in a way, as the media do in the film. The point is that Bickle is capable of hurting anyone given his mental condition and that violence eventually corrupts all good intentions.

[JeffreyWKramer]

He's set up as something of an action hero in order to highlight how awful such a person really would be. It's a challenge to the reader to go beyond facile western post-modern "morality."

Not only "how awful such a person really would be", but - as a deeper examination of that broad point - what sort of mentality it would take for someone to actually be that way. His point is that for someone to really be as obsessive as, say, Batman, they'd have to be pretty fricking broken, and their obsessiveness would extend in uncomfortable ways well beyond kicking the shit out of crooks.

One can argue whether such deconstruction is a good thing or not, or a topic worthy of the effort, but it's hard to argue with the skill with which Moore approaches the topic.

Snyder, on the other hand, just went with "Rorschach is bugfuck crazy", but he doesn't seem to have been willing to go with Moore's broader point, and thus so far as to portray Dan and Laurie and others as other unhealthy and ineffective manifestations of the same idea.

Or maybe that subtle point escaped him, hard to tell.

[jesse_custer]

Snyder hasn't missed a subtle point in his life.

[Fenris]

Many things to say! And my internet connection is poor. Tsk. But let's see...


Jeffrey: Thank you very much!

KO: thank you for the list! I stand corrected.


Rorschach's first victim's "crime" in the book is making a sarcastic remark about how Rorschach smells. For this Rorschach breaks two of his fingers. When he later returns to the same bar, we see a random character with his hand to his face, blood streaming from beneath, and Rorschach tells us that they visited two other bars before this, at which we can reasonably assume he acted in a similar manner.

This is at least four characters who have been the target of a vicious assault primarily because they were in a seedy bar, and thus, in Rorschach's judgment as seen in his journal, unworthy of being treated with even the slightest respect.

This second encounter is immediately followed by Dan having a similar one upon hearing of Hollis's murder, but pulling back before he hurts anyone, horrified at what he was about to do to someone he had no reason to believe was involved.

Moore is explicitly showing us the line that Rorschach doesn't just cross, but routinely ignores, highlighting it by setting up a nearly identical situation for Dan and then having Dan stop short.

Yes, that's true. Dan is always presented as a nicer guy than Rorschach, and (in the traditional sense) a better hero.

But Rorschach's victims in the bar are, basically, throwaway characters. We never see them again; we never get a sense that their pain matters. Compare that with the supporting characters in New York, whom Moore goes to great lengths to flesh out. When Ozymandias kills them, it matters- it makes an impact because he's taken the time to flesh them out as human beings.



It's fine to sympathize with the motivation, the desire for revenge, but this doesn't mean accepting every action taken in pursuit of that goal as admirable, or even acceptable.

Urk! Okay, important clarification: I do not think much of Rorschach. What I'm looking at here is the weird disconnect between Moore's statements about him (that he's not meant to be heroic or admirable) and Moore's treatment of him in the story, which works very hard to make this repulsive figure heroic and admirable.



You do if you want to lead the reader along a familiar path. Get them to admit that this is the type of character they like. Then painfully illustrate how messed up the reader is for even thinking that.

It's the same sorta trick Umberto Eco did with Faulcault's Pendulum. Though his point was about gulibility and wanting to believe.


I'm sorry, but I don't see this at all.

Take a look at Rorschach in the first issue. We see that he's violent, antisocial, kind of looney; that he's got a bad body odor problem, and that he's disliked by a whole lot of people, including his fellow heroes. In that first issue, he is not set up as a likeable or respectable character. Quite the opposite; he starts off pretty repulsive.

And then Moore shows us his bad childhood, which is a sympathy-builder; and he shows us Rorschach having a moment of human sympathy with Dan, which is a big part of his character arc. And then, at the end, he's the only one who stands up to Ozymandias; he's the only one willing to die for what he believes in; and he's the one who arguably stops the whole plot.

This isn't the character arc of someone you're supposed to like, and then learn to despise. it's the arc of someone you start off disliking, and then learn to respect- which is a standard storytelling trope. If people think of Rorschach as a hero, it's because in the end he acts just like one.

And that's what mystifies me about Moore's remark. He knows how character arcs work. He cannot have done this by accident. If he didn't want Rorschach to be seen as a hero, then he should've followed your pattern- have Rorschach seem respectable and heroic, and then gradually reveal his depravity.

õ
Which is what he does with Ozymandias, come to think of it!

[Paul McEnery]

Many things to say! And my internet connection is poor. Tsk. But let's see...


Jeffrey: Thank you very much!

KO: thank you for the list! I stand corrected.



Yes, that's true. Dan is always presented as a nicer guy than Rorschach, and (in the traditional sense) a better hero.

But Rorschach's victims in the bar are, basically, throwaway characters. We never see them again; we never get a sense that their pain matters. Compare that with the supporting characters in New York, whom Moore goes to great lengths to flesh out. When Ozymandias kills them, it matters- it makes an impact because he's taken the time to flesh them out as human beings.




Urk! Okay, important clarification: I do not think much of Rorschach. What I'm looking at here is the weird disconnect between Moore's statements about him (that he's not meant to be heroic or admirable) and Moore's treatment of him in the story, which works very hard to make this repulsive figure heroic and admirable.





I'm sorry, but I don't see this at all.

Take a look at Rorschach in the first issue. We see that he's violent, antisocial, kind of looney; that he's got a bad body odor problem, and that he's disliked by a whole lot of people, including his fellow heroes. In that first issue, he is not set up as a likeable or respectable character. Quite the opposite; he starts off pretty repulsive.

And then Moore shows us his bad childhood, which is a sympathy-builder; and he shows us Rorschach having a moment of human sympathy with Dan, which is a big part of his character arc. And then, at the end, he's the only one who stands up to Ozymandias; he's the only one willing to die for what he believes in; and he's the one who arguably stops the whole plot.

This isn't the character arc of someone you're supposed to like, and then learn to despise. it's the arc of someone you start off disliking, and then learn to respect- which is a standard storytelling trope. If people think of Rorschach as a hero, it's because in the end he acts just like one.

And that's what mystifies me about Moore's remark. He knows how character arcs work. He cannot have done this by accident. If he didn't want Rorschach to be seen as a hero, then he should've followed your pattern- have Rorschach seem respectable and heroic, and then gradually reveal his depravity.

õ
Which is what he does with Ozymandias, come to think of it!

Except that Rorshach doesn't die a heroic death; instead, it's the deliverance of a compassionate god as the character finds out that he's actually as worthless as everyone has always said.

And it's not that, in the death, he actually defeats the plot. What he defeats is the good that might come of it.

[Fenris]

Except that Rorshach doesn't die a heroic death; instead, it's the deliverance of a compassionate god as the character finds out that he's actually as worthless as everyone has always said.

And it's not that, in the death, he actually defeats the plot. What he defeats is the good that might come of it.


*Blink* I'm sorry, you'll have to run that by me again.

õ
Puzzled as usual!

[Paul McEnery]

*Blink* I'm sorry, you'll have to run that by me again.

õ
Puzzled as usual!

Rorshach gets all the way to the North Pole to find out that all his detective work has been useless and stupid. That his moralistic shouting is irrelevant to the kings of business and physics. In short, he's been doing this detective stuff to give his life meaning, absent the normal stuff like love and family and belonging. But it wasn't worth anything, in the end, was it. And worse, Oz and Jon are both waaaay more nihilistic than he is.

So his death is a mercy-killing; and in a real sense, what he's been looking for all along.

Plus, the whole point is that the plot is a terrible terrible thing, but better than the other terrible terrible things. It kills millions, but it saves the world.

But undoing the plot -- that very likely puts us back in the place where everyone dies. Boy, that's some achievement there!

[K'Nort]

I always saw the death as putting him out of his misery. Sad, but also a relief. And not at all heroic.

edit: What Paul said.

[K'Nort]

But Rorschach's victims in the bar are, basically, throwaway characters. We never see them again; we never get a sense that their pain matters. Compare that with the supporting characters in New York, whom Moore goes to great lengths to flesh out. When Ozymandias kills them, it matters- it makes an impact because he's taken the time to flesh them out as human beings. õ

For me, fleshing out the characters makes it sadder when they're killed, but it doesn't make it any more objectionable. Even beating up throwaway characters is going to turn me against someone. It's sort of amoral to only mind if they beat up someone you like. The point isn't the specific victim, it's just that it's wrong.

[Paul McEnery]

For me, fleshing out the characters makes it sadder when they're killed, but it doesn't make it any more objectionable. Even beating up throwaway characters is going to turn me against someone. It's sort of amoral to only mind if they beat up someone you like. The point isn't the specific victim, it's just that it's wrong.

To be fair, it's not the ultraviolence I mind -- God knows I love me some Pekinpah -- it's that fuqtard three rows from the back who yells from the diaphragm through the guttural throat "YEEEAAAHHHHH!".

Mind, I hate him just as much at rock shows, and would cry not one single tear if a bus ran into him at the crosswalk.

[Fenris]

Rorshach gets all the way to the North Pole to find out that all his detective work has been useless and stupid. That his moralistic shouting is irrelevant to the kings of business and physics. In short, he's been doing this detective stuff to give his life meaning, absent the normal stuff like love and family and belonging. But it wasn't worth anything, in the end, was it. And worse, Oz and Jon are both waaaay more nihilistic than he is.

