So I finally got around to reading Watchmen and I don't get why everyone just agrees to not do anything at the end and then when Rorshach challenges them on it, they kill him instead of thinking about what they're doing.

Well, what if you were in that situation, what would you have done? And how would you have succeeded?

Ozymandius actions, while heinous, stopped a war which would have had an even more heinous outcome.  If they'd let anyone find out the truth, it wouldn't have saved the people in New York, all it would have done is made their deaths meaningless.

There's no real choice there.

Perfect reversal of the typical comic book in which the heroes save everything. That's exactly what Rorshach thinks will happen and he gets petulant when it doesn't meet his expectations (as did much of Moore's audience.) This is bigger than them, so they do nothing. What did you expect?

They kill Rorschach because they know he will never give in.  It was Rorschach's tenacity which pretty much set up the whole story, and, Rorschach is arguably just behind Veidt in terms of clever planning and maneuvering.  If anyone could find a way to break the story to the population at large, it would be him.

On a structure level, it also lends itself to a bit of irony, Dr. Manhattan who believes in an inevitble outcome to the universe is convinced to have a change of heart and believe in miracles, while Rorschach remains unchangable throughout it all.  The most powerful character is humbled, the most frail (emotionally, in a way) is unaffected. 

On another symbolic level, it's the destruction of the black & white viewpoint, which had brought them to the brink of nuclear war and had no way to avoid it.

Chris

Bankuei wrote:
On another symbolic level, it's the destruction of the black & white viewpoint, which had brought them to the brink of nuclear war and had no way to avoid it.

Chris

I loved the ending, FWIW.

Dr. Manhattan decides to let Ozymandias get his way, but in the end the story's going to come out anyway due to Rorshcach, and knowledge of the faked invasion will become common, and Ozymandias' long-term plans for humanity will fail.

We should have a "Who's your favorite watchman?" poll. Rorshach's mine. I mean, Night Owl's the only guy I'd actually like to be friends with, but he's a nobody. As I see it Rorshach and Ozymandias are the only two menschen in the tale, and Ozymandias is such an insufferable prick that I'll take the crazy right-wing asshole over him any day of the week.

Yes, Rorschach gets his story printed....

In the equivalent of the John Birch Societies house organ.

It would be no more believable to the public at large than the "Bush planned 9/11" stories you read on the internet.

It's a testament to Rorchach's madness that he has all the goods, and then gives it away to the people least able to use it effectively

We should have a "Who's your favorite watchman?" poll. Rorshach's mine. I mean, Night Owl's the only guy I'd actually like to be friends with, but he's a nobody. As I see it Rorshach and Ozymandias are the only two menschen in the tale, and Ozymandias is such an insufferable prick that I'll take the crazy right-wing asshole over him any day of the week.

I thought of that too, Kingston. That's the realistic outcome, sure, but the way the scene was presented, I felt strongly that the symbolic suggestion was that Rorschach gets the last laugh after all, especially because he died. But that may be my own projection...do you read that scene as ironic icing on Ozymandias' cake instead? Do you think Oz won?

Or, perhaps more significantly, are both readings equally warranted by the text? So that the tale is something of a Rorschach test that you can read either figure into the victorious role in?

Because the assistant's hand is hovering over the slush pile with Roschach's journal in it, but he hasn't specifically picked it up, I think the ending is meant to be ambiguous. You don't know if the agitprop rag is going to print it or not, or if anyone will believe them if they do. I think that ambiguity is built in to the ending, and I like it that way. You can imagine several possible scenarios. I did get some satisfaction in Rorschach getting one over on Ozymandias by having sent his journal out to them, though, whether or not it gets published.

Eric wrote:
And mine would be the pirate guy who sails on the raft constructed of bloated corpses. <wink>

Cheers,

Eric

quozl wrote:

Eric wrote:
And mine would be the pirate guy who sails on the raft constructed of bloated corpses. <wink>

Cheers,

Eric

That reminds me: what was the point of those sequences?  Just to show how crazy Rorschach is?

It is strongly hinted at the end that Rorschach does succeed after all and his story gets printed.  What is Moore trying to say there?  That while black & white views need to be broken down, the truth will still prevail?

I love Rorschach. I adore him in the scene where he pours the oil in the other inmate's face.

I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me.

I have this thing for those who do not give in. Like Ghost Rider in the old book where he commands his bike to re-assemble, saying it will only be destroyed when he lets it be destroyed.

Thunder_God wrote:
I love Rorschach. I adore him in the scene where he pours the oil in the other inmate's face.

Musashi, why is that name so familiar?

Thunder_God wrote:
Musashi, why is that name so familiar?

Ah yes, Book of Five Rings. Miyamoto Musashi. Book is not 2 ft. from me.

Heya,

quozl wrote:

Eric wrote:
And mine would be the pirate guy who sails on the raft constructed of bloated corpses. <wink>

Cheers,

Eric

That reminds me: what was the point of those sequences?  Just to show how crazy Rorschach is?

I have this thing for those who do not give in

Another thing: why is Rorscach insane?  Why is he named Rorschach?  He's obviously there to expose the truth when nobody else cares about it and I don't think it's a coincidence that his mask is black and white.  But why the insanity?

He's a fanatic.

In order to die for your beliefs, knowingly, you need to be a fanatic.

Thus he's one.

Thunder_God wrote:
He's a fanatic.

In order to die for your beliefs, knowingly, you need to be a fanatic.

Thus he's one.

quozl wrote:
Fanatic does not mean insane.

"Insane" as in he has given up everything human about himself in order to become an idea.  He doesn't enjoy life, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't care what he eats, he exists only to perform a duty in reaction to, the injustice of the world.  He has become a vigliante acestic, without any belief in any higher ideal than what he does.

