“Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomache, this thread is afraid of me.”
If someone is advocating it, it is.
Rorschach was a very, very angry man who could never forgive the world, or the people in it for not falling into the black-and-white categories he thought they should. He channeled his need to lash out at the universe into vigilante justice, while cherry-picking a philosophy which justified doing what he wanted to do anyway. Which was hurt people.
The fact that he was able to (mostly) avoid hurting people who didn’t deserve it is a good thing, but only makes him a good person if you’re grading on the curve. Very generously.
Now, that probably WAS Alan Moores general take on objectivism. Not so much Steve Dikto, outspoken objectivist, who created The Question, and wasn’t perticuarly pleased about Rorschach, who he saw as a nasty parody. The Question, “except he’s insane.” The Question, along with Mr. A, his other objectivist hero, would often deliver long author tracts to that effect.
The Question softened considerably once he was written by other people. The DCAU’s take on him was turning him into a conspiricy theorest. Fans loved it. His original philosophy still pops up in the occasional mythology gag, though.
–
Spider-Man, not so much, though very early Spider-Man has moments of it.
Perhaps that makes Rorschach a perfect representation of Objectivism. Everyone sees whatever they want to in it.
“Others bury their heads between the swollen teats of indulgence and gratification, piglets squirming beneath a sow for shelter… but there is no shelter… and the future is bearing down like an express train.”
Rand saw the world as a constant tug-of-war between black and white. She was once asked whether she saw most people as shades of gray, and she answered, “Zebras. Some with more black and some with more white.”
. . . which makes Objectivism no different than any other philosophy or religion.
And in this he was absolutely right.
The concept of impending doom is a large part of WATCHMEN.
Captain Metropolis believes it and attempts to organize the Minutemen.
The Comedian sees it coming and is willing to allow it to happen for the dark humor of it all.
Rorschach seems it coming and can’t conceive of doing more than beating the worst of us.
Ozymandias sees it coming through market and social analysis and works towards its prevention.
The only difference is HOW each of these people reaches their conclusion and their ability to respond to it. Rorschach is, in the end, a deeply damaged person. He’s incapable of coping with his belief and it makes him lash out violently. Ozymandias, being stronger in mind and more detached, is capable of putting together a plan to deal with what he sees as a bad trend. That doesn’t make him better, of course, Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) is still a deeply flawed and broken personality. However, he’s much more high-functioning than any of the WATCHMEN.
Um. Except maybe for Dr. Manhattan. But that’s a WHOLE other question.
I think this is an excellent analysis. I would only add that it’s worth remembering Rorschach was not always this badly damaged - the other characters remark on this explicitly. If there’s one moment that truly broke him, it was his failed attempt to rescue the little girl who’d been kidnapped. Rorschach, as Moore wrote him, is pretty clearly suffering from PTSD.
I should also note that, at the end, the Comedian isn’t actually willing to let the end come. He convinced himself that he was, because he felt powerless to stop it - but he quailed before the end of even a single city. For all that he tried to convince himself and others that he was a terrible man, and for all that he did genuinely terrible things (fellow probably made Calley look like a by-the-book officer in Vietnam), he still had enough decency to be tortured by it.
That’s not the Overman. The Overman is distinctly not a nihilist like the Comedian. He is at core a creative entity - Manhattan, Nite Owl and Ozy qualify here - but one who has overcome the “herd” truths for a higher view. He “sails over morality” in a way the Comdeian cannot, being bound by it in defiance as much as the “Good” guys are in attempting to shore it up.
One might think that this describes Manhattan more than Ozy, but Manhattan is so far *beyond *morality that he doesn’t really qualify as the Overman. Both are self-made men, sure, but it is Ozy who displays the Will of the Übermensch. Manhattan is, instead, somewhat of a passive in events, not a shaper *of *them.
That’s exactly what the *Übermensch *does. I think you fail to grok Nietzsche.
