| Posted: 08 February 2007 at 8:19pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Emery, to respond to the points you have made, I think the comparisons you bring up between Rorschach and the mad scientist from FF 51 and Return of the Jedi are invalid and poorly made. I understand that you think that Rorschach's actions at the end are not heroic, as they stem from mental illness, and fail even in that they in no way redeem him from the violence he did to criminals, prior. However, you can't compare Rorschach to the scientist in This Man, This Monster, because Rorschach did not cause the cataclysm in New York which led to him being killed. I understand that you see them as being similar because Rorschach's mental illness is, to you, what leads him to do the right thing and the scientist's villainy is what leads him to do the right thing, but unlike the FF mad scientist, Rorschach did not engineer villainous circumstances which placed people in jeopardy that led him to need to sacrifice himself. In terms of the Darth Vader comparison, Rorschach had not killed thousands of innocent people; he had killed criminals, but was not really comparable to Vader.
++++++++++
So Rorshach hasn't made a mistake following an insane moral code consistently even when it leads him into filth and brutality and ostracism (ever since his threshold trauma) ? And doing pretty much the same thing (opposing "evil" at all costs! Snarl!) somehow liberates him from the consequences of who and what he has become and gives him a ticket to the train that carries superheroes to glorious valhalla? Just because he happened to be opposing the other "superhero" whose moral code was subjectively correct but in conflict with Rorshach's own? Even though he had become insane along the way? Pfeh.
**********
Yeah, I still think he's being a hero at the story's end. Maybe he wasn't a hero at the story's beginning--I agree with you that killing, brutalizing, and menacing probably disqualify you from being a hero but disagree that poor hygiene (which you consistently cite for some reason) prevent you from being heroic--but he died a hero. Since Rorschach died doing something heroic he died a hero and was therefore a hero.
++++++++++
If you and I had a debate about whether Gorbachev is a robot or not would his robot/not robot status really be subjective? The same applies to a large body of precedent such as the traditional superhero comic. Sure we can run back to the old defintion of hero "an extraordinary history changing man of destiny" with next to no real moral dimension and cite some bloodthristy guy like Sigfried or some cold as ice mechanistic follower of God's will like Arjuna but that's not solving the problem in any meanignful way. It's just ignoring context to lend a false sense of validity to a desire to chuck a defintion.
**********
This is another flawed analogy. If we wanted to, we could probably prove that Gorbachev is a robot. I don't think you can prove or disprove whether or not someone's a hero. I don't know if I'd qualify it as chucking a definition, but I think heroism means too many different things to too many different people for one word to do it justice.
++++++++++
Fine. Pete Rose is a hero. Because I have made it so by openly declaring that he fills my heart with warm fuzzies.
**********
Okay, sure, that's fine. I think that so many people already conflate a hero with someone who inspires them that this is completely acceptable. If your qualifications of heroism differs from my definitions of heroism I don't think that this makes one of us wrong. I don't understand what your definition of heroism is.
++++++++++
"[Rorschach] had already reported it. By mail."
**********
Yes, he had, but I don't think this detracts from him going back to the United States to report it again and to refuse to be part of Veidt's plan. I don't think the fact that he had already tried to warn people undermines the heroism of him attempting to do it again.
++++++++++
A hero to you. Not a hero to me. Since we are arguing qualifications of herosims that you have moved to conveniently reduce to subjectivity. And your defintion of "amazing" seems perilously close to my definition of bleak nihilistic tragedy. You can't even decide what his tears REALLY signify here but you WANT to interpret it as clarity and heroism so you do. And why not? If heroism is subjective why not "clarity" and "recognition"?
**********
I think that Moore deliberately made it unclear why Rorschach was crying. I offered up some explanations; sorry if it appeared like I couldn't make up my mind. I thought Rorschach was crying both because he both understood that he was going to die but mostly because he felt terrible for the millions who died in New York. In terms of clarity and recognition being subjective, again, I think that Moore makes it unclear. You might see this as a fault of him as a writer or my willingness to just impose my feelings on the scene as a flaw of me as a reader, but I definitely think that this was done for the reader to try and figure out why he was crying with very little provided evidence. Why do you think he was crying?
++++++++++
"It's already been posted. 2nd post above yours. Moore describes the Question as "There was a guy with a hat and a mac, that was the Question, who was also very similar to Steve Ditko's far more right-wing character, Mister A, that was too right-wing to put in mainstream comics but which Ditko had published some strips about in independent comics at the time. Mister A was an absolute insane fascist but done absolutely straight."
