Rorschach

[doliest]

Reread the section where Blake gets drunk in front of Moloch. Then factor in that he had very close political contacts and that he does absolutely nothing upon discovering the plan. Of all the characters in the series he was the one who could have stopped Ozy the easiest, just call up Nixon and send in the swat team. He didn't, which implies that he on some level agreed.

I didn't really think that was the reason; maybe he didn't think it would work, or didn't have proof. I'm not sure why he didn't, but it's really hard to get into the mind of a man with more than a few issues to work through.

[Lycan 01]

I liked Rorschach. By the end of the book, he was the only character I liked.

Spoiler

Show

I felt that he was the only one who deserved the title of "hero" at the end. Night Owl, whatshername, and Dr. Manhatten let the bad guy go. So what if he committed geonocide for the greater good? He still committed geonocide. That is evil. And the job of a hero is to stop the evil guy. But instead, they all just sat back and let him go on his merry little way. That made them, in my opinion, villains. Not Rorschach. He saw it the way I see it - the hero has to stop the bad guy. But he knew what would happen if he tried. He knew it, and he did it any way. Insane or not, he died trying to do the right thing. And I think he was crying not because he was about to die, but because his friends had all just turned their back on everything they stood for - and he was the only one willing to die trying to be a good guy. I was sad when he died. I'm still sad about it. Because when Rorschach died, not only did an awesome character eat it, but the last hero amongst the Watchmen died, as well. In my opinion at least.

Also, I loved his response to the law dictating that masked heroes had to surrunder their secret identities and register with the government.

[Sneak]

I liked Rorschach. By the end of the book, he was the only character I liked.

I felt that he was the only one who deserved the title of "hero" at the end. Night Owl, whatshername, and Dr. Manhatten let the bad guy go. So what if he committed geonocide for the greater good? He still committed geonocide. That is evil. And the job of a hero is to stop the evil guy. But instead, they all just sat back and let him go on his merry little way. That made them, in my opinion, villains. Not Rorschach. He saw it the way I see it - the hero has to stop the bad guy. But he knew what would happen if he tried. He knew it, and he did it any way. Insane or not, he died trying to do the right thing. And I think he was crying not because he was about to die, but because his friends had all just turned their back on everything they stood for - and he was the only one willing to die trying to be a good guy. I was sad when he died. I'm still sad about it. Because when Rorschach died, not only did an awesome character eat it, but the last hero amongst the Watchmen died, as well. In my opinion at least.

Really?

Even assuming that what Ozzy did was unquestionably wrong (which once again, not everyone agrees with and I myself have mixed feelings about), why would telling everyone what he did benefit...anyone? Then not only would those 50 million people have died, but they would have died for no reason at all, possibility starting a nuclear war.

Rorschach was only doing the right thing if you believe in 100% black and white, solely retributive justice. Which most people don't, and I find pretty unreasonable.

That said, I was sad when Rorschach died. He was a cute and badass little sociopath.

[Lycan 01]

Its not a black-and-white perspective. There are quite a few shades of grey. But killing millions of people is still pretty dang black.

*shrug* I dunno. I've just always seen comic books heroes as exactly that - heroes. And everyone told me Watchmen was the best superhero comic ever. So, I expected the characters to be hereos. They aren't supposed to let the bad guy get away...

Besides...

Spoiler

Show

That guy found Rorschach's journal. It probably got published, and even if a lot of people didn't believe it, it would have at least planted that seed of doubt. So, in the end, Rorschach still told the world... And besides, the world would have still been united. They would have all discovered that they had a common foe... Granted, they would have gone back to war with each other afterwards, but peace never lasts anyway...

I should note that I haven't seen the movie. I only read the comic. I sat there for several hours, and the moment I was done, I wanted those hours back.

But, as I mentioned, I had different expectations when I started reading it.

[Tyrant]

Yes.

More life is more life. Would you say that murdering a terminal cancer patient isn't wrong, because they're "just going to die later?" Hell, everyone dies sooner or later, but that doesn't mean that murder is okay.

So, the choice is 50 million die and the rest of humanity might live, or all of humanity dies and you choose extinction. I have to know. Why?

It's a little more exaggerated in the movie scenario, but at the point Ozy acts, there is no going back. The US had launched their bombers already. WWIII and the very likely extinction of the human race was literally moments away. Those people in those cities were dead no matter what happened. In either scenario, they die. So, do they die for nothing with the rest of humanity or does their death mean something and possibly save the rest of humanity? I really don't see how it's even a choice.

