|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:28 am
In another thread, which asked which was your favourite 'masked adventurer'. I had suggested Comedian, but felt it would be seen as me thinking he was the best. But he is not. He is a killer. An amoral killer. It doesn't matter to him. Nothing does. But because of the good the Comedian does for the govt, the bad he does, is overlooked. And it doesn't matter who he is fighting, it is all good. Those citizen's he shoots as they protest, is even better than doing it overseas. He is part of the joke.
Each 'hero' depicts one possible path a person may take to become the hero they are.
So is it an admiration you have for the hero, with all their flaws? Can any of them be justified, and their transgressions forgiven?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:20 pm
Comedian's my fav too (but I find myself leaning towards Rorschach a bit), because he doesn't show any pretentions; he is what he is. He doesn't kid himself, he knows what he does sometimes is immoral and he admits it. Wouldn't say the bad is overlooked by society or his fellow heroes, but the government overlooks his transgressions because of his national service.
(Y'know this sounds like it could go in the philosophy bit! Like it!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:14 am
I like Rorchach because he sees the world the scum that it really is. Many people say that his character is dpereessing when really he just faces reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:54 am
~*~
Interesting topic! -Disclaimer: not meant to offend, and won't be offended if you disagree- My thoughts:
Rorschach doesn't face reality, he twists it to fit his own black and white view of the world. For example, most women wouldn't think of themselves as either an angel or a whore, but rather somewhere in between. In Rorschach's eyes, there's no such thing as in between. He judges people as bad or good, and punishes accordingly, which works well when the person really is evil (like that rapist right after the Keene act, or the kidnapper who murdered the little girl). But what doesn't work, is how he assigns people to one or the other, good or bad, in the definition of "good" being a lack of "bad". Since most people have at least a little "bad" in them, only a very few are "good" enough for him. Thus, he hates humanity almost absolutely. A fascinating character, but not admirable, imho.
Adrian isn't really admirable either; he slaughters innocent millions, both people he knew and loved as well as complete strangers. His goal: a united world and peaceful utopia, called for a steep price that he paid without ever doubting his right to do so. It was his own ego that convinced himself that he could and should save humanity no matter the cost. It's my firm belief that ends should never justify means. His morals and methods make him my favorite character, but I don't admire him.
Dan is really the only character I could sympathize with throughout all his choices. He's bordering on self-pitying at times, and he certainly has faults in his fears and uncertainties, but it doesn't make him ever "wrong." I could relate to him, and I felt for him, and though he's often overshadowed by some of the other more troubled characters, he stakes his own place in the story. Of all the them, I'd say he's nearest to admirable, though because of that, sometimes least interesting.
Jon is annoying. Ditto for Laurie. Jon is inhumane, and Laurie is just spoiled. Neither is admirable to me.
Eddie is interesting, though not for reasons I like. He's a womanizer, and a downright coldhearted b*****d, never really doing much to redeem himself in my eyes. I like the character, but again, not really admirable.
~
my mistress eyes are nothing like the sun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:35 pm
I didn't really like Rorschach around the end of the book. He's just so biased and his reputation is getting hard to keep up. I think in the end that's what killed him. Of course I know he was killed by Manhatten but work with me here. He just gave up. He thought, ''I'm in the face of armagedden, and I'm tired of being Rorschach.' In the end his fears overtook him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:46 pm
Edward Blake.
Because he understands that all humans sort of bury their primal insticts. Society weaves them into something that they are not born as, instead created by the moral code around them. As a nihilist, Blake doesn't care about burying what's really there. He doesn't fall for false illusions such as being a masked vigilante for the sake of 'justice'. Blake knows that in the end, justice is not going to matter. Lives are not going to matter. The aspirations of the Minutemen, the Crimebusters, and the Watchmen are basically pointless. A joke.