Plus he made him a dirty insane character who spouts similar lines to Mr.A/The Question only in a scary insane voice. What purpose does all that serve if not to malign that character and show it as a false and easily broken concept? C'mon dude. Did you really think it was just for variety or to provide a "slice of life" bit of color to the book? Why do YOU think that Rorsach is protrayed as what he is? Coincidence? An attempt to offset a parallel design somewhat? (As in "No! Our patriotic guy with a shield is a cyborg!" ) DO you think Moore intended to improve the Question by showing what a mess a guy like that would really be?"
**********
Actually I did think that he was pretty much done either as very vaguely based off of the Question or to offeset the design, but I think you may be right. I've only read the Ditko Question stuff after I read Watchmen, I'll have to go back and reread both, but maybe you're right.
++++++++++
Hey man, you've already told me what you thought was shown to be going on in Rorshach's mind when he died and then quickly disagreed with yourself.
**********
I don't know where I disagreed with myself.
++++++++++
"We've sort of been over this already. By this measure of things suicide bombers are superheroes."
**********
First off, I think we've both been using superhero wrong (since Rorschach doesn't have any superpowers), but to a lot of countries or groups, suicide bombers are heroes. Does this mean a country is wrong or does it mean that heroism means different things to different cultures and different people?
++++++++++
"The Mad Scientist who tried to kill Reed Richards and then changed his mind is a superhero.(Right thing? yep. Knew he would die? Check. Thought he was unlikely to suceed? Yep. He even says that he "thinks" he remembers the direction he came in..nonetheless it's Reed's only chance! Probably Vader is a superhero too by this yardstick.)"
**********
I think that clearly Lucas thinks that Vader is redeemed and dies a hero, I disagree but I think that the point can be made. On terms of the FF scientist, I don't think I ever said that heroism to me meant that a person was dying or doomed and/or unlikely to succeed, just that they, in that situation, helped define Rorschach as heroic. Again, Vader is killed while overseeing the construction and operation of a weapon he built to destroy whole planets. The FF scientist, if I remember correctly, is killed after a death trap he built backfires (granted, I could be wrong on this). Rorschach, although a violent murderer of criminals, is killed while trying to inform New York about who attacked them. Do you honestly fail to see the different contexts of this situations and while I value one above the others?
++++++++++
"Crazy people never cry? Crying is a sign of the end of mental illness? Can watching 'Ol Yeller cure mental illness? This is a silly bit of evidence."
**********
I was thinking more along the lines of truly psychotic or sociopathic people fail to feem emphathy or compassion. Maybe I'm ignorant on this point or misinformed. I interpreted Rorschach's tears as pity for those who died. Therefore I concluded that he had a moment of lucidity. I also don't see how it was a silly bit of evidence. I used knowledge that I had on a given subject and feelings that I had towards a certain character and applied them to a scene that seemed written for the interpretation of the reader.
++++++++++
"So being a stinky murdering nut job haunting alleyways isn't evidence of Moore taking the piss out of the Question/Mr. A, but Rorshach crying after an asswhupping and a defeat and being about to die after he's already mailed the diary is a sign that he's sane and spiritually right and a super hero? Really? it's not frustration or anger? It's the mythical tears that precede the return of reason and whole mind?"
**********
Yeah, pretty much it's a sign that he's sane and spiritually right. I told you, though, it's pretty open to interpretation and the first time I read it I thought they were tears of frustration or anger. I don't know what your beliefs are towards them, but they're equally valid, there's no single interpretation of why he's crying.
++++++++++
"Aren't you going to expound on the subjectivity of "the world's smartest man" or even if the name "Adrian Veidt" is really the characters name?
Nope.
Why not? No motivation? Has some phantom evidence of objectivity suddenly surfaced when it suits your view of things?"
**********
Well, it's mostly because we debated whether or not he was the world's smartest man earlier and because we're not really talking about whether or not Veidt is his real name, right now.
++++++++++
"Rorshach is a dirty sweaty stinky unhealthy vicious nut."
**********
Again, I don't think dirty, sweaty, or stinky disqualify you from being a hero.
++++++++++
Drieberg is a bored aging rich kid who got pulled out of his owlmobile too early so he gained some pounds and sighs a lot. Silk Spectre is pursuing her mom's career as the team's clingy but unfaithful hootchy only unlike her she's ready to step away from the bad boy who doesn't get her and move on to a nerdy passive guy who was a bit more confident in better days. We have the "kills for peace" guy who isn't above raping somebody every now and then who eats pavement at terminal velocity to get the ball rolling. Veidt is the "always right" elitist manipulator with a Utopian dream to shove down humanity's throat for their own good and strange preoccupation with reincarnation and absolute authority. Dr Manhatten is a genie who forgot to "remember thou art mortal" and is slowly going all Gary Mitchell. They are all based on Charlton heroes only funked up (except for Silk Spectre unless she's supposed to be somwhow connected to Nightshade...to me she reads as a depowered Black Canary)
C'mon dude. You have to ignore a LOTof pattern there to support a "there is no evidence that Moore is being deconstuctionist" attitude. So what's your explanation for just about EVERYONE in the book being a flawed screwed up non-inspriing and contemptable prick who LOSE, change sides, get killed, and just move on and live with it?