He's not doing this because he expects to make a difference in society. He doesn't care enough about others for that. His point all along has been, "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon." Which he fully expects to happen; it's one of the first things he talks about, when he blathers about not saving the degenerates when everything comes crashing down.

Look back at issue 6; he hears about Kitty Genovese, he's ashamed of humanity, so he makes a face he can bear to look at in the mirror. He dedicates his life to never compromising; and that's exactly what he does. The crisis takes him to a place where his overblown rhetoric actually becomes real: it is the face of Armageddon, and he doesn't compromise.

That's why he takes his mask off; he has become, by his own outrageous standards, a human being who has nothing to be ashamed of.



So his death is a mercy-killing; and in a real sense, what he's been looking for all along.

Plus, the whole point is that the plot is a terrible terrible thing, but better than the other terrible terrible things. It kills millions, but it saves the world.

Or so Ozzy says. But Ozzy is a full-blown narcissist; his little biopic is a self-absorbed narrative of how he decided he was a modern Alexander, and needed to find a Gordian Knot worthy of his brilliance. So he frames Dr. Manhattan, sends him off, and precipitates the crisis that he's allegedly solving.

And that's the deconstruction of superheroism: he chatters on about saving the world, but it's perfectly clear that it's all about his ego, and always has been.

And that's why, thematically, he fails; because "saving the world" is exactly the kind of ego-based posturing that superheroism implies.



But undoing the plot -- that very likely puts us back in the place where everyone dies. Boy, that's some achievement there!

*Shrug* The conclusion is:

"I leave it entirely in your hands."

õ
Which is a good place for it to be!

[Paul McEnery]

He's not doing this because he expects to make a difference in society. He doesn't care enough about others for that. His point all along has been, "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon." Which he fully expects to happen; it's one of the first things he talks about, when he blathers about not saving the degenerates when everything comes crashing down.

Look back at issue 6; he hears about Kitty Genovese, he's ashamed of humanity, so he makes a face he can bear to look at in the mirror. He dedicates his life to never compromising; and that's exactly what he does. The crisis takes him to a place where his overblown rhetoric actually becomes real: it is the face of Armageddon, and he doesn't compromise.

That's why he takes his mask off; he has become, by his own outrageous standards, a human being who has nothing to be ashamed of.




Or so Ozzy says. But Ozzy is a full-blown narcissist; his little biopic is a self-absorbed narrative of how he decided he was a modern Alexander, and needed to find a Gordian Knot worthy of his brilliance. So he frames Dr. Manhattan, sends him off, and precipitates the crisis that he's allegedly solving.

And that's the deconstruction of superheroism: he chatters on about saving the world, but it's perfectly clear that it's all about his ego, and always has been.

And that's why, thematically, he fails; because "saving the world" is exactly the kind of ego-based posturing that superheroism implies.




*Shrug* The conclusion is:

"I leave it entirely in your hands."

õ
Which is a good place for it to be!

Your points are not without merit, but I can't help going one step lower into Rorshach's psyche, beneath his personal self-justification (rather as you do for Ozy).

BTW, the one bit I never really fell for in Watchmen was the shrink losing his marbles over what Rorshach is genuinely like.

Not that there aren't feebs who couldn't cope with that. I'm just having a hard time with a black New Yorker not being able to cope with that.

[Fenris]

For me, fleshing out the characters makes it sadder when they're killed, but it doesn't make it any more objectionable. Even beating up throwaway characters is going to turn me against someone. It's sort of amoral to only mind if they beat up someone you like. The point isn't the specific victim, it's just that it's wrong.

That is because you are a very good person.

But I'm not saying that their throwaway status makes it okay! I'm saying that the author makes certain choices,. to show us some people's pain and ignore others'. And Rorschach's violence is made to seem milder because we never see any consequences of it.

It's not a moral point so much as a psychological one.

õ
The bar guy could have made an interesting supporting character!

[Fenris]

Your points are not without merit, but I can't help going one step lower into Rorshach's psyche, beneath his personal self-justification (rather as you do for Ozy).

Well, fair enough. I agree that he's got a serious death wish; he literally was asking for it.



BTW, the one bit I never really fell for in Watchmen was the shrink losing his marbles over what Rorshach is genuinely like.

Not that there aren't feebs who couldn't cope with that. I'm just having a hard time with a black New Yorker not being able to cope with that.

Ugh, yes. "His responses to the Rorschach blot test were surprisingly bright and healthy!"

He's the worst comics psychiatrist since the equally incompetent, blind-to-evil psychiatrist in Dark Knight Returns. Which makes me wonder just what the problem was with psychiatrists for comics writers of the period.

õ
Or maybe it's just a coincidence? Naah!

[Gilda Dent]

That is because you are a very good person.

But I'm not saying that their throwaway status makes it okay! I'm saying that the author makes certain choices,. to show us some people's pain and ignore others'. And Rorschach's violence is made to seem milder because we never see any consequences of it.

I disagree. We see the first assault, and the reactions the other patrons have to it, in close detail. It isn't necessary to show the same amount of detail every time--Moore has shown it once, and trusts us to extrapolate from that scene in subsequent ones.

Rather than forgive the transgressions because he otherwise fits the typical action-hero mold, I see it as taking that archetype and moving it into much darker territory where we're made aware of exactly what the implications of it are.

[Valmore]

Wow, that's a pretty drastic - and baffling - change from the book. Say what you will about Rorschach, but the hot grease incident was clearly self-defense.

Well, it wasn't like it took long for Rorschach to subdue his attacker. In fact it seemed like a comic scene after he had subdued him physically in short work and what happens would depend on the character. Like, say it was classic Captain America, he'd have given a speech about right and wrong. Or if it was an anti-hero like Wolverine or gritty Batman, he might have kicked the guy in the head to make him unconscious. But since it was Rorschach, he went overboard and turned the guy into a human corn fritter, probably to incite the prison as Jeffrey pointed out. Actually, that moment ended up seeming more like a video game - I could almost hear the Mortal Kombat guy saying "FINISH HIM" before the frying.

As for the novel, I can't comment too much, but when you think about it, it's still a pretty psycho move for self-defense purposes, unless in the book it hasn't been established that Rorschach has the ability to subdue the guy otherwise (which he clearly had the physical capability to do in the movie after all of his stunts shown).

Anyway, now I just need to figure out a way to get my hands on a copy of the graphic novel without shelling out much on it, as I don't have spare cash right now. Maybe the library here carries it. From everything I'm reading here, Moore wrote a real deep piece of work that didn't show through all that well on the big screen. I think I got some of the gist of it, but it seemed too wrapped up as an action film instead of a mind-screw film.

[Fenris]

I disagree. We see the first assault, and the reactions the other patrons have to it, in close detail. It isn't necessary to show the same amount of detail every time--Moore has shown it once, and trusts us to extrapolate from that scene in subsequent ones.

Sure, they're scared of him. The first part of that scene, where the bartender cringes and whines, "Please don't kill anybody!" is kind of a scene-setter.

But if most people could extrapolate violence, and apply empathy, sight-unseen like that, then a deconstruction of the superhero genre wouldn't even be necessary. We'd look at every superhero fight and think, "Wow, imagine his dental bills!" And we wouldn't read many superhero comics, because the fight scenes would be too emotionally draining.

But they're not.



Rather than forgive the transgressions because he otherwise fits the typical action-hero mold, I see it as taking that archetype and moving it into much darker territory where we're made aware of exactly what the implications of it are.

Sure, it's darker than Batman's "I'm intimidating, but I never really hurt anybody when I question them" approach. But there's a range between "dark enough to be exciting" and "dark enough to disturb readers," and I think that Watchmen falls into the former category. That's why the industry response was to start churning out lots of dark, violent work.


õ
Would that they hadn't!

[Gilda Dent]

Sure, they're scared of him. The first part of that scene, where the bartender cringes and whines, "Please don't kill anybody!" is kind of a scene-setter.

But if most people could extrapolate violence, and apply empathy, sight-unseen like that, then a deconstruction of the superhero genre wouldn't even be necessary. We'd look at every superhero fight and think, "Wow, imagine his dental bills!" And we wouldn't read many superhero comics, because the fight scenes would be too emotionally draining.

But they're not.




Sure, it's darker than Batman's "I'm intimidating, but I never really hurt anybody when I question them" approach. But there's a range between "dark enough to be exciting" and "dark enough to disturb readers," and I think that Watchmen falls into the former category. That's why the industry response was to start churning out lots of dark, violent work.


õ
Would that they hadn't!

Showing the same level of detail for each of the assaults--and remember, the one we see in detail is an innocent bystander who knows nothing--would be redundant. Moore has shown us what Rorschach is like, in a variety of scenes. This scene tells us he's willing to maim innocent bystanders if there's a chance he might get some information out of it. We get it from that one scene. It isn't necessary to make the same point again and again--that's lazy and shallow storytelling.

I think skilled readers who read deeply do get just the implication, and Watchmen is definitely designed for the deep reading.

[howyadoin]

Sure, it's darker than Batman's "I'm intimidating, but I never really hurt anybody when I question them" approach. But there's a range between "dark enough to be exciting" and "dark enough to disturb readers," and I think that Watchmen falls into the former category.To be honest, I think you're seeing what you wanna see, and not what's actually there.

Unless this is one more instance where the movie is drastically different from the comic.

[Tom]

He's not doing this because he expects to make a difference in society. He doesn't care enough about others for that. His point all along has been, "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon." Which he fully expects to happen; it's one of the first things he talks about, when he blathers about not saving the degenerates when everything comes crashing down.


