WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I don't get why you keep dismissing Rorschach's duplicity or the possibility that his ethics don't consistently hold up when it's so overtly written into the character.

The whole point of the character is to show that absolutist objectivism is unrealistic and ultimately tied to one's own subjectivity. Thus, it makes perfect sense that Rorschach, or perhaps as Walter Kovacs as a way of scrubbing himself of guilt, would occasionally break his own rules if it meant being able to continue his own pursuit of justice. Anyway, being on welfare is not tantamount to fraud.

_________________
He did it.

Rorschach is the character with the greatest integrity in the whole series. His notions of right and wrong might be questionable, but he sticks to them ti'll the bitter end. It doesn't make sense that he would yield them to daily mundane pressures like the need to pay the rent and, later, be willing to give his life so as to not forfeit them. Life trumps rent!

Rorschach is a lunatic, a prude, a social misfit, and, possibly, a homophobe and a nationalist facist. His personal hygene is deplorable and he is prone to borderline sadistic violence. However, he is NOT, in any way, a hypocrite. This is why he actually wins in the end (given his personal traits, this is the true "moral ambiguity" of the tale). His only "duplicity" is pretending to be Kovacs, but, even that is abandoned in the end when he removes his mask and tells Manhattan to kill him.

Jobwise, he could conceivably be on welfare (though I doubt it given his "day's pay for a day's work" philosophy), but he would never CHEAT on it.

Rorschach believes that all criminals are scum who should be killed. Rorschach himself operates outside the law. Hypocritical much?

As for his job, I could see him scrounging by on wellfare and whatever he takes from the criminals he beats up.

_________________

All caps actually isn't a convincing argument, contrary to popular belief.


Rorschach might not draw a moral equivalency to himself and the criminals that he terrorizes, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there (partially). His opinion of himself is sort of irrelevant. Again, the ceaseless refusal to acknowledge one of the most basic tenements of the character sort of ends this discussion prematurely, but his contradictions speak for themselves and have been pointed out here and elsewhere.

You yourself unintentionally pointed them out by comparing him to Dirty Harry, saying that Rorschach gets to decide what's right and what's wrong, what's in the interest of justice and what isn't just like Dirty Harry does. Except all of that is based on subjective opinion, not absolutist objectivism like you're trying to claim. So, if Rorschach can decide that a little lawbreaking is OK as long as it's done in the interest of justice (a personal evaluation), then he's betraying the Kantian absolutes that guide him. If somebody else did the same thing that he's doing, for malicious reaons, then it is suddenly an immoral act, one that must be punished. But because Rorschach is doing it, and Rorschach is convinced that he is right, then it's OK? This is the fallacy that Moore is constantly trying to point to.

If we take everything Rorschach says as what Rorschach truly believes, then we are to infer that he must agree with Veidt's utilitarianism, because he agreed with Harry Truman's. Whether he's aware of these contradictions or not, they are there and speak for themselves.

_________________
He did it.

So, am I correct in guessing that Rorschach's code in a nutshell is "Do as I say, not as I do"? And, really, I don't think he knew that the Veidt/Truman thing was hypocritical. He was five years old when the bombs were dropped, I don't think he understood anything other than "Daddy thinks its good".

_________________

Well, he certainly knew a bit more about the situation by the time Veidt's plan has been enacted, I would assume!

_________________
"Everything is a cipher and of everything he is the theme.
He must be always on his guard
and devote every minute and module
of life to the decoding of the undulation of things."
-Nabokov, "Signs and Symbols"

I disagree. I think that when it comes to anything that Rorschach remotely associates with his father, he would not look into it at all. Though, I would imagine him reading up on the Nurmburg trials.

_________________

This is NOT what I meant in anyway whatsoever. The bottom line is that he is consistent in what he thinks, says, and does, be it right or wrong (if taken from another perspective).



I never argued any objectivism, but merely coherence. The moral choice is an arbitrary one, as Rorschach himself points out ("No meaning, save what we choose to impose"), and, in that sense, it IS quite subjective. A second inevitable form of subjectivity is present in the application of generic moral principles to specific concrete cases. A third comes from the need to prioritize action ("there are so many deserving of retribution... And there is so little time"). NONE of these force the existence of contradiction.



His "Kantian absolute" is NOT the law, but justice itself, which he views basically as retribution. By definition, this "justice trumps law" ethos is more or less the same with most or all masked heroes, be it in the Watchmen universe or any other.

Not only is Rorschach 100% consistent with his own standards, but one could say that it is precisely this absolute consistency, one that is totally impervious to consequences, that makes him pathological. In a sense, he is profoundly naive, maybe even "innocent". His admirable integrity, however, coexists with his violence, facism, homophobia, mysoginism, etc.

Watchmen Wiki

I can imagine that they say that Rorschach has no source of income simply because no one can find any direct visual or textual reference to any gainful emplyment. However, this is obviously and absurd because he is shown as having a very unsympathetic landlady who complains about the hygene, etc., but never about the most common complaint among landlords: rent. So, either he does SOMETHING for money or there is a serious logical flaw in the novel.

Watchmen, chapter V, page 11, panel 4

"On way out of room, met landlady. Usual complaints Re hygiene and rent.' (Emphasis added)

Sorry to nitpick, but I'm sad enough that I remember that being mentioned and just had to look it up... So it's obvious he's not crawling in cash... Maybe he just moves from apartment to apartment?

_________________

Werewolf, you are 100% right. Don't apologize for it. I guess I need my glasses fixed or at least take some ritalin or something. There IS a reference to rent, though from Rorschach. My mind was on the interbiew she gave on TV where she shows his apartment and literature, falsely accuses him of sexually propositioning her, but doesn't mention any failure to pay rent.

