0 points

Anon is right.

permalink
report
reply
56 points
*

The internet is a place where nuance goes to die and everyone talks out of their ass. Watchmen was all about nuance. Here’s why I think this post is full of shit:

Rorschach was an extremely flawed individual. However that title could basically be applied to every single hero except Nite Owl I. A huge portion of Watchmen revolves around that while none of the characters are necessarily admirable they all have some redeeming qualities.

Calling Rorschach an "incel man child " is an idiotic oversimplification of his character. He didn’t decide he hated women after watching too many Andrew Tate videos; Rorschach went though an extreme amount of childhood trauma. We see how horrifying the situation was via flashbacks. Even after all of that, he manages to rise above it all and become a genuine hero. He only went full psycho after being exposed to the most vile shit Moore could get printed. There’s even a whole subplot which more or less mocks attempts to be an armchair psychiatrist and dismiss him outright.

Rorschach’s philosophy also doesn’t exist in a vacuum. A huge part of his role is an ideological counterpoint to Ozymandius, who is the ultimate “ends justify the means” type of person. The entire last act makes you appreciate Rorschach’s philosophy a lot more. The ending of the book presents a “Lady or the Tiger?” situation where you’re not really sure which of the two was more right.

Finally, he has a decent number of badass moments. The whole “you’re locked in with me” is straight up cool. It is on some level meant to be such. It’s hard not to look at him and be on some level impressed.

Rorschach isn’t someone you’re supposed to idealize. However you’re not supposed to just dismiss him either.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Absolutely right, although I would say Nite Owl is also flawed, at least the second one. He was only a hero because he a) worshipped the first Nite Owl and b) he felt like a loser and couldn’t get it up when not in costume, basically turning his vigilante life into a sort of fetish.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah I was talking about the first Nite Owl. I think the second one is called Night Owl.

The first one is honestly just a chill dude.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

For whatever reason Internet Media Discourse™ can’t include the possibility that a character is meant to be sympathetic to some extent but ultimately wrong. They’re either perfect and did nothing wrong or an irredeemable monster, no in between.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I honestly wonder how many people have actually read Watchmen. I feel like the discourse around a lot of this stuff is driven by people who have read the cliff notes or are just blindly upvoting shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

It’s mainly the movie.

In the movie he’s pretty much the only one of them all that actually holds on to his morals. He goes the whole movie practicing what he preaches while everyone else is shown to do the opposite.

The comedian was just an abusive power hungry drunk.

Ozymandius was willing to kill millions for “the greater good”

Dr Manhattan was too removed from his own humanity to care about anything anymore

Night owl and the purple girl I can’t remember gave it all up entirely and then they fuck meanwhile she was still in a relationship with Dr Manhattan.

Rorschach was the only one in the movie that actually held to his morality the whole movie. Especially with the scene of him unmasked as a begger on the street and that’s how he learned about the goings on in the city. He actively lived a life of poverty to help him be a better hero.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
39 points

Because most people haven’t actually read Alan Moore’s Rorschach, they’ve seen Zac Snyder’s Rorschach. These are not the same character

permalink
report
reply
2 points

The movie was very much an abridged version of the novels. Meaning all the nuances and hints that were disseminated throughout the pages or in the backgrounds had to be set aside until we are left with the movie version. A very “Loyal Stupid Paladin” character, which really isn’t a misrepresentation; it is the same character. Just, you are not given quite enough in the movie to see where he’s actually coming from.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

If I remember correctly, there was talk about how closely the movie followed the graphic novel when it was being made and im sure that didnt help people want to to check out the source material.

I think most people aren’t interested in both mediums. Especially at the time most people only really experience fiction from some sort of film/television

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points
*

Because the world that he lives in, despite all of the machinations and ulterior motives of characters and “lesser of 2 evils” scenarios, is actually still incredibly black and white. It’s OUR world that has nuance. We like Rorschach because he’s principled and we wish we could treat our problems the way that Rorschach deals with his problems: kicking the door in and punching them. In Watchmen, everyone gaslights Rorschach to believe that he’s a crazy psycho who isn’t onto a huge conspiracy. Characters in Watchmen are very much good or evil but possessing complex motivations.

permalink
report
reply

Greentext

!greentext@sh.itjust.works

Create post

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you’re new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

  • Anon is often crazy.
  • Anon is often depressed.
  • Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

Community stats

  • 6.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1K

    Posts

  • 41K

    Comments