So how does that make him heroic?

[Fenris]

Showing the same level of detail for each of the assaults--and remember, the one we see in detail is an innocent bystander who knows nothing--would be redundant. Moore has shown us what Rorschach is like, in a variety of scenes. This scene tells us he's willing to maim innocent bystanders if there's a chance he might get some information out of it. We get it from that one scene. It isn't necessary to make the same point again and again--that's lazy and shallow storytelling.

It isn't necessary to repeat it, no. That would indeed be pointless.

I'm not talking about our intellectual apprehension of Rorschach's moral status. That is pretty clear-cut. But it's not the only relevant thing, because intellectual evaluation is not the only (or even the primary) means by which we absorb a work of art.

Moore appeals to our sympathies in certain cases- this is a powerful authorial technique, and he uses it selectively. He mostly uses it to make Rorschach look better than he objectively would. I'm wondering why he does this.



I think skilled readers who read deeply do get just the implication, and Watchmen is definitely designed for the deep reading.

Absolutely. But if Moore was expecting every comics reader to deeply absorb his themes, then he was kidding himself. And if not- well, what was he talking about?

õ
I still haven't found it online!

[Fenris]

To be honest, I think you're seeing what you wanna see, and not what's actually there.

No! Not honesty!

*Shrug* It's always possible; I'm in my own head, after all, and I can't use anyone else's. But the only solution to that is to keep thinking about it.



Unless this is one more instance where the movie is drastically different from the comic.

I'm thinking of the comic here. If the goal was to disturb people by showing what real violence was like, then it failed; because it inspired a lot of darker, more-violent comics that tried to imitate it by copying the shallowest parts.

Does that mean that the technique is bad? I suspect it is, but I don't know for sure.

õ
Or rather, other techniques may be better!

[howyadoin]

I'm thinking of the comic here. If the goal was to disturb people by showing what real violence was like, then it failed; because it inspired a lot of darker, more-violent comics that tried to imitate it by copying the shallowest parts.See, I don't think that reflects on the art itself at all. It just reflects badly on the people who misread it.

[Tom]

I'm thinking of the comic here. If the goal was to disturb people by showing what real violence was like, then it failed; because it inspired a lot of darker, more-violent comics that tried to imitate it by copying the shallowest parts.


Moore's also gone on record more than once to say that he was appalled that he almost singlehandedly (he had a LOT of help from Frank Miller) set of the grim and gritty phase of comics.

But that bolded part? I'm not sure that was Moore's goal. His goal was to deconstruct the superhero; the violence was only a tool to that end. And if we're talking about the book, it's not nearly as violent as we're all making it out to be in this discussion. Rorshach's acts of violence are disturbing, but not as disturbing as his thoughts, at least to me.

[Fenris]

So how does that make him heroic?

He is obviously not a standard hero. But at the conclusion, Moore puts him into the role of a hero- the hopeless last stand of someone doing what they think is right, standing alone against the Republic serial villain.

It's heroism by connotation, perhaps. Or by formula. He seems like a hero because he fights the villain and (possibly) undoes his plot at the last moment.

If Moore wanted us to find him a pathetic, useless figure, then he could have died in a police shooting while beating up a prostitute. That would actually make sense- it would be an ugly, useless death that emphasized his worst qualities.

Again- and I'm sorry if I'm going in circles on this issue- I don't see why Moore chose this ending for this character, if he wanted Rorschach to be seen as ignoble. The character arc is going in exactly the wrong direction.

õ
Not that he's ever a nice guy!

[Fenris]

See, I don't think that reflects on the art itself at all. It just reflects badly on the people who misread it.


Moore's also gone on record more than once to say that he was appalled that he almost singlehandedly (he had a LOT of help from Frank Miller) set of the grim and gritty phase of comics.

Clearly, I need to read more Moore interviews.
(Was Frank happy about it?)


But that bolded part? I'm not sure that was Moore's goal. His goal was to deconstruct the superhero; the violence was only a tool to that end. And if we're talking about the book, it's not nearly as violent as we're all making it out to be in this discussion. Rorshach's acts of violence are disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as his thoughts, at least to me.

I am meandering between two or three trains of thought, involving (a) Rorschach's character presentation, (b) violence and how it's made acceptable, and (c) the reception of Watchmen versus Moore's intent.

So it's unfortunately likely that they're crashing together in some places.

õ
Or maybe just switching passengers!

[Tom]

He is obviously not a standard hero. But at the conclusion, Moore puts him into the role of a hero- the hopeless last stand of someone doing what they think is right, standing alone against the Republic serial villain.

It's heroism by connotation, perhaps. Or by formula. He seems like a hero because he fights the villain and (possibly) undoes his plot at the last moment.

If Moore wanted us to find him a pathetic, useless figure, then he could have died in a police shooting while beating up a prostitute. That would actually make sense- it would be an ugly, useless death that emphasized his worst qualities.

Again- and I'm sorry if I'm going in circles on this issue- I don't see why Moore chose this ending for this character, if he wanted Rorschach to be seen as ignoble. The character arc is going in exactly the wrong direction.

õ
Not that he's ever a nice guy!

I don't agree. "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon" isn't the noble stance of a hero, it's the delusional stance of a crazy person.

[Valmore]

He is obviously not a standard hero. But at the conclusion, Moore puts him into the role of a hero- the hopeless last stand of someone doing what they think is right, standing alone against the Republic serial villain.

It's heroism by connotation, perhaps. Or by formula. He seems like a hero because he fights the villain and (possibly) undoes his plot at the last moment.

If Moore wanted us to find him a pathetic, useless figure, then he could have died in a police shooting while beating up a prostitute. That would actually make sense- it would be an ugly, useless death that emphasized his worst qualities.

Again- and I'm sorry if I'm going in circles on this issue- I don't see why Moore chose this ending for this character, if he wanted Rorschach to be seen as ignoble. The character arc is going in exactly the wrong direction.

õ
Not that he's ever a nice guy!

I can only speak on the movie, but his death in that was pretty much ignoble. He never got to tell a soul the truth and he just gets smeared out of existence by Dr. Manhattan, and pretty much at his own request, like a guy begging to be released from his misery. Maybe because he knows he has no shot at actually getting anyone to believe him, so the cheap way out is death. A hero would have found a way to at least *try* and fight the corrupt system and get the truth out, even if it's biding his time until the right moment comes around. Rorschach essentially takes the easy way out in the face of his toughest challenge - get smeared out and let the lie go on.

[Paradox]

Tom beat me to what I was seeing:

I don't agree. "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon" isn't the noble stance of a hero, it's the delusional stance of a crazy person.

Which IS exactly the point.

Sorry, Richard, I'm with them. I think you have a point about Rorschach being put in a traditional hero role, but I think that's just Moore turning the convention on its head, in much the same way you note he did the reverse with Ozy. And I don't think he's seeing things as binary either/or as you are. People aren't generally all good or all evil (not that you said they are, just taking the extremes as example). There's some things to find admirable about Rorschach and some that aren't, like all the characters in the book (haven't seen the movie yet).

As to Alan being appalled by the reaction, well, I just took that as him vastly overestimating his audience, and then finding out that he had. :wink:

[Fenris]

I don't agree. "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon" isn't the noble stance of a hero, it's the delusional stance of a crazy person.

Really?

I mean, this isn't about compromising on what we'll watch on TV tonight. It's about covering up a mass murder, and allowing someone to basically take over the world.

(I've already made my opinion of Ozzy pretty clear; I don't even think it's much of a dilemma, because he seems destined for failure one way or the other. Your mileage may vary, of course.)

õ
As it often does!

[Paradox]

Because of the extremes and the absolutes. It's not a one-case decision to "not compromise", it's part and parcel of his psychosis. He makes no distinction between this big thing and small things.

[Fenris]

I can only speak on the movie, but his death in that was pretty much ignoble. He never got to tell a soul the truth and he just gets smeared out of existence by Dr. Manhattan, and pretty much at his own request, like a guy begging to be released from his misery. Maybe because he knows he has no shot at actually getting anyone to believe him, so the cheap way out is death. A hero would have found a way to at least *try* and fight the corrupt system and get the truth out, even if it's biding his time until the right moment comes around. Rorschach essentially takes the easy way out in the face of his toughest challenge - get smeared out and let the lie go on.

Um... can it be a spoiler if you've already seen the movie? Tsk.

Do you remember the last scene, where the guy's looking for something to put in the magazine and he picks up a book out of the slush file?

That's Rorschach's journal. He sent it to them before leaving for the Arctic. It lists all the evidence they found showing that Ozymandias framed Dr. Manhattan, and all the evidence anyone needs to connect him to the destruction of New York.

If they publish that, Ozzy's plot is all undone.

õ
Sudden reversal!

[Tom]

Really?

I mean, this isn't about compromising on what we'll watch on TV tonight. It's about covering up a mass murder, and allowing someone to basically take over the world.



Right, and by choosing not to compromise, he's deciding that his own principles are worth more than the lives of everyone on the planet.

[Fenris]

Which IS exactly the point.

Sorry, Richard, I'm with them.

Grrrrr!

In This Issue: Fenris Stands Alone!

*Dramatic pose, complete with defiant glare*



I think you have a point about Rorschach being put in a traditional hero role, but I think that's just Moore turning the convention on its head, in much the same way you note he did the reverse with Ozy. And I don't think he's seeing things as binary either/or as you are. People aren't generally all good or all evil (not that you said they are, just taking the extremes as example). There's some things to find admirable about Rorschach and some that aren't, like all the characters in the book (haven't seen the movie yet).

