What is Rorschach's deal and why does he seem to make sense?

What is Rorschach's deal and why does he seem to make sense?

Other urls found in this thread:

museumofnonvisibleart.com/files/robertstorrtranscribed.pdf
myredditnudes.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

All of the character's "deals"(with the exception of laurie and dan) is that they're so lost in their respective ideologies that they pretty much completely destroy themselves. Rorschach's probably the most sympathetic because I think his perspective is closest to a normal person's gut reaction. Though obviously a nut, he's at least standing up to the untenably retarded positions of the other characters. It also helps that he's the main protagonist and the person who's perspective we see most of the story through.

It's funny actually, Rorschach was supposed to be a right wing nutter, who audience was supposed to hate for his radical utilitarian views. That's what Moore though it will go, yet he became the most popular and loved character

he's a dueontologist in a world of consequentialists

Well that's what happens when society only promotes reckless hedonism. People want to stand for something more even if it is a petty need

Comics aren't literature.

He's not a utilitarian, he's a deontologist. "Never compromise" is the credo of someone following an imperative.

Hes just a low rent tribute to the original comicbook superhero The Shadow.

Shadows background and philosophy is much better overall and watchmen is just hack faggotry

In the same way that not all books are literature, some comics are litetature.

na, comic books are comic books

Are graphic novels Veeky Forums?

This one is

He's a tribute to ditko's Mr. A, stupid.

most everything is subjective. rorschach shows you his view. his logic which is right for him and his life....probably not yours

>What is Rorschach's deal
He's a reactionary.
>and why does he seem to make sense?
You're a reactionary.

Really? Even though he is kind of nuts I think he was supposed to be sympathetic.

What's wrong with being a reactionary?

Alan Moore generally is. Most others aren't though to be fair.

Is reactionary a code word for common sense and non-Jewishness?

That sounds like a big nothing.

He's an uncompromisingly harsh judge who doesn't fit in the modern world or the chaos its values constitute. Of course 16 year old frogs like you enjoy him. It's the same reason libertarian idiots like Cato the Younger

It's simple. Rorschach takes personal responsibility for the evil that exists in the world. When you do, suddenly your own life has meaning, even when you stand in the most depraved desert.

museumofnonvisibleart.com/files/robertstorrtranscribed.pdf
gee I wonder

Who the fuck cares. /co/ exists for such discussions, but you probably think Alan Moore is "serious literature" and too deep and mature for that board.

/Co/ is too retarded for any meaningful discussion. They never talk about any comics of actual value.

why should i care about this dude?

all the Watchmen characters apart from the Comedian are supposed to be sympathetic. hell, even he had his moments. that's Moore's talent, making even the most unsympathetic character slightly more dimensional than your typical comic book character.

I like the "every character represents an ideology" approach but I wpuld like tp get some consensus on it
Roacharch deals in absolutes and proceeds to act based on his moral judgement of fixed good and fixed right. Thats why he dies in the end because he values a harmful truth over a beneficial lie.
Manhattan would represent the state of man with so much knowledge of the world around him that he has lost meaning in life and also can't seem to figure out how to deal with humankind even tho he knows basically everything.
The comedian could be the nihilistic or existentialist approach since he cares little about morals or values and just pursues life itself and sees anything other than the present moment as a joke
The owl is a man who believes in society and fights to keep the status quo abiding some restrictions on himself and following some moral code
I cant remember the chick stance on anything. I read the comic a few years ago and all I can remember from the movie was that she is a slut.
Ozy is a megalomaniac whos supreme intellect makes him feel like the savior of mankind and analysing human history he devises a plan to end a momentary conflict and to keep humanity moving forward no matter the ethics or morals of the moment.

My memory of the comic is a bit shaky and I would welcome any other point of view on the characters ideologies

Giving everyone a sympathetic sob-story is a basic storytelling approach that is pretty fashionable nowadays. It's not particularly remarkable.
In between Veidt and Dr. Manhattan who are barely human and everyone else who was more or less just looking after their own business, Rorschach is the only character who has any sort of moral integrity. That is hardly "supposed to be hated" tier.

Silk Spectre is the prototypical hedonistic feminist character. Humanitarian concerns, but ineffectual and impotent.

>Giving everyone a sympathetic sob-story is a basic storytelling approach that is pretty fashionable nowadays. It's not particularly remarkable.
indeed. the key term here is nowadays. in the 80's, this wasn't the case with mainstream superhero comics. the writing was dire, characters less dimensional than a 1-sided die, and deconstruction of the genre a new approach.

hyperbole aside, i believe Moore stated he was caught off guard by how much Rorschach was regarded as a straight forward hero by the audience. this is mainly due to Moore's political beliefs (and practices) are in direct opposition to Rorschach's. he imbued the character with grotesqueries both physical and philosophical, with absolutisms, idolatry, and fanaticism there's little question his morality is suspect, even if its sound, which is also in suspect. also, all the main characters are on different points on the moral spectrum, intentionally so.

i think there are old interviews with Moore from the comics journal where he explains this.

I got away with doing my final book report on it in 8th grade, so yes

How could one person misinterpret a fictional character to this extent, a literal comic book character? Is this how far this board has fallen?

There are certain Spiderman comics that are too deep and mature for /co/

Yeah he is a dentologist, not utilitarian, but the right wing nutter part is true

no, its the other way around

oh well... Veeky Forums arguing about a comic.

Even /v/ has better literature threads