Still, the main premise holds, as you yourself suggest. Rorschach did make rent at least occasionally.

.

Something caught my attention just now reviewing an entry on Rorschach's journal that might be a clue to his small, but existant, income...



The word "deposit" stand out to me, as well as his detailed listing of what was "deposited". Could it be that his income is whatever he can salvage from his trashcan(s)? That would explain a LOT, such as:

- His very modest lifestyle, scraped from loose change found in old clothes and/or from selling reusable or recycleable items;

- His nearly constant foul smell;

- The foul smell of his apartment;

- His habit of scavaging items and taking them (his behavior being an extension of what he does at the trashcans);

- His various references to knowing the hidden, ugly, underbelly of the city.

He actually hid his uniform and face" among the trashcans in an alley once.

Could this be the answer?

Rorschach is crazy, but he isn't totally heartless. He's the type who would beat up a pimp but leave the hookers alone and mutter something to them about getting a real job. When he confronts his landlady and calls her a whore, her pleading "(My kids) don't know" seems to hit him, so he leaves her alone.

Regarding money... it is confusing how Rorschach gets by for food and rent. Stealing money from the criminals he beats up or kills would be beneath him, but grabbing a snack from the fridge while waiting for them, not so much. Dan snaps to him "You live off people while insulting them" but that's about it so we don't know if Dan somehow set up a fund for Rorschach. (He doesn't seem like the banking guy.) It's one of the few plot holes in the story. (A bigger one is how Veidt is going to lead the world to Utopia, but that's another topic.)

Interesting to note that Rorschach has some degree of empathy, which does not violate his adherence to his own ethical standards in any way, but do explain his behavior more accurately than the rational application of retribution would.

As to his job, the loose change forgotten in thrown away clothes, and , conceiveably, gathering cans, paper, and other materials could give him just enough money for his two fix expenses (rent on a very crappy apartment and the daily newspaper), and the occasional Gunga Din meal or even subway transportation, IF his income is regularly supplemented by grabbing a snack from the fridge or cupboard of someone (friend or foe) while waiting for him/her. His living standards are certainly consistent with this possibility.

I have a big problem with the theory that Rohrschach takes money/valuables from his criminal targets, and it's very simple: never once in the entire series is he shown actually doing so, or making any kind of reference to it.

Dan is Rohrschach's only 'friend' in the world, and far beyond any worry about Rohrschach grabbing a bite to eat or taking a stamp. Surely Rohrschach knows this. As for Moloch's Laetrile, I doubt his motivation had to do with selling it.

I tend to subscribe to the theory that he has a nest egg large enough to allow him to maintain his very low standard of living but not much more.

Rorschach is not a hypocrite, people. He would never steal money from criminals and there is absolutely nothing in the book to suggest that he would.



I don't see that as a contradiction; perhaps it's the war and racism. Truman killed many Japanese people during a war. Rorschach would have seen them as the enemy, the bad guys, and seen Truman as the good guy. Truman was right to drop the bombs because they saved lives, like he wrote in the letter, and this line of thinking justifies Veidt, but the value of a guilty person's life and an innocent person's life are two very different things to Rorschach. The people of New York were unquestionably innocent, but the Japanese were on the wrong side of the war. To Rorschach, that's a crime in itself.

I guess this point hasn't been made because we're all thinking of Japanese lives as equal to American lives, but there's no indication that Rorschach would. I mean, when he's walking by the prostitutes and he lists the love they offer by ethnicity ("Swedish love," etc) he mourns the lack of "American love" offered. It's not much, but there's an hint of racism there.



I think the "living off people" comment has more to do with Rorschach finding stuff in trashcans and using/selling it. Dan is generous with him, but I don't think it could go as far as a trust fund or any direct handout like that. Rorschach is OK with eating other people's food, but even then he does so in the most low-cost way possible (e.g, eating a raw egg, eating cold beans out of the can). I think he takes as little from people as he "needs" to.

To Dan, a can of beans or some cereal and coffee is practically worthless and the same goes for Veidt's stationery. I think because they're both much wealthier than Rorschach, he sees their possessions with little financial worth as equal to garbage. I mean, people throw useful things away all the time. He's so used to seeing edible food and whatnot discarded by people with more money than him that the distinction between "it's mine but it wouldn't matter if I did throw it out" and "I bought it but I don't care about it so now I'm throwing it out" is meaningless.

As for stealing from Moloch, well, I think he ate that egg more to freak the guy out than anything else anyway. It was more destruction of property than theft.

Also, as far as his financial situation goes, the landlady! Yes she complains about the rent, but she hasn't kicked him out, has she? I think she sees herself as his mother as much as he does. I mean, she complains about his hygiene like so many mothers of teenage boys do. Anyway, I think she lets him live there practically for free (like a mother would). She obviously doesn't make much money as a landlady or she wouldn't be a hooker, hm?

I think the 401k theory is the most bogus of all. From the book, emphasis mine: "1956. Aged 16. Left children's home. Became unskilled manual worker, garment industry." There's no way in hell he got any kind of pension from a job like that. Probably he spent that money conservatively, but it couldn't possibly be his primary source of money thirty years later.

_________________
Uh... Hey... Hey, forget it. It's okay, man. It's okay. [pause] Uhh...

Having gone back and read the other responses now , I like this theory a lot. It fits perfectly.

Because Rorschach wouldn't view it as hypocritical, we shouldn't either? What impeccable logic. His perception of himself and his values are of no concern.

The idea that an act is acceptable in one instance but unacceptable in another is the antithesis of absolutist objectivism. There are no mitigating circumstances, and there are no exculpatory factors, so to introduce some as a way of rationalizing Rorschach's worldview is automatically contradictory to it.

_________________
He did it.

Maybe Dan loaned him money or stealing the cash off of people he just killed.