As to Alan being appalled by the reaction, well, I just took that as him vastly overestimating his audience, and then finding out that he had. :wink:

But Ozzy is a perfectly conventional villain. He's got delusions of grandeur, no scruples about killing people, and an absurd super-mega-plot to save the world by killing lots of people and taking over. When he says he's not a Republic serial villain, the joke is that he's strictly correct; because after all, the only thing he's talking about there is the timing of his speech.

Regarding Moore's expectations, it's very clear that I'm on thin ice since I've been getting all the details secondhand. I'm going to try and google it some more.

õ
Never Armageddon, not even in the face of compromise!

[Chris N]

I don't agree. "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon" isn't the noble stance of a hero, it's the delusional stance of a crazy person.

Sounds damn noble to me.

I think idealism vs. pragmatism is the moral battle I see often fought in superhero comics and I think it's a fascinating one.

And I think sometimes the thing to do is not worry about practical consequences (hard to predict anyway) and just do what's right.

In practice, a lot of the worst crimes in US history (past and present) result from ignoring basic ideals in pursuit of favourable consequences.

[Paradox]

Fenris missed another part:

Do you remember the last scene, where the guy's looking for something to put in the magazine and he picks up a book out of the slush file?

And do you remember the part where his boss tells him to throw it in the soon to be destroyed crank file? :wink:

[howyadoin]

But Ozzy is a perfectly conventional villain. He's got delusions of grandeur, no scruples about killing people, and an absurd super-mega-plot to save the world by killing lots of people and taking over.Other than the Rube Goldberg complexity of it, what's absurd about his plot?

I mean, it works.

[Chris N]

Right, and by choosing not to compromise, he's deciding that his own principles are worth more than the lives of everyone on the planet.


I agree it's a morally vague situation and there's good argument both ways.

But my gut suggests there's something to sticking to your principles.

It may be the wrong decision in many ways, but that doesn't make it not admirable.

[howyadoin]

I agree it's a morally vague situation and there's good argument both ways.

But my gut suggests there's something to sticking to your principles.I'd say that depends wholly on what your actual principles are.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin has a view:

Sounds damn noble to me.

I think idealism vs. pragmatism is the moral battle I see often fought in superhero comics and I think it's a fascinating one.

That is, in fact, what Moore's touching on, of course. Both ends of those spectra in battle with each other (Rorschach vs. Ozy). They both "wrong" actually by virtue of the extreme nature of their reactions.


And I think sometimes the thing to do is not worry about practical consequences (hard to predict anyway) and just do what's right.

In practice, a lot of the worst crimes in US history (past and present) result from ignoring basic ideals in pursuit of favourable consequences.

Conversely, that also could be applied to people who will only accept their version of what is right and wrong, too.

[Chris N]

I'd say that depends wholly on what your actual principles are.

This has been the philosophical paradox I've been fighting with for years. How do you decide if your own principles are right?

I think mine are.

But so do a lot of racist pricks, religious fanatics and other people I think are clearly wrong.

[Chris N]

That is, in fact, what Moore's touching on, of course. Both ends of those spectra in battle with each other (Rorschach vs. Ozy). They both "wrong" actually by virtue of the extreme nature of their reactions.

That is of course correct. The answer always lies in balance.

And people who deal in absolutes tend to be wrong.

But to say that seeking to not compromise your own principles is the mark of a crazy person also seems off base to me.

[Tom]

And do you remember the part where his boss tells him to throw it in the soon to be destroyed crank file? :wink:

I think you're misremembering that. It was pulled FROM the crank file and his boss said he'd leave it up to him whether to publish it. In other words, the fate of the world was left in the hands of an idiot.

[Paradox]

Fenris snubs Ozy:

But Ozzy is a perfectly conventional villain. He's got delusions of grandeur, no scruples about killing people, and an absurd super-mega-plot to save the world by killing lots of people and taking over.

Possibly, but he's every bit as convinced of the rightness of his actions as Rorschach is convinced he's wrong. And "taking over"? Did Ozy take over in the movie? Because the book shows Machiavellian manipulation, but not an outright power grab. And before you say "same thing", that's just another one of the themes, "Is it or isn't it?" :wink:

[Chris N]

That is, in fact, what Moore's touching on, of course. Both ends of those spectra in battle with each other (Rorschach vs. Ozy). They both "wrong" actually by virtue of the extreme nature of their reactions.

Also on that point, that's how I tend to think about my life.

But that's what leaves me closest to Dan, who saw that both extreme views were wrong.

But he was left confused and uncertain. A useless position. Utterly impotent.

The extreme views were wrong. The balanced position was the guy sitting there scratching his head and being indecisive.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin sees the point again:

This has been the philosophical paradox I've been fighting with for years. How do you decide if your own principles are right?

I think mine are.

But so do a lot of racist pricks, religious fanatics and other people I think are clearly wrong.

That would be because you're all...human beings. :wink:

[Chris N]

Other than the Rube Goldberg complexity of it, what's absurd about his plot?

I mean, it works.

Does it work? It worked for the time being but will it work in the end?

Well, nothing ever ends.

[SayOcean]

Possibly, but he's every bit as convinced of the rightness of his actions as Rorschach is convinced he's wrong. And "taking over"? Did Ozy take over in the movie? Because the book shows Machiavellian manipulation, but not an outright power grab. And before you say "same thing", that's just another one of the themes, "Is it or isn't it?" :wink:
pardox is my new my best friend Ive deceided

[Paradox]

Tom corrects:

I think you're misremembering that. It was pulled FROM the crank file and his boss said he'd leave it up to him whether to publish it. In other words, the fate of the world was left in the hands of an idiot.

Possibly (still haven't dug out my copies from my nightmarish mess of a collection). Or possibly I misinterpreted it. I definitely remember the boss saying something about destroying that stuff, though. In the end, Moore leaves us with no definite answer, which is, of course, intended.

[Tom]

That is of course correct. The answer always lies in balance.

And people who deal in absolutes tend to be wrong.

But to say that seeking to not compromise your own principles is the mark of a crazy person also seems off base to me.

Even if that uncompromising position results in the deaths of billions?

[Fenris]

Right, and by choosing not to compromise, he's deciding that his own principles are worth more than the lives of everyone on the planet.

Yes; clearly, he does think that. And that is pretty frightening.

But, given the unhappy alternatives, it is the most heroic role. (Which is really saying something!)

Ozzy is an amoral narcissist who views the world as his personal challenge to control. Jon is what he is- more a force of nature than a character. Dan and Laurie are very decent people who are not at all heroic here; they basically do what they're told, and don't even try to look for alternatives.

(Of course, neither does Rorschach.)

You can say that heroism is a bad thing in this context; that makes sense. Heroism is a very narrow moral role that isn't always appropriate.

But Rorschach's behavior is heroic, or at least cast in a heroic role.

õ
He never exactly fits!

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin keeps the hits a'comin':

Also on that point, that's how I tend to think about my life.

But that's what leaves me closest to Dan, who saw that both extreme views were wrong.

Which makes sense, as Dan is our "everyman".


But he was left confused and uncertain. A useless position. Utterly impotent.

Yup. That's exactly the power "everymen" have. None. Scary but true.


The extreme views were wrong. The balanced position was the guy sitting there scratching his head and being indecisive.

Again...yup. And then he sucks it up and gets on with his life. :wink:

[howyadoin]

This has been the philosophical paradox I've been fighting with for years. How do you decide if your own principles are right?

I think mine are.

But so do a lot of racist pricks, religious fanatics and other people I think are clearly wrong.There ya go. Earlier you said it implied - or perhaps inferred - nobility. But Vatican City refusing to sign the U.N. Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity doesn't make the Pope noble. It makes him a homophobic douchebag.

[howyadoin]

Does mentioning the latest Pope constitute invoking Godwin's Law?

[Tom]

Richard, it seems to me you're struggling mightily to designate a hero in a story specifically designed NOT to have any heroes in it.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Does mentioning the latest Pope constitute invoking Godwin's Law?

Well, he used to be a Nazi.

And you know who else used to be a Nazi?

Nazis.

[Fenris]

Other than the Rube Goldberg complexity of it, what's absurd about his plot?

I mean, it works.

It works because the plot makes it work. :smile:

The Rube Goldberg complexity is a big part of it. But aside from that...

This is a unique cloned creature, with a unique cloned brain, using some kind of mass-killing-by-telepathic-disgust technique that can't possibly have been tested before its first and only use.

And it all works perfectly. Every last little bit. Just like Dr. Doom's gizmos never seem to need adjustment in the middle of battle, even when he's just cobbled them together out of unfamiliar alien technology.


õ
It's a mad scientist thing!

[LtMarvel]

Absolutely. But if Moore was expecting every comics reader to deeply absorb his themes, then he was kidding himself. And if not- well, what was he talking about?

õ
I still haven't found it online!
You know, that's a high standard for the writer of Tiny Titans.

Just saying...

[Chris N]

Even if that uncompromising position results in the deaths of billions?

That's where morality is difficult to pin down.

I've heard a lot of terrible acts justified by pointing to all the lives it would save in the long run.

Where's Samurai defending Japanese Internment when you need him?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Where's Samurai defending Japanese Internment when you need him?

What's the argument there?

It was right to lock them up otherwise they would have risen up against Japan's enemies?