*********
I did acknowledge its connection to the Charlton heroes, but you were right, I probably ignorantly and deliberately glossed over Rorschach's connection to The Question. I had not noticed it before until you argued it. I was wrong.
++++++++++
"So what? I've provided a good bit of evidence to support my views! So support your view with more than the usual drizzle of uncertainty, composing strange exceptions to your own conclusions(Rorsahch becomes a Superhero by doing the right thing at the end but Mad Scientist does not...maybe he should have cried a little instead of sitting on a rock facing his end with dignity and acknowledging his responisbility.)"
*********
You can and did support your view of Watchmen as a deconstructionist superhero book that paints a poor picture of superheroes. It's harder for me to debate my interpretation of Rorscach as a hero and why he was crying since heroism seems to mean different things to both of us and since the reason that he is crying is not explicitly stated and seemed to be left completely to the interpretation of the reader. I do think, however, that I've provided sufficient explanation on why I think that he's crying (the moment of clarity).
++++++++++
Your claim of "ignorance" here is not really well supported at this point. You tell me what Rorshachs tears mean as evidence and yet you yourself have two explanations for them!
**********
Yes, I did have two explanations for them. So did you. Again, it's vague and the reader seems asked to provide their own answers. I don't think either of us is right or wrong, or, instead, we're both right.
++++++++++
"Self Righteously? How so? I am not claiming to be a saint here. You seem to be a bit selfrighteous to me as well with your assumption that I am wrong "because I am".
**********
But you've been constantly telling people that they've been wrong or just saying, "bullshit". I don't undeerstand what you mean.
++++++++++
and your desire to subjectivize your way out of the argument without giving any ground even when shown to be mistaken or spinning your wheels with endless " what ifs" and "how can you be sures?". So far all I can discern is that you want Watchmen to be a superhero book because you don't much care what you call a super hero(powers and costumes!) and you like it as a comic book. So you compose a lot of ad hoc defintions and then defend them by crying subjectivity. You ignore major themes in the book when they don't suit your conclusion and offer some of the most goassamer-like explanations of them and expect them to not be undermined because "it's subjective".
**********
Well, again, Rorschach didn't have any powers so he isn't really a super hero, per se. I think he's a hero because he does something that I would define as heroic, and that only at the very end of his life. I cry subjectivity because the books "themes", which I admittedly might have ignored, do seem to be about subjectivity, shades of gray rather than black and white. Does that make sense?
++++++++++
I think I made it clear why I consider Rorschach heroic, and only in the last few minutes of his life.
"Yeah. It's because you read his mind and he cried. Crazy people don't cry and superheroes do! It's a sure sign of clarity rather than stubborness, or obssession, or frustration, or rage, or...whatever you want to see at any given moment."
**********
I hope I've been a little more consistent than at any given moment but, yes, I did read his mind. Reading his mind or motivations seemed to have been required for that scene by all readers, yourself included. Also, I hope my argument wasn't as simplistic as crazy people don't cry and superheroes do and, if it was, I hope I better argued what I meant, here.
++++++++++
"You want Watchmen to be a super hero book so you modify the defintion of superhero until it fits. Then you defend your modification with claims of it being authorized by the dubious principle that subjectivity inherent in the definition of any non-empirical thing. Why? "Because it just is," "Because people argue about it" and that somehow proves that it's uncertain and protean. "Because there is no 100% concensus". You ask myriad non-questions like "can anyone really be certain of Moore's intent here? " "Can my interpretation really be wrong since after all everything is subjective anyway and we are doomed to unceratinty?" Then you go on to lecture me about Moore's intent at Rorschach's death scene. You apply your subjectivity very arbitrarily so long as you feel it advances your apologetics of Watchmen. I think I understand you pretty well. But that doesn't make your case at all persuasive."
**********
I never said everything is subjective, but I do believe that anything that is open to interpretation or does not have a concerete example--love, heroism, clarity--is subjective. I do think that the themes and style of Watchmen leave it open to more interpretation than, say, To Kill a Mockinbird. And I think very much that the amount of disagreement in this thread illustrates that it was purposely vague or more open to interpretation rather than reveals ignorance or stupidity among this board's posters. I'm also sorry if it came across at any point like a lecture, but, since I think that the book is deliberately vague, yes, I did take issue with you for what seemed and still seems like an arrogant belief that you hold the only possible interpretation of what the characters are, why they act the way they act, what the book means, and what the book's message is.
|
Topic Closed)