The sad fact is, if he had a bit more "human-ness" to work with, odds are pretty good that he would have had an easier time getting others to believe him.

Chris

Am I remembering wrong or wasn't there a scene showing Rorschach kill a dog just to show the reader that he was nuts?

He killed the dogs to punish the murderer owner, the dog ate a lil child that was butchered.

The scene showing us he is "nuts" is when he's faced with Rorschach test, he sees bad things, like in a place where we'd see a butterfly he sees the dog he killed.

Actually, both of those just show you that he's traumatized beyond all belief.  His insanity is the fact that instead of trying to recover from the problem, he decided to throw away everything that makes him human in order to try to escape his trauma, and the problems of life itself- diving into his personal code of ideals (while at the same time espousing the world is a void where any meaning is just an illusion), that's his madness.

The violence is pretty irrelevant to the issue.

Chris

I've always felt that the pirate story is used to ultimately condemn Veidt for his actions. The hero in that story is a corollary for Veidt, who wants to rescue his world from evil but is consumed by evil in the process. This is suggested In the very last chapter, when Veidt mentions a recurring dream of swimming toward a dark ship--the same fate as the hero of the pirate story.

Rorschach, despite all his hatred of corruption, is completely ineffectual at doing anything about it. He fights crime on the streets, but only sees things as getting worse, not better, as a result. He unravels Adrian's plot too late to prevent it. He manages to reveal it to the world, but only in a medium that has no credibility whatsoever.

While the pirate thing certainly can be read into the overall themes of the story, it's surface meaning is just to comment and reflect on the superhero comics industry. You see, Watchmen is set in a world where superhero comics are the fringe of the fringe that died out in the fifties. Meanwhile, pirates are the vogue, and this is a comic book from that world. This is the complete opposite of what actually happened in America with the Comics Code killing off the historical/horror genre of comics and giving a boost to harmless superhero fantasy. I guess superheroes aren't that harmless if they actually live on your streets. Well, perhaps this was self-evident to everybody and I'm just not deep enough for this discussion ;)

My favourite Watchman? Owlman, perhaps. I like the vulnerability, and how he's obviously out of his league, but doing it anyway. Then again, I like them all a lot as far as characters go.

The Comedian's still the man. For those who like their heroes brutal, amoral and cynical.

Heya,

The scene showing us he is "nuts" is when he's faced with Rorschach test, he sees bad things, like in a place where we'd see a butterfly he sees the dog he killed.

That's more of him being a sociopath.

That's more of him being a sociopath.

Yes, I thought of noting I'm splitting hairs there.

Boy, of all the threads for my to jump in late on.

My favorite is Ozymandias. The Comedian actually submits{/i] to him. He's the only person who makes the world better with his abilities, not caught up in his own personal shit. He and Rorschach, it could be argued, are the only protagonists in the story.

Rorschach and he are converse: While Adrian effects the world by making world-scale things happen, Rorschach thinks that breaking fingers will make the world better. Adrian sees the complexity of the world and, Machiavellianly, doesn't mind doing evil in the name of good. Rorschach, on the other hand, is only ever fighting against evil, never dealing with the good at all.

Jon, Jule, and Dan are completely wrapped up in their own stuff, and it's not trivial stuff either: Jon's trying to achieve his apotheosis, leaving behind humanity for good. Julie and Dan are trying to confront issues of family, love, and middle-aged irrelevance. These are not people willing to sacrifice for the good of the world; they are the world.

And... Rorschach not insane? Psh. He's as inhuman as Jon but on a human scale. Jon's only not insane because the word doesn't apply to him.

Rorschach isn't killed at the end. He commits assisted suicide. (Dammit, I can't find my copy, so I can't quote) Rorschach realizes that Adrian was right and he was, well, not quite right, and in his eyes, that makes him totally wrong. But he only knows how to do one thing, and it won't have any effect on anything (and probably never has), and he'll keep doing it, knowing it won't have any effect, unless someone kills him in the line of "duty". So that's what he asks for.

Jon's definitely insane on the same level.  I thought it was rather interesting to see that at least he does make the step towards being human by believing in miracles, in chaos, in something other than his own view of the world.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Jon's definitely insane on the same level. 

Joshua wrote:
Well, this is splitting hairs, I guess, but Jon can't be insane because he's outside of the human realm. He's only sociopathic if you assume that he's within the society, only psychopathic if you assume that he has a human psyche. That psyche dissolves over the course of the story into something else.

Good points about Jon. My feeling was that those parts where he shows humanity were little vestigial things, but I think you're right; they're more central to him than he lets on.

Reflecting on Jon's humanity makes his last sentiments in the book more chilling, I think. He's off to create some humans. Think that will turn out well for them?

Adrian is the Sidereals who overtook the Solars for the world's own good!

two_fishes wrote:
Reflecting on Jon's humanity makes his last sentiments in the book more chilling, I think. He's off to create some humans. Think that will turn out well for them?

Clyde wrote: You have Utilitarianism (Greatest good for the Greatest number) dealing with Armageddon, versus Free Will which will push the scales back to Armageddon.

Clyde wrote: I have to wonder at his motivations. His hero is Alexander a man who tried to conquer the world and was fairly successful at it. This seems to point at some inner motivation in his choice of solutions. Whether Adrian is aware of those motivations I can't say, I think he's disturbed.

Joshua - I go with your original interpretation of Dr. Manhattan. The relief he feels at finding Laurie with Dan is relief at being able to let the last vestige of his humanity go, since he doesn't want it any more. The assumption of godhood goes hand in glove with that.

I realized with horror reading this thread that I'm much more sympathetic to Ozymandias now than I was as a teenager.

Yeah, dig: he feels artificially constrained by his humanity. It's like a school uniform.