In that case it was right for Hitler to lock up all Jewish people because if he was only going to attack some, the others might have risen up against him.

I think just run on the 'Don't be a dick' level, and you should do fine.

Racists? Dicks.
Homophobes? Dicks.
Selfish people? Dicks.
Thieves? Dicks.
People who do something that makes someone else sad? Dicks.
And so on and so forth.

[Chris N]

There ya go. Earlier you said it implied - or perhaps inferred - nobility. But Vatican City refusing to sign the U.N. Statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity doesn't make the Pope noble. It makes him a homophobic douchebag.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that sticking to bad principles is a good thing.

(I did mean to say that philosophically speaking, I have a hard time pinning any logic to what principles I think are bad. But going with my gut, a lot of people have fucked up values)

But if somebody is a moral person (whatever that means), I think sticking to what they think is right is a noble thing, even in the face of possible negative consequences.

And in this moment, Rorshach's value wasn't bad. Somebody just killed millions of people and wants him to lie about it. He believes in truth and that if somebody's a mass murderer the people should know.

Whatever else is going on in Rorshach's head, that's not an insane value.

Nowhere near comparable with values like "Birth control is evil" or "Gays shouldn't have rights".

[Tom]

That's where morality is difficult to pin down.

I've heard a lot of terrible acts justified by pointing to all the lives it would save in the long run.

Where's Samurai defending Japanese Internment when you need him?

But Rorshach KNEW (or at least believed) that his stance would result in Armageddon. That's not the thinking of a noble hero.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Nowhere near comparable with values like "Birth control is evil" or "Gays shouldn't have rights".

Yeah, but those two don't even make any sense on any level.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin should have seen this coming:

That's where morality is difficult to pin down.

I've heard a lot of terrible acts justified by pointing to all the lives it would save in the long run.

Good men do things like that. Good men, like President Truman. :wink:

http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mushroom-cloud1.jpg

[Fenris]

Possibly, but he's every bit as convinced of the rightness of his actions as Rorschach is convinced he's wrong. And "taking over"? Did Ozy take over in the movie? Because the book shows Machiavellian manipulation, but not an outright power grab. And before you say "same thing", that's just another one of the themes, "Is it or isn't it?" :wink:

In the book- vexingly, I don't have it here in front of me- he says something to the effect of, "I've brought them out of Hell, now I'll lead them into paradise!"

Which isn't much, I know. But remember when he talks about Alexander the Great: his life's destiny is to conquer the evils that beset mankind; which is kind of a big project.

I don't think he can possibly sit by and let things happen on their own. There is nothing in his character that suggests that. He's deeply convinced that the world needs him; and if anything, the outcome of his plot proved to him that he was right.

õ
And yes, I am interpreting!

[howyadoin]

Yeah, but those two don't even make any sense on any level.And yet they aren't surprising coming from a guy who actively protected child molesters and then hid behind diplomatic immunity.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

And yet they aren't surprising coming from a guy who actively protected child molesters and then hid behind diplomatic immunity.

But what are you going to do?
It's a position for life, and he said himself that killing him is the second worst thing you can possibly do...

[Paradox]

Fenris becomes literalist:

In the book- vexingly, I don't have it here in front of me- he says something to the effect of, "I've brought them out of Hell, now I'll lead them into paradise!"

Yes, but not in the manner of taking over. Ozy only leads from behind the scenes. He's going to help lead them with his business and money, maintaining his Machiavellian position. He desires to be a guardian...a shepherd, not a ruler.


I don't think he can possibly sit by and let things happen on their own. There is nothing in his character that suggests that. He's deeply convinced that the world needs him; and if anything, the outcome of his plot proved to him that he was right.

And we're back to "is manipulation the same as ruling?".

Part of the problem with all this is looking to find answers in the book. Moore very deliberately didn't leave any answers there, just questions. :wink:

[Chris N]

Yeah, but those two don't even make any sense on any level.

Exactly, but that's the direction howy chose to go with what I said.

That's not what I had been talking about. And I wanted to clarify.

[Chris N]

But Rorshach KNEW (or at least believed) that his stance would result in Armageddon. That's not the thinking of a noble hero.

He also knew that lying to cover up for a mass murderer was wrong.

[howyadoin]

Exactly, but that's the direction howy chose to go with what I said.

That's not what I had been talking about. And I wanted to clarify.I know it wasn't what you were specifically talking about. It was still a counterexample to what you seemed to be saying, though - that sticking to your principles is inherently noble.

He also knew that lying to cover up for a mass murderer was wrong.And that exposing the mass murderer would most likely kill even more people.

[Chris N]

Good men do things like that. Good men, like President Truman. :wink:

http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mushroom-cloud1.jpg

That's exactly my point.

Hiroshima, Manzanar, McCarthyism...

All came out of the belief that compromising some ideals would save lives in the long run.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

I know it wasn't what you were specifically talking about.

Howy just really hates the pope.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin walks through it:

He also knew that lying to cover up for a mass murderer was wrong.

That's part of it, too. He couldn't get those two things to match up, so fuck it, get me outta Dodge.

[Fenris]

Richard, it seems to me you're struggling mightily to designate a hero in a story specifically designed NOT to have any heroes in it.

It's not hard to have a story with no heroes in it. Lots of stories are like that.

But the main way you write a story with no heroes is to avoid putting a character into a traditional heroic role. Because that's a lot of what heroism is: a role.


Saying he's not heroic when he acts in a hero's role is at best tenuous, because there are lots of literary examples of bad characters who rise to heroic occaision. And if he's filling the role, then he's filling the role- regardless of what else is going on in the plot.

I don't mean to suggest a kind of plug-and-play literature. But my point is that heroism is signified by certain actions in a certain context; and the brave defiance of the villain is one of those. Even (or rather especially) when it's hopeless, or just a matter of principle.

õ
Which is to say, in his complexity he is not less than heroic, though he may be more complex than that.

[howyadoin]

That's exactly my point.

Hiroshima, Manzanar, McCarthyism...

All came out of the belief that compromising some ideals would save lives in the long run.That's the most bizarre take on McCarthyism I've ever heard.

[Chris N]

And that exposing the mass murderer would most likely kill even more people.

I agree that Watchmen successfully creates a good moral quandary.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin sees it, of course:

That's exactly my point.

Hiroshima, Manzanar, McCarthyism...

All came out of the belief that compromising some ideals would save lives in the long run.

And is that right or wrong, Dan? :evilsmile:

Is getting results from compromised ideals worse than sticking to your guns and getting no results at all except feeling good about yourself? Or would you rather go bang Laurie and save some people from a fire? :wink:

[Chris N]

That's the most bizarre take on McCarthyism I've ever heard.

I've heard it defended in a similar way.

The Soviet Union came to power because Communists were allowed to speak and let their ideas spread. Thus Stalin took over and killed thousands.

Thus we needed to compromise freedom of speech and habeus corpus a little to make sure there wasn't a Communist revolution in America.

[howyadoin]

I've heard it defended in a similar way.

The Soviet Union came to power because Communists were allowed to speak and let their ideas spread. Thus Stalin took over and killed thousands.

Thus we needed to compromise freedom of speech and habeus corpus a little to make sure there wasn't a Communist revolution in America.I've heard similar rationalizations, too. That doesn't make them any less simple-minded.

[Chris N]

I've heard similar rationalizations, too. That doesn't make them any less simple-minded.

Well, sure.

But that's the point then.

There were some good ideals there that shouldn't have been compromised.

[Paradox]

Actually, I wouldn't call "irrational fear of Communism" a "good ideal", but, hey, that's kind of par for this discussion. :smile:

[howyadoin]

Well, sure.

But that's the point then.

There were some good ideals there that shouldn't have been compromised.I think McCarthy and his cronies thought they were righteous American warriors doing God's holy work. They didn't see themselves as making moral compromises at all.

[Chris N]

Actually, I wouldn't call "irrational fear of Communism" a "good ideal", but, hey, that's kind of par for this discussion. :smile:

Tarnation. Can I not speak English?

The good ideals were freedom of speech and such.

[Paradox]

Well, then, to draw it back to the discussion at hand...

There's nothing wrong with "sticking to your guns". The wrong part comes with "no matter what". Because that includes "whether the evidence says I'm wrong or not". Human beings simply cannot deal with the world that way, because we're flawed and imperfect, and there is no guarantee you're always going to be right.

[Fenris]

And that exposing the mass murderer would most likely kill even more people.

Weirdly, the longer I focus on this dilemma, the better Rorschach's position sounds to me.

Okay, geek moment. There's an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where Willow decides to edit someone's memories, to ease their very-intense emotional pain. Without consulting them, or anyone else, I mean.

Her girlfriend Willow finally yells, "You don't get to decide things like that for people!"

Which is true.

Rorschach's exposure isn't going to destroy the world. It's going to give the choices about the world back to the world's governments- wretched things, to be sure, but at least they're ours. And they're better than Ozzy.

In back of Ozymandias' idealism is a profound and self-centered cynicism; he's convinced that the world is too stupid and incompetent to survive without him. The book's plot seems to back him up, but that's because he arranged so much of the book's plot; he engineered the world crisis himself.

But "Look on my works, ye mighty..." is not an accidental quotation. It's his thematic destiny, written right into his name. The only real question is how much he'll ruin in the process of working that destiny out.

õ
My destiny should involve bed!

[Fenris]

I think McCarthy and his cronies thought they were righteous American warriors doing God's holy work. They didn't see themselves as making moral compromises at all.