Not an admirable character. But he has a deep insight to the world around him, and interests me more than the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:08 am
SilviteRamirez Comedian's my fav too (but I find myself leaning towards Rorschach a bit), because he doesn't show any pretentions; he is what he is. He doesn't kid himself, he knows what he does sometimes is immoral and he admits it. Wouldn't say the bad is overlooked by society or his fellow heroes, but the government overlooks his transgressions because of his national service. (Y'know this sounds like it could go in the philosophy bit! Like it!) So, do you think that, had Kovacs grown up in a more loving environmen, that Rorschach still would have materialised? You are right, there is evidence that society doesnt 'overlook' his trangressions, probably because they are unaware of them. We are, as watchmen reading the comic, are given an insight of the type of person Blake is. Where Rorschach has no problems ******** up rapists, it seems his moral transgressions are out of Rorschach's reach. And the govt doesn't care what Blake does, because he does it behind a mask, and the fault lies onto the 'hero' rather than th faceless person behind the mask. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:31 am
RanDOm_ChicK01111 I like Rorchach because he sees the world the scum that it really is. Many people say that his character is dpereessing when really he just faces reality. Do you really think that most of us are scum of the earth? If so, maybe Veidt was right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:54 am
Blue Bubastis
~*~
Interesting topic! -Disclaimer: not meant to offend, and won't be offended if you disagree- My thoughts:
Rorschach doesn't face reality, he twists it to fit his own black and white view of the world. For example, most women wouldn't think of themselves as either an angel or a whore, but rather somewhere in between. In Rorschach's eyes, there's no such thing as in between. He judges people as bad or good, and punishes accordingly, which works well when the person really is evil (like that rapist right after the Keene act, or the kidnapper who murdered the little girl). But what doesn't work, is how he assigns people to one or the other, good or bad, in the definition of "good" being a lack of "bad". Since most people have at least a little "bad" in them, only a very few are "good" enough for him. Thus, he hates humanity almost absolutely. A fascinating character, but not admirable, imho.
Adrian isn't really admirable either; he slaughters innocent millions, both people he knew and loved as well as complete strangers. His goal: a united world and peaceful utopia, called for a steep price that he paid without ever doubting his right to do so. It was his own ego that convinced himself that he could and should save humanity no matter the cost. It's my firm belief that ends should never justify means. His morals and methods make him my favorite character, but I don't admire him.
Dan is really the only character I could sympathize with throughout all his choices. He's bordering on self-pitying at times, and he certainly has faults in his fears and uncertainties, but it doesn't make him ever "wrong." I could relate to him, and I felt for him, and though he's often overshadowed by some of the other more troubled characters, he stakes his own place in the story. Of all the them, I'd say he's nearest to admirable, though because of that, sometimes least interesting.
Jon is annoying. Ditto for Laurie. Jon is inhumane, and Laurie is just spoiled. Neither is admirable to me.
Eddie is interesting, though not for reasons I like. He's a womanizer, and a downright coldhearted b*****d, never really doing much to redeem himself in my eyes. I like the character, but again, not really admirable.
~
my mistress eyes are nothing like the sun
None of the heroes are in fact likable people, masks or no mask. Dan seems to be a decent guy, yet remains impotent unless 'empowered' by his costume. Adrian's arrogance would mean you never existed other than a 'tool' for his thoughts etc.... Why did Rorschach all of a sudden decide to journal the 'killing' of masks? Did he always expect it to be one of them? Did the public 'need' to know. Was the public right to outlaw heroes? Something bugged him, for there is no evidence he had journaled anything else. Or did I miss that? In the way that say you see journals kept by 'freaks' in other movies. John is annoying (and likable) for so many reasons. Chicks dig him. Why? Is it because he is the most damaged out of all of them, and the by product is his super-powers? Is his creation (as a character) somehow linked to the nazi undercurrent Moore writes as a theme throughout the whole novel? Edit: The point I wanted to make about Dan, is that he possibly represents the hero closest to what we are. He is generally kind-hearted, thinks of others before himself, visits old folks and sees their importance and relevnce in a society. That his first act recostumed was that of rescuing people rather than beating up on bad guys. He felt good because he did good. He also went to the aid of a friend, Rorschach, without any moral or ethical judgment of him. But because he was a friend. Something Rorschach was blind to, but not if you know what I mean. He (I think) shows us our impotency to help people (we see on the news etc, down the street), we may want to help, but wouldnt know where to start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:04 am
Tranquilizers4Insomniacs Edward Blake.