One could argue that he could have done more, but I choose to take him at his word that this was the best possible way. I have to believe a man who can build a world spanning financial empire out of selling action figures is probably a pretty smart guy. He would almost have to have an intimate grasp of human nature to understand when and how to invest his money to maximize his profits the way that he did. They say he's the smartest man in the world and I see no reason to doubt that claim. Most of the complaints I see about him boil down to either not liking his character for whatever reason or essentially thinking that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I see no reason to doubt him and I have to wonder why others seem so quick to. I must assume they aren't fans of pragmatism. Citing the real world end to Cold War is pointless. We didn't have a god on our side. That changes things in all kinds of ways (which was part of the point).

Granted. It's been a while since I read the book, so I've forgotten some elements.

After Doc Manhattan left, though (which was, yes, because of Ozzy), the concept started to apply again, right?

I have watched the movie more recently than I read the book, so I may be off on this as far as the book, but basically the answer is no. If the movie is right, the Soviets had somewhere around 50,000 nuclear warheads at that point. That means that their stockpile was far in excess of the US stockpile. The Soviets had no doubt been planning and plotting for the moment when they made the big push (for whatever reason) so as soon as Manhattan was gone, what's to stop them? Add to that (again if the movie is right), their tank divisions were lining up all over Eastern Europe to get ready to make their push into Europe. They had already invaded Afghanistan. They were clearly making their big push, so either they were going to make a push against the US or Europe, or the US was going to try to hit first. Manhattan leaving when he did, with the situation as it stood, set the apocalypse in motion in all likelyhood.

I think there's something the Ozy haters overlook or at least I don't see it brought up. Manhattan was going to leave Earth sooner or later anyway. He had been drifting since Vietnam. His very presence fueled the Soviet fear that the US would attempt a strike against them. He enboldened the US into believing they were invincible. There was no Cuban Missile Crisis to make everyone take a step back for a minute and the US won Vietnam so there were no lessons learned and the US still felt invincible. This whole thing is a recipe for disaster and Ozy saw the writing on the wall. So long as Manhattan remained, the threat of all out nuclear war would remain with both sides constantly trying to figure out if they had enough of an advantage to destroy or somehow disable the other.

As for the comments about New York being hit last, didn't LA also get hit?

As for the journal, will it really make any difference? The journal of a man who isn't exactly popular in a paper that no one reads claims that the richest man in the world is a shadowy figure with big plans who may have killed some people. I assume their other cover story is that water is still wet. If anyone ever began to question Adrian, he could easily blow it off as the ramblings of a lunatic. Anyone who really looked into it would be lucky if they were found again. Being the richest man in the world allows him to crush stories like that if he so desired. No one really believes the tabloids anyway. Or did they finally find bat boy (plotting with some shadowy powers for global domination based on signs ranging from seeing someone's face in a hurricane to finding a school of multiheaded shark/whale hybrids in the Great Lakes no less) this week and I missed it in the legitamate news?

[Sneak]

So, the choice is 50 million die and the rest of humanity might live, or all of humanity dies and you choose extinction. I have to know. Why?

That was only assuming that the fix was very temporary and every ended up dying anyway, just later.

It's a little more exaggerated in the movie scenario, but at the point Ozy acts, there is no going back. The US had launched their bombers already. WWIII and the very likely extinction of the human race was literally moments away. Those people in those cities were dead no matter what happened. In either scenario, they die. So, do they die for nothing with the rest of humanity or does their death mean something and possibly save the rest of humanity? I really don't see how it's even a choice.

One could argue that he could have done more, but I choose to take him at his word that this was the best possible way. I have to believe a man who can build a world spanning financial empire out of selling action figures is probably a pretty smart guy. He would almost have to have an intimate grasp of human nature to understand when and how to invest his money to maximize his profits the way that he did. They say he's the smartest man in the world and I see no reason to doubt that claim. Most of the complaints I see about him boil down to either not liking his character for whatever reason or essentially thinking that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I see no reason to doubt him and I have to wonder why others seem so quick to. I must assume they aren't fans of pragmatism. Citing the real world end to Cold War is pointless. We didn't have a god on our side. That changes things in all kinds of ways (which was part of the point).

I have watched the movie more recently than I read the book, so I may be off on this as far as the book, but basically the answer is no. If the movie is right, the Soviets had somewhere around 50,000 nuclear warheads at that point. That means that their stockpile was far in excess of the US stockpile. The Soviets had no doubt been planning and plotting for the moment when they made the big push (for whatever reason) so as soon as Manhattan was gone, what's to stop them? Add to that (again if the movie is right), their tank divisions were lining up all over Eastern Europe to get ready to make their push into Europe. They had already invaded Afghanistan. They were clearly making their big push, so either they were going to make a push against the US or Europe, or the US was going to try