From what I've read of McCarthy, he wasn't an ideologue at all; those close to him said that he never took it very seriously. He was a politician with a flair for drama who found a lot of power in one particular lie.


õ
But is that better or worse?

[Paradox]

Fenris brings this part up:

In back of Ozymandias' idealism is a profound and self-centered cynicism; he's convinced that the world is too stupid and incompetent to survive without him. The book's plot seems to back him up, but that's because he arranged so much of the book's plot; he engineered the world crisis himself.

And I contend that he did not. He took advantage of a crisis already there. Now, I know it's not exactly openly portrayed as such in the actual book, but Moore's interviews at the time stated that this particular world was MUCH closer to "the nukes flying like mayflies" than our world was at the time (because, in my estimation, of the way we were using Doc Manhattan as a weapon). Like if we were 5 minutes to 12 on the ol' nuclear clock, this world was 1 minute to midnight (that part I remember being clearly said).

Sure, Ozy provided a trigger point to heighten things a touch (hence Nixon running for the bunkers the second Doc left Earth and the Russians invaded Afghanistan. Things were never anywhere near that dire here), but, at least from his viewpoint, all he did was hurry the boiling, he didn't put the pot on the fire.

[Fenris]

And I contend that he did not. He took advantage of a crisis already there. Now, I know it's not exactly openly portrayed as such in the actual book, but Moore's interviews at the time stated that this particular world was MUCH closer to "the nukes flying like mayflies" than our world was at the time (because, in my estimation, of the way we were using Doc Manhattan as a weapon). Like if we were 5 minutes to 12 on the ol' nuclear clock, this world was 1 minute to midnight (that part I remember being clearly said).

Argh! More interviews!



Sure, Ozy provided a trigger point to heighten things a touch (hence Nixon running for the bunkers the second Doc left Earth and the Russians invaded Afghanistan), but, at least from his viewpoint, all he did was hurry the boiling, he didn't put the pot on the fire.

Sure, from his viewpoint. One of my problems is that Ozzy's viewpoint is mainly a front-row view of Ozzy.

I will have to stand by my point regardless. No one asked him to fix the world. And he didn't ask them, either.

If there's a good way to save the world, that's not it.

õ
Would you tell me if the squid was fake, Dox?

[Paradox]

Probably not. I'm Dan on this, too. Fuck it, it's beyond me. The scale's too big. I don't know what's wrong or right and can't predict the future. Time to dye my hair and get laid. :wink:

I can't save the world, I can only do what I can in my little corner.

[howyadoin]

From what I've read of McCarthy, he wasn't an ideologue at all; those close to him said that he never took it very seriously. He was a politician with a flair for drama who found a lot of power in one particular lie. Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. I've always heard that he was a raging egomaniac obsessed with his own rightness. If that was indeed the case, then I doubt that he saw something like infringing on freedom of speech as a necessary evil. I think he just saw freedom of speech as something that stood in the way of his career path (i.e., there wasn't any compromise on his part).

Hence my reaction to Chris's earlier statement. I don't think McCarthy was trying to "save lives," or anything like that.

[Chris N]

Hence my reaction to Chris's earlier statement. I don't think McCarthy was trying to "save lives," or anything like that.

Then McCarthy isn't the example. The millions of people who bought into his bullshit were. Because they knew what our basic American ideals were.

They just fell along with the idea that they needed to be compromised to save America.

[Chris N]

Probably not. I'm Dan on this, too. Fuck it, it's beyond me. The scale's too big. I don't know what's wrong or right and can't predict the future. Time to dye my hair and get laid. :wink:

I can't save the world, I can only do what I can in my little corner.

Rereading this, I really think Fenris has a point.

First of all, we all agree Rorshach was crazy.

But we're just talking about the end here.

To believe that the best course of action is to lie to an entire world is a rather questionable one.

As Rorshach tears off his mask and yells "Do it!", I think we see something heroic. Perhaps the only example of heroism in the entire book.

Because he does seem to believe that his telling the truth will have disastrous consequences. But he also knows it's wrong to lie to people to manipulate them and he wants no part of this cover-up. He won't conspire to lie to a world. He won't compromise his own integrity.

Which leaves him with one option. Doc Manhattan. Rorshach knew what had to happen there and he accepted it. He didn't want billions to die. He wanted to live a life free from compromise. And he did so.

Insane and pitiable certainly.

But I refuse to believe there's nothing admirable in that.




But back on the previous track, when faced with a decision where the morally wrong thing to do may have the net benefit consequence... Dox is right that there's no answer for all situations. But I know of few examples in history where those ready to sacrifice ideals and do bad things in the name of some nebulous greater good seem to be on the right side in retrospect.

[Chris N]

And Ozy's belief that he can keep the truth of this secret from the entire world seemed farfetched to me once.

But now that I know NASA has successfully fooled people with their moon-landing hoax for 40 years, it seems more plausible.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin lays it out:

Rereading this, I really think Fenris has a point.

First of all, we all agree Rorshach was crazy.

But we're just talking about the end here.

To believe that the best course of action is to lie to an entire world is a rather questionable one.

With you so far.



As Rorshach tears off his mask and yells "Do it!", I think we see something heroic. Perhaps the only example of heroism in the entire book.

Because he does seem to believe that his telling the truth will have disastrous consequences. But he also knows it's wrong to lie to people to manipulate them and he wants no part of this cover-up. He won't conspire to lie to a world. He won't compromise his own integrity.

Which leaves him with one option. Doc Manhattan. Rorshach knew what had to happen there and he accepted it. He didn't want billions to die. He wanted to live a life free from compromise. And he did so.

Insane and pitiable certainly.

But I refuse to believe there's nothing admirable in that.

See, I'm seeing where you're coming from, but I keep reading "it's heroic to run away from the problem". I see this not as him sustaining his integrity, but abandoning it. Isn't he supposed to be fighting against it? Instead of embracing his ideals, he's surrendering to pragmatism. He knows there's nothing he can do against these powerful forces against him, so he bows to the inevitable. Death as a sacrifice is only heroic when it does something. Rorschach's death did nothing to further his particular cause. It doesn't even make a statement, as it's just him and Doc out there in the snow. In fact, his death helps further Ozy's cause.

What he does is actually no more heroic than Dan and Laurie's running away. But at least those two are consciously aware of it. Rorschach's just so "black and white" fucked up in the head that he can't even play along enough to get back to the world. Not that Doc would have let him, but this is his psychosis (or whatever brand of nuttery Kramer would correct me towards). His solution to stopping Ozy (since empirical evidence shows he can't just beat him up) is to march out and die in the snow. He can't help himself, but I don't see that as heroic in the least.

[Chris N]

I see what you're saying too, but a gesture of defiance, even a meaningless and futile one...

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it...

In the introduction to Sandman: A Game of You (which is a poor introduction but good analysis of the book) the author (forget who) speaks of Barbie's act of defiance at the end. The family refused to recognize that their son thought of himself as a woman and dressed him up as a man for the funeral and wrote his male name, Alvin on the tombstone

Barbie's gesture of defiance was to cross the name out with lipstick and write "Wanda". The family had already left and the introduction points out that probably rain will wash that lipstick away before anybody notices it.

It's useless but it's a gesture of defiance.

Fenris' point was that that is the type of attitude that has been portrayed as noble in heroic fiction.

Moore's point is in part that these old stereotypes need reexamining.

And in examining Rorshach's end closely, we find a sad, pathetic and insane situation.

But he made a gesture. Rorshach in the end was acting out the role of the traditional hero in the face of Ozy's megalomania. Which I think was Fenris' point.

Rorshach in the end is the hero of the piece. Tom suggested Moore was trying to write a story without heroes. But that wasn't true. The ending casts Ozy as a villain, Rorshach as a hero and Dan as an everyman. But we then see what being a hero means. Fanatical obsession, insanity, and a useless death in the snow, accomplishing nothing. And we're not even sure his death should be mourned because living would have had disastrous consequences.

Dammit, rambling. But Fenris seems right. The ending mirrors a traditional black hat/white hat type of situation. And Rorshach is the white hat. We're just left wondering who's right or noble.

And the answer is: nobody.

[howyadoin]

See, I'm seeing where you're coming from, but I keep reading "it's heroic to run away from the problem". I see this not as him sustaining his integrity, but abandoning it. Isn't he supposed to be fighting against it? Instead of embracing his ideals, he's surrendering to pragmatism. He knows there's nothing he can do against these powerful forces against him, so he bows to the inevitable. Death as a sacrifice is only heroic when it does something. Rorschach's death did nothing to further his particular cause. It doesn't even make a statement, as it's just him and Doc out there in the snow. In fact, his death helps further Ozy's cause.

What he does is actually no more heroic than Dan and Laurie's running away. But at least those two are consciously aware of it. Rorschach's just so "black and white" fucked up in the head that he can't even play along enough to get back to the world. Not that Doc would have let him, but this is his psychosis (or whatever brand of nuttery Kramer would correct me towards). His solution to stopping Ozy (since empirical evidence shows he can't just beat him up) is to march out and die in the snow. He can't help himself, but I don't see that as heroic in the least.I still haven't gotten to the end on this particular reread, but that sounds pretty accurate to me.

I wonder if I'm agreeing with the things you and Tom have been saying because we're all over 40.

[Chris N]

While I'm still a rebellious youth with romantic longings to rebel against the establishment?

EDIT: Tages said he'd help.