Because he understands that all humans sort of bury their primal insticts. Society weaves them into something that they are not born as, instead created by the moral code around them. As a nihilist, Blake doesn't care about burying what's really there. He doesn't fall for false illusions such as being a masked vigilante for the sake of 'justice'. Blake knows that in the end, justice is not going to matter. Lives are not going to matter. The aspirations of the Minutemen, the Crimebusters, and the Watchmen are basically pointless. A joke.
Not an admirable character. But he has a deep insight to the world around him, and interests me more than the others. I don't know whether Blake was a nihilist, but he did know he was a useful tool in a society based on a death cult. He doesn't do killing for any other reason that he likes it, and has been given permission to do so. But unlike any of the other masks, he his still masked in the only place you dont need to be to kill, in the theatre of war. He could be unmasked the whole time if he truly felt he was doing good. That goes for any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:09 pm
Rorschach is my favorite. I myself am of the opinion that morality has its shades of gray, and that there are few moral absolutes. (Most people, I'm sure, would agree.) Rorschach believes the exact opposite, but I find him fascinating nonetheless. Many people would probably succumb to his black and white frame of moral thought were they to have grown up in the environment he did, and because they can imagine themselves succumbing to it, many (including myself, obviously) can empathize with him while simultaneously disagreeing with him. He embodies the supreme manifestation of human indignation: the act of destroying evil at whatever cost. His fortitude (I would perhaps be in error if I called it bravery, as that would have morally positive connotations) in pursuit of it is admirable: one notices an unholy marriage of an insatiable thirst for vengeance coupled with an unflagging will to do good. And then, one wonders, what kind of force for good would Rorschach have been if his sense of morality hadn't been perverted so early in his life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:58 am
musing_maiden Rorschach is my favorite. I myself am of the opinion that morality has its shades of gray, and that there are few moral absolutes. (Most people, I'm sure, would agree.) Rorschach believes the exact opposite, but I find him fascinating nonetheless. Many people would probably succumb to his black and white frame of moral thought were they to have grown up in the environment he did, and because they can imagine themselves succumbing to it, many (including myself, obviously) can empathize with him while simultaneously disagreeing with him. He embodies the supreme manifestation of human indignation: the act of destroying evil at whatever cost. His fortitude (I would perhaps be in error if I called it bravery, as that would have morally positive connotations) in pursuit of it is admirable: one notices an unholy marriage of an insatiable thirst for vengeance coupled with an unflagging will to do good. And then, one wonders, what kind of force for good would Rorschach have been if his sense of morality hadn't been perverted so early in his life? His act of destroying evil, would have been discovered as being manifested in him as a small child growing up. Which Rorschach has to tell the Doctor. A doctor who was relying on the flimsiest of theories. Ink blot tests. Gees, I would put more credence in the Lusher Colour Test, than ink blots. An he was going to claim celebrity from it. On a sliding scale, he was just as bad as a rapist in Rors eyes. But just as Rorschach intially misled the Dr, but pointing out the bleeding obvious, if given the chance to get out of real therapy than to tell him what he wants to hear, and so much easier to do with interpretation therapy. Just as it can be illustrated in the 'good' Rorschach is doing. We all love him ridding the streets of scum. But we do when he is doing it illegally. Since '77. Eight years, still going strong. Regardless of whether he is breaking the law or not. That is a dangerous person in an ordered society. You don't want people running around doing what they think is right, rather than what society says. And the paradox lies in when he goes to jail. He is in their, with people he put there. With society's approval once upon a time. And now, considered one of them. And, as illustrated, rehabilitation was not a primary by-product of the penal system. There was those, who still had vengeance on their minds after rotting in there for 20 years. Locking away not to be seen, could not be the only thing that happens if caught breaking the law. Surely we want people who have seen reasons why they ended up there, and ways to figure on how to stay out. And Rorschach could only have survival on his mind, no time for rehab. And the joke is, that we can all see, Rorschach as well, that what he was doing was unlawful, and justice being blind, that he got his just deserts. But justice isn't blind, it's crooked. Guards bought, safety not guaranteed. That he was framed. And we (his society) judged him, even though this time he was innocent. That is the joke. This was the society he was protecting. He was a hero for. And how quickly they would have let him die. And for all the scum he cleaned. He knew kiddie killers could breeze through jail time without feeling any remorse for the victim. And he felt everything for the victim. To rebalance the scales. And his excess lack of empathy, he reserved for the truly bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:00 pm
Rorschach is my personal hero for many reasons. Bear with me.