High praise, considering the source…
Objectivism is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and Rorschach seemed to reflect some of its tenets, I suppose, but I don’t think Ayn Rand would’ve had him over for drinks. Although deeply individualistic, he had a horrible childhood, only one real friend, saw himself above the law, lived in squalor, and was willing to do terrible things to even more terrible people (or so he saw them). He fell into the abyss. In fighting monsters, he tragically became one.
Best line: “None of you understand. I’m not locked up in here with you - you’re locked up in here with me.”
I loved that line in the movie - was it also in the source?
That is one of my favorite bad-ass lines of all time. Ranks up there even with Clint Eastwood sayings.
That’s weird. I would’ve sworn I read that line in an old Punisher comic, before the Watchmen. Maybe I am mis-remembering.
I believe the Punisher storyline where he is in prison came after the Watchmen, so I wouldnt put my dollars on the Punisher being the first. But I could misremember.
It’s documented by the prison psychiatrist who thinks he can rehabilitate Rorschach. The psychiatrist writes that a guard heard Rorschach announce this after the fight where he burns the hell out of the inmate who tried to stab him in the cafeteria.
I think this is right. Dr Manhattan is the ultimate observer, unable to act because he sees everything. Ozymandias is the ultimate actor, doing exactly what is necessary to accomplish his goals. He was unbound by more limited notions of morality and instead did what was necessary to attain the greatest good.
Rorschach described himself perfectly with his comment “you’re trapped in here with me”. It applied to the world at large as much as the prison he was in.
I’m not familiar with that storyline, but it seems likely that it post-dates Watchmen. Punisher started out as, primarily, a Spiderman villain. I’m guessing the prison storyline would have happened in his own book, which didn’t come out until 1986, the same year Watchmen started being published. It’s possible that the Punisher used the line first, but the window for him to get it in is pretty narrow.
The ‘Punisher in Jail’ storyline (the first one, anyway) was from the start of his miniseries, '86, as Miller said. I don’t think he said it, but he did say something similar.
–
Used to have a copy, but have no idea where it went. It was a pretty good miniseries.
I remember the Punisher saying words similar to Rorschach in the early storyline where he got sent to prison, poisoned with a mind altering drug there, and then broke out. Influenced by the drug, he started to go overextremist on his justice quest (shooting people for really minor offenses). He was then captured back, cleaned of the drug, put on trial, and considered innocent for his crimes (kind of the Sin Eater plot).
The whole thing was designed to make the Punisher more into a hero than a vigilante, as he was getting his own series, and his fame was on the rise.
ETA:now that I remember it, I wonder if it wasnt actually not in the Punisher series, but in Daredevil. The episode where the Punisher helps Bullseye escapes from prison, cant recall the number. But it was during Miller’s run on Daredevil.
I’ve clear memories of Punisher’s described antics in various Spider-Man comics, including one issue in which he shoots at (but does not actually kill) litterers, a traffic violator and a wife-beater. A comment by one of the characters (Joe Robertson, I guess) that Punisher had clearly gone nuts and was going after petty criminals prompted a letter to the editor from a Marvel reader who was annoyed (not unjustly, I thought) at wife-beating being lumped in with the first two as a trivial offense (all of these attacks were later retconned-explained as the temporary effect of a villain’s drug, rather a natural progression for a violent psychopath). Later on, also in a Spider-Man comic, Punisher enlists the aid of Boomerang to bust out of jail (though at the last minute he picks up Boomerang and hurls him at oncoming guards to both delay them and ensure his temporary partner’s recapture). Punisher is determined to kill the Kingpin and through that confrontation was not depicted, but by the time spider-Man and Daredevil (and I think Black Widow) caught up, they found Punisher beaten to unconsciousness and concluded the Kingpin had easily defeated him and held him in such contempt that he didn’t even bother finishing him off, which struck me as both implausible and overly convenient.
I’d have to dig up the relevant issues; this was spread out over the early-to-mid-eighties.