[Paradox]

One does tend to embrace pragmatism more as one gets older. That's certainly a valid point.

[howyadoin]

Rorshach in the end was acting out the role of the traditional hero in the face of Ozy's megalomania.

Rorshach in the end is the hero of the piece.Acting out the role of the traditional hero and actually being heroic aren't the same thing, of course.




Tom suggested Moore was trying to write a story without heroes. But that wasn't true.It really is, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

[Paradox]

And, Chris, Ozy's only the villain from your point of view. That's hardly definitive. There's plenty of argument that he's a good sort, just believes that the ends justify the means.

I'm not saying I agree with Ozy, but rather that everything's very ambiguous and (hee) paradoxical and fitting either Ozy or Rorschach into a nice safe category is pretty much missing the point.

[Chris N]

Acting out the role of the traditional hero and actually being heroic aren't the same thing, of course.

Of course.



It really is, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

I think there's three uses of the word hero here. And I think the rest of what I said regarding what you quoted is necessary to appreciate what I meant.

There's what it means to actually be "heroic" in real life. Which probably speaks for nobody in this comic.

There's what it means to be portrayed as "heroic" as has been done in classic heroic fiction, in particular superhero stories. What Fenris and I are claiming is that Rorshach's act of defiance fits right in there.

There's what Moore is trying for. Which is complex. And saying he's written a story without heroes oversimplifies and possibly misses the point as much as idolizing Rorshach or thinking of him as the hero would.

In that ending, Rorshach was playing out the traditional hero's role. I believe Moore did this intentionally. Because we would then see what subscribing to a "classic" version of heroism leads to: fanaticism.

Which is what I think was Fenris' point more or less. But Fenris now has the right to come in and tell me I've missed his point completely!


In the end, I suspect we're more in agreement than our arguing indicates.

I came in because of Tom's comment about the "Never compromise" phrase. He said it's insane and absolutely not noble.

I don't mean to say it is a noble idea either. But rather something in the middle of those too. In the vast continuum between "noble" and "insane" lies that phrase.

I just think there's something to it.

[Chris N]

And, Chris, Ozy's only the villain from your point of view. That's hardly definitive. There's plenty of argument that he's a good sort, just believes that the ends justify the means.

I'm not saying I agree with Ozy, but rather that everything's very ambiguous and (hee) paradoxical and fitting either Ozy or Rorschach into a nice safe category is pretty much missing the point.

I've read a lot of superhero comic books. Possibly even more than you have.

The guy who kills innocent people because he believes the ends justify the means is always the villain in comic books.

That doesn't make him wrong. My point above isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with the character. Or even saying that he's the villain of the story.

But that's the stereotype Moore has cast him into.

[howyadoin]

But that's the stereotype Moore has cast him into.Right. Because he's deconstructing stereotypes here.

[Chris N]

Right. Because he's deconstructing stereotypes here.

I can't tell if you're arguing or agreeing with me. It sounded argumentative, but I think that's what I was saying.

[howyadoin]

I can't tell if you're arguing or agreeing with me. It sounded argumentative, but I think that's what I was saying.You seem to be saying that Rorschach has some heroic nobility in him. I'm saying - and I'm not alone - that Moore cast him that way to show that there's nothing heroic about him at all (or about any of the superheroes in the book). We want to think he is, because we want to root for the underdog.

[Chris N]

You seem to be saying that Rorschach has some heroic nobility in him. I'm saying - and I'm not alone - that Moore cast him that way to show that there's nothing heroic about him at all (or about any of the superheroes in the book). We want to think he is, because we want to root for the underdog.

Well, mostly I'm saying what you finally seem to be saying. That Moore cast him as the character we're used to rooting for. (And Ozy as the character we're used to rooting against was also part of the point; and I think Fenris' point as well)


However, on a totally unrelated note, I do also believe there's at least a little heroic nobility in him. Not a lot. He's mainly insane and pathetic. But I'm also not convinced there's "nothing heroic about him at all". I think a final analysis is somewhere in the middle. I think it's grey.

I think none of these heroes come off at heroes, but that all of them have something going for them. Some sliver of heroism.

If I were grading them on being heroes, they'd all get partial credit.

[howyadoin]

Well, mostly I'm saying what you finally seem to be saying. That Moore cast him as the character we're used to rooting for. (And Ozy as the character we're used to rooting against was also part of the point; and I think Fenris' point as well)


However, on a totally unrelated note, I do also believe there's at least a little heroic nobility in him.I don't see how that's unrelated.


I'm also not convinced there's "nothing heroic about him at all". I think a final analysis is somewhere in the middle. I think it's grey.

I think none of these heroes come off at heroes, but that all of them have something going for them. Some sliver of heroism. ... because that's what you want to see, not because that's actually what's in the book.

[Chris N]

... because that's what you want to see, not because that's actually what's in the book.

Nah. You're just insisting it's all or nothing. They're heroes or they're not. But it's not that black or white.

There's a long continuum and human beings fall somewhere in there. Dan is weak, but he means well and genuinely wants to do good. That's worth something.

Rorshach is insane but believes fiercely in truth and justice.

Silk Spectre has sex with Dan.

Ozymandias wants to save the world and perhaps does.


Everyone’s a hero in their own way
In their own not-that-heroic way

[Paul McEnery]

Nah. You're just insisting it's all or nothing. They're heroes or they're not. But it's not that black or white.

There's a long continuum and human beings fall somewhere in there. Dan is weak, but he means well and genuinely wants to do good. That's worth something.

Is not. He's a fool. He could have done something useful, but he's up to his eyes in boyhood self-importance.

All that technological skill, but he's keeping it to his sillyness. Feh.



Rorshach is insane but believes fiercely in truth and justice.

Again, self-important, which skews his idea of what truth and justice is. His genuine truth is he isn't loved, and he hates that.

[Paradox]

Chris Nowlin gives partial credit:

Nah. You're just insisting it's all or nothing. They're heroes or they're not. But it's not that black or white.

Personally, I find actions to be heroic, not people themselves. All the characters have some actions that could be heroic. They all have their shitstain bits, too. People, y'know?


There's a long continuum and human beings fall somewhere in there. Dan is weak, but he means well and genuinely wants to do good. That's worth something.

Oh, pish. Means well means nothing. Saving people from the fire...heroic. Walking away scared and confused from a situation that's too big for him to handle...not so much.


Rorshach is insane but believes fiercely in truth and justice.

HIS version of it, which is highly suspect due to his mental illness.


Silk Spectre has sex with Dan.

Getting some doesn't have anything heroic about it. Even if, as it seems you're trying to say, that she's throwing him a pity fuck (and she wasn't).


Ozymandias wants to save the world and perhaps does.

An act both villainous AND heroic in it's execution, therebye not being either, really.



Everyone’s a hero in their own way
In their own not-that-heroic way

I think howie's right. I think you're trying to really push things just to have them fall into how you want them to be.

[Valmore]

Um... can it be a spoiler if you've already seen the movie? Tsk.

Do you remember the last scene, where the guy's looking for something to put in the magazine and he picks up a book out of the slush file?

That's Rorschach's journal. He sent it to them before leaving for the Arctic. It lists all the evidence they found showing that Ozymandias framed Dr. Manhattan, and all the evidence anyone needs to connect him to the destruction of New York.

If they publish that, Ozzy's plot is all undone.

õ
Sudden reversal!

Sure, I remember it. I also remember that the journal was mailed in before the final confrontation, so you can't tell what exact details are even in it - the grand finale was only witnessed by those there in Antarctica. I also remember that Rorschach just beforehand was apprehended as a murderer who jury-rigged a flamethrower and tried to fight against a squadron of cops. Ozymandius was last publically seen heroically fighting off an attacker against him amongst a bunch of well-connected millionaire industrialist (some of whom are dead).

Some underpaid lackey at a newspaper printing his journal probably isn't going to get any credibility to the truth. But Rorschach didn't even try to stick around to make it stick. In the end, he compromised and begged for death and got it.

[Gilda Dent]

To believe that the best course of action is to lie to an entire world is a rather questionable one.

Nobody has to lie. They just don't have to say anything about what they know.

Rorschach, from the very beginning, is shown to be less than heroic. In his journal entries he tells us point blank that he doesn't care about the people of the city. He wants them to suffer to pay for their sins.

His first interaction with another person in the story is to assault an innocent man.

These are very much not heroic acts.

Afterward we see him doing things typical of a costumed hero, chiefly investigating the murder of a friend (or at least a colleague), teaming up to uncover a criminal conspiracy, and so forth, but all this comes after he's been established as a psychopath who doesn't care about people.

He is, at best, an antihero.

[Joe Rice]

Yes; clearly, he does think that. And that is pretty frightening.

But, given the unhappy alternatives, it is the most heroic role. (Which is really saying something!)

Ozzy is an amoral narcissist who views the world as his personal challenge to control. Jon is what he is- more a force of nature than a character. Dan and Laurie are very decent people who are not at all heroic here; they basically do what they're told, and don't even try to look for alternatives.

(Of course, neither does Rorschach.)

You can say that heroism is a bad thing in this context; that makes sense. Heroism is a very narrow moral role that isn't always appropriate.

But Rorschach's behavior is heroic, or at least cast in a heroic role.

õ
He never exactly fits!


It's not hard to have a story with no heroes in it. Lots of stories are like that.

But the main way you write a story with no heroes is to avoid putting a character into a traditional heroic role. Because that's a lot of what heroism is: a role.


