WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I never thought of it that way. That's really very smart. And like you said about the transformation from Walter to Rorschach... it gets to the point where Rorschach isn't really a person anymore, but an IDEA, and the idea's going to live on, you know? Or it won't. The truth is that the journal's impossible to read, gets thrown out and thats the end. But I really like what you said. And welcome to the board.

Exactly. If you think about it, if Rorschach wanted to reveal Veidt's plan, he would have easily done so. Rorschach is a very smart guy. He would pretend to comply at the time, and when he got back he would tell the world. But he didn't.
And thanks.

I'm not sure I agree; back when he was looking into the Roche kidnapping -- which is to say, *before* he flipped out and started really messing people up -- Rorschach conducted his investigation by simply visiting underworld bars and putting folks in the hospital.

The first three didn't know anything.

The next three didn't know anything either.

The *next* next three also didn't know anything.

The three after that? Knew nothing. Hospitalized anyway.

And then -- okay, he put another guy in the hospital needlessly.

And then he did it again. But then he found someone who knew something!

good point. also, i think you have to distinguish between rorschach´s mission and his method. his mission is to punish evil; it´s NOT about revenge, it´s about punishment. there is a difference, if you look closely. to pursue this mission, his method is ruthless investigation, and he doesn´t mind "breaking a few eggs" in the process. having said that, it´s clear that roschach would go for revenge when he personally (or his friends) are concerned - see big figure.

I could be wrong, but wasn't that Truman statement written in an essay when Walter Kovacs was at the Charlton school? If so, that was before his transformation into Rorschach and he was still a young person. A young person who never knew his father and is trying to grip to some kind of common bond between the two. Also, he could have changed his view through the decades.

But more than that, I think Veidt's methods are an act of domestic terrorism whereas Truman's actions could be perverted into a patriotic act of defense in the mind of a nutty right-winger like Rorschach. Rorschach comes off as very patriotic and even when discussing some dubious acts by the Comedian, he defends him for standing up for his country. So I'm not sure if he's upholding one act of violence over another. It's more like he justifies one and condemns another according to his pro-American views.

_________________
None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me.

Could have. Didn't. Right after his famous line about how people will look up and shout "Save Us!" (and how he'll look down and whisper "No"), he explains that "They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men, like my father and President Truman." It's practically the first thing we learn about '85 Rorschach.

_________________

read the rest of the thread. We've given lots of reasons other than the obvious one you stated as to why the two actions differ (or don't).

_________________

But doctor...I am Pagliacci.

I don't know if this has been discussed.

I always found it strange that Rorschach speaks with reverence about Harry S. Truman. The president who used the A bomb on Hiroshima to prevent a greater loss of life.

That is also Adrian's motivation for killing millions in New York, yet Rors wants vengence.

Yeah, I think it's been discussed. Also the fact that he endorsed Truman's decision to drop the bomb in that childhood essay about his parents. I think Rorschach freaked out about Veidt's plan because so many Americans lost their lives. If three million Soviets had been sacrificed "for the greater good", his reaction might well have been different. So much for his unwavering sense of morality, huh.

_________________
-----------------

It is ironic, and it helps to show Rorschach's transformation into a more humane person. Also, the situation is different because it affects him personally, where Hiroshima did not.

The man is a riddled with contradictions. He abhors crime and wrongdoing, but unknowingly embraces it by stealing, breaking and entering, and, hell, probably killing two police officers (the poor souls at the wrong end of a can of hairspray and his grappling gun). This is because he does not consider himself a part of society, he considers himself above it ("I'll look down and whisper . . ."). He has seen society's "true face" and thinks that it is not deserving of his sympathy or restraint. Moore wrote the character in a very specific way, a way that shows you the implausibility of somebody as black-and-white as Rorschach. Nobody can be the perfectly neutral, consistently objective personification of deontological ethics like Rorschach supposedly is; personal subjectivity is bound to get in the way, as one cannot help but be shaped by the experiences in their lives. Rorschach's leniency towards prostitutes and the many other "minor" infractions he encounters along the way is evidence of this. Whether he knows it or not, he compromises quite a bit. He compromises his desire to punish Moloch's possession of illegal drugs and an unlicensed gun by rationalizing that Moloch would probably be more useful out of trouble, where he is, where he could provide as much information as Rorschach needed. Why? Priorities. Finding out what he can about Blake's murder is a bigger priority than Moloch's pills, and herein lies the contradiction. Theoretically, Moloch's gun and Blake's murder are both evil deeds, evil deeds which must be punished, but only one can be addressed. So what is an objectivist to do? That's right! Compromise! Whether you know it or not . . .

Rant: over.

_________________
He did it.

Very well said, EmPiiRe.

Rorschy is nuts, no doubts there. But.. he left choices written in a book.
I wonder now the differences between him and Mothman.

I think the primary difference is that Rorschach didn't try to drown his eccentricities in booze.

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Same question, different words: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1241&hilit=

[NOTE: Merged. --"Curiosity Inc."]

After some thought, I think I may have found an important difference between Truman's actions and those of Veidt: Truman was up front about it.

Everyone knows that Truman made the call to drop those bombs and everyone knows why he made that decision. Veidt, however, hides behind his fifth-dimensional cephalopod, claiming no public credit and offering no public explanation.

I think this would make a difference to Rorschach. Any low-life murderer can shoot an old man in the head and try to escape the law or pass the blame onto others. But it takes a whole different kind of man to put his balls on the chopping block and say "Yes, I killed millions to save hundreds of millions." Rorschach himself clearly believes this, as he leaves his trademark destruction everywhere he goes and freely admits to those murders he commits. Even if Rorschach himself is determined to evade retribution, he's still unafraid to make his actions known.

Thoughts? Comments?

_________________
This is truly a madhouse. And I'm the lunatic running it. I've spent three years wondering if I should be proud or ashamed.

Truman-Veidt

I think this can be looked at in a transformative light.

Truman=Veidt.

Rorschach's responding differently to a similar stimulus after years of particular experience. Similar to the way the western world's response to it's politicians and their moves/motivations has changed over time.
The notion that Truman was upfront and doing what he had to do is simplistic. Japan was on the brink of surrender and military collapse, Truman was making sure the world knew who had the bomb more than he was ending the war. The only reason he didn't drop it on Germany was that it wasn't ready before they surrendered. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki he was making a proclamation of righteousness and power at the expense of 200,000 lives.
He is a compromised and blinkered character, as is Veidt, acting on supposition about the unfolding future and a painfully overblown self-belief.

Rorschach's view as he 'matures' is what changes, and with it his response to these entirely similar figures.

_________________
...evidently chicken-town.

It just goes to show you how subjective Rorschach's worldview really was. Truman and the atomic bomb was mentioned specifically; it was no accident that Moore did not pick Eisenhower or MacArthur or whomever else for this line. Again, I think Moore wanted to highlight the implausibility and inherent hypocrisy of moral objectivism. On the surface, Rorschach seems to have it all figured out, seems to really have society pegged down. But, the deeper you dig, the more his narrow-mindedness, born of personal prejudices and perceptions, reveals itself. He faults Dan for not breaking the law and continuing with his costumed career. He apparently admires the Comedian for his unflinching savagery. He detests Veidt for embracing society and the market, for "fitting in" and becoming just like everybody else. He seems to dislike Laurie for no other reason save for the fact that she's an independent woman who's never had children.

It's a kind of nostalgic jingoism/chauvinism more than it is a pure kind of absolutism.

At least, I think so.

_________________
He did it.

.