One: There is no compromise for him. There is good and bad, and no grey areas, just like his mask. At first he may seem intolerant, but one has to understand, he views the world like that because of his unwavering sense of justice.
Two: In addition to that, he is conservative beyond belief, which is why many of the Watchmen, and the common people in Watchmen, call him intolerant. They are far more liberal than he is, and make allowances for immoral people and/or situations. I myself being a conservative (No haters; this isn't a political thread. Bash me someplace else.), I do believe in no compromise. If you don't stand for something, then you'll fall for anything. Rorschach knew what he was for. He died a martyr to his radical belief system. If the rest of us were firm in what we stood for, the world would be a better place. He was like the Comedian in some ways (Remember, Rorschach says he admired the Comedian's "I don't care what anyone thinks I'm doing what I think should be done" attitude."). He did what others would not. He didn't let a government bill stop him from cleaning up the streets. To me, he was put in jail unfairly, and the Keene Act was stupid. (Sorry that was long. Once I get rolling, I roll away! LOL)
Three: He has the coolest costume. Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:07 pm
musing_maiden Rorschach is my favorite. I myself am of the opinion that morality has its shades of gray, and that there are few moral absolutes. (Most people, I'm sure, would agree.) Rorschach believes the exact opposite, but I find him fascinating nonetheless. Many people would probably succumb to his black and white frame of moral thought were they to have grown up in the environment he did, and because they can imagine themselves succumbing to it, many (including myself, obviously) can empathize with him while simultaneously disagreeing with him. He embodies the supreme manifestation of human indignation: the act of destroying evil at whatever cost. His fortitude (I would perhaps be in error if I called it bravery, as that would have morally positive connotations) in pursuit of it is admirable: one notices an unholy marriage of an insatiable thirst for vengeance coupled with an unflagging will to do good. And then, one wonders, what kind of force for good would Rorschach have been if his sense of morality hadn't been perverted so early in his life? On the contrary, to make a clean adult argument in return: I think Rorschach is the bravest of them all. He risked jail for so long doing good, albeit illegally. The underground was scared to death of him because they knew what they were doing was against the law, and lived in constant fear of being caught/having fingers broken by Rorschach. Their moral compass consisted of this: "What I want to do" and "What Rorschach would kill me for doing." Isn't a do-gooder reputation like that priceless? No one was that scared of Nite Owl II or Silk Spectre II.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:52 pm
Edward Blake.
The man was a rapist, a womanizer, a man who got women pregnant and then later shot them down so he wouldn't have to deal with the kid and a nagging girl. He was the man who killed because he liked it and because he was given permission. He was the b*****d of the Watchmen; the man who did drugs and drank and smoked and had sex with every whore out there. He was hell.
But he was also one of the characters who understood how life worked. "It's all a ******** joke." The Comedian is a name that suites him. He would admit to everything wrong he had done, but yeah, it never stopped him from doing it over and over again. He had no friends because they all thought him a freak and a b*****d. He had one girl who would always secretly loved him; the girl that he raped. He was a ******** up man, and later payed the price for every wrong he had ever done. He was murdered and that's one of the worst ways to die; to know someone hates you enough to kill you and not feel a thing.
His arch-enemy was his closest friend. He went to his funeral. It's sad, because we all know everyone was terrified of him and how he was never helped matters. He was ******** up, but he knew how it was.
He understood how life worked, he understood how the world worked. He grasped the concept that people only used other people for their own selfish needs and then later tossed them over their shoulder and left them to fend for themselves.
That's why he'll always be my favorite, because he knew, he just knew. He's not a character to admire and one to look up to, God no. But he has the most interesting back story. Eddie Blake is just my favorite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