Saying he's not heroic when he acts in a hero's role is at best tenuous, because there are lots of literary examples of bad characters who rise to heroic occaision. And if he's filling the role, then he's filling the role- regardless of what else is going on in the plot.

I don't mean to suggest a kind of plug-and-play literature. But my point is that heroism is signified by certain actions in a certain context; and the brave defiance of the villain is one of those. Even (or rather especially) when it's hopeless, or just a matter of principle.

õ
Which is to say, in his complexity he is not less than heroic, though he may be more complex than that.

As others have said, Rorschach is given the traditional hero role to highlight how he is anything but one. He is a serial killer and a deeply fucked up, pathetic human being. He ends up a waste of flesh as he began.

And in no moral universe is lying worse than mass murder.

[Agent Helix]

What if all the masses you murder were jerks, Joe?

[Gilda Dent]

Sure, I remember it. I also remember that the journal was mailed in before the final confrontation, so you can't tell what exact details are even in it - the grand finale was only witnessed by those there in Antarctica. I also remember that Rorschach just beforehand was apprehended as a murderer who jury-rigged a flamethrower and tried to fight against a squadron of cops. Ozymandius was last publically seen heroically fighting off an attacker against him amongst a bunch of well-connected millionaire industrialist (some of whom are dead).

Some underpaid lackey at a newspaper printing his journal probably isn't going to get any credibility to the truth. But Rorschach didn't even try to stick around to make it stick. In the end, he compromised and begged for death and got it.

In addition, his handwriting had earlier been described as "illegible", and, in the book, we don't see what the assistant pulls out of the crank file, and this is in a fringe paper for which lunatic conspiracy theories are commonplace.

The point is to leave it ambiguous. We don't know if it will get pulled before the crank filed is purged, we don't know if anyone will be able to read it, we don't know if the right people will see it or treat it seriously.

We're left on a note of uncertainty as to what is going to happen next, as to whether anything that anyone did made a difference in the end.

Which is kinda the point of the whole book anyway.

[Joe Rice]

What if all the masses you murder were jerks, Joe?

EVERYBODY is a jerk. Think on that one!

Dan is selfish, immature, and impotent.

Laurie is selfish, hateful, and egotistical.

Adrian is narcissistic, murderous, and egotistical.

R is all those things.

And Jon isn't even a person anymore.

[Agent Helix]

No no, I mean, like what if you blow up a Limp Bizkit concert. That'd be a good thing, right?

[Michael P]

No no, I mean, like what if you blow up a Limp Bizkit concert. That'd be a good thing, right?

Yeah, but it's a well-known fact that international law refuses to acknowledge Limp Bizkit fans as human beings.

[Agent Helix]

Fred Durst is classified as a harmful biological agent.

[Joe Rice]

No no, I mean, like what if you blow up a Limp Bizkit concert. That'd be a good thing, right?

You've given me a lot to think about.

[Paradox]

Agent Helix wants repercussions?:

What if all the masses you murder were jerks, Joe?

CBR would be a lot less interesting? :tongue:

[Tom]

I came in because of Tom's comment about the "Never compromise" phrase. He said it's insane and absolutely not noble.


This is a little pedantic of me but I can't help but notice that you keep referring to the "never compromise" part of the quote. That's not what makes him ignoble and delusional. It's the "not even in the face of Armageddon" part that makes it so.

[Paradox]

Yes, that's the point I've been making. It's not the "no compromise", it's the "never ever ever no matter what".

[Slam_Bradley]

To be fair, it's not the ultraviolence I mind -- God knows I love me some Pekinpah -- it's that fuqtard three rows from the back who yells from the diaphragm through the guttural throat "YEEEAAAHHHHH!".

Mind, I hate him just as much at rock shows, and would cry not one single tear if a bus ran into him at the crosswalk.

Paul McEnery's Journal.
March 18 2009:

Fuqtard carcass in the crosswalk
this morning, bus tire tread
on burst stomach. This
city is afraid of me
I have seen its
true face.

[Paradox]

I think the city would be more afraid of him if they saw HIS true face. :tongue:

[jesse_custer]

Just thinking out loud here:

Let's assume Rorschach had his way at the conclusion. Can we assume that his stance would have resulted in Armageddon? I am hesitant to say yes for two reasons.

1. Dr. Manhattan's final point to Ozy.

2. Alan Moore comments on fear and its negative consequences throughout Watchmen. In the abstract, is Ozy's plan an absurd reaction caused by fear?

Again, the loon might have been right. That's what makes Watchmen so fascinating.

[Paradox]

No argument there. It IS all ambiguous intentionally. To be sure, I don't think Moore wants us to find "the answers", just get the thinking going with the questions. There aren't any "answers", in the technical form of the word.

[Tom]

I tend not to think it's all that ambiguous when the god-like being and the world's smartest man are in agreement that the outcome would be catastrophic.

[jesse_custer]

Yep. I can be tugged to either side.

[Guapo Méndez]

I like to think that Movie Rorschach knew that he was in an impossible situation. He couldn't betray his own principles, but if he went back and told the truth, he'd be responsible for a worse massacre than Ozymandias'.

He only has two lucid moments in the movie: apologizing to Dan and asking Dr. Manhattan to kill him.

[Dreadstar]

He only has two lucid moments in the movie: apologizing to Dan and asking Dr. Manhattan to kill him.

Yeah, that's really how I saw it. "Look. I'm really fucked up, and you'll be doing me a favor."

[JeffreyWKramer]

He's the worst comics psychiatrist since the equally incompetent, blind-to-evil psychiatrist in Dark Knight Returns. Which makes me wonder just what the problem was with psychiatrists for comics writers of the period.

õ
Or maybe it's just a coincidence? Naah!

Heh. I remember right around that same time, Scott McCloud started ZOT! back up in b&w, and he brought back the most interesting villain of the book, Art Dekko, which was cool... but the story started out with the completely insane Dekko easily tricking an incompetent shrink into thinking he was all better. I wrote him a letter, which was published on the letter page, noting my disappointment with yet another portrayal of a clueless, incompetent shrink.

[Gordon Smith]

I hope to see the movie in the next day or two. I haven't read the original series in a long, long time, and can't claim to remember it especially well, so I'm hoping I won't bring too many pre-conceived notions, biases or whatnot to the showing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's part of it, too. He couldn't get those two things to match up, so fuck it, get me outta Dodge.

Yup. Which is why he was ready to die at that point, and why Dr. M wiping Rorschach out was a mercy killing... arguably the most humane act Dr. Manhattan performs in the story.

Which just piles on more irony, given that he demonstrates humanity by obliterating another person.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And Ozy's belief that he can keep the truth of this secret from the entire world seemed farfetched to me once.


It is part and parcel of the irrationality of the narcissist. To admit to the possibility of being wrong or failing at something is to be a failure, so deep down, they delude themselves into thinking they are always right. When that doesn't work, their entire life comes crashing in, resulting in depression, and often suicide.

If there was a WATCHMEN II, based on the premise that Rorschach's journal got printed and exposed Ozy's plots, the most realistic way one could depict Ozy's response would be to have him commit suicide.

Ozy is a wonderful case study of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, just as Rorschach is the same for Paranoid Personality Disorder.

[Asmith]

Yup. Which is why he was ready to die at that point, and why Dr. M wiping Rorschach out was a mercy killing... arguably the most humane act Dr. Manhattan performs in the story.

Which just piles on more irony, given that he demonstrates humanity by obliterating another person.

I agree that is the scene that Doc shows the most lingering humanity within himself. But disagree that it is the obliterating of Rorschach. That's him following through on a pragmatic response. His humanity is shown via his momentary hesitation before Rorschach's annihilation.

[CannonFodder]

I agree that is the scene that Doc shows the most lingering humanity within himself. But disagree that it is the obliterating of Rorschach. That's him following through on a pragmatic response. His humanity is shown via his momentary hesitation before Rorschach's annihilation.

Definitely agree with that. His hesitation spoke volumes.

[Andreas Tanis]

I honestly didn't expect him to kill Rorschach, especially when he showed hesitation. But it was a great scene nonetheless and did show his humanity.

[stealthwise]

Heh. I remember right around that same time, Scott McCloud started ZOT! back up in b&w, and he brought back the most interesting villain of the book, Art Dekko, which was cool... but the story started out with the completely insane Dekko easily tricking an incompetent shrink into thinking he was all better. I wrote him a letter, which was published on the letter page, noting my disappointment with yet another portrayal of a clueless, incompetent shrink.

Present company excluded, I haven't seen much in my own life to indicate otherwise. ;)

Seriously though, it probably speaks volumes more to the attitudes of people in general towards psychiatry than it does about the profession. I mean, how many cops, lawyers, etc, are portrayed accurately in popular culture, even in shows that focus directly on them?

[howyadoin]

Seriously though, it probably speaks volumes more to the attitudes of people in general towards psychiatry than it does about the profession. I mean, how many cops, lawyers, etc, are portrayed accurately in popular culture, even in shows that focus directly on them?Accurately, or sympathetically?

[Michael P]

Heh. I remember right around that same time, Scott McCloud started ZOT! back up in b&w, and he brought back the most interesting villain of the book, Art Dekko, which was cool... but the story started out with the completely insane Dekko easily tricking an incompetent shrink into thinking he was all better. I wrote him a letter, which was published on the letter page, noting my disappointment with yet another portrayal of a clueless, incompetent shrink.

Was this before or after Miller used the same schtick in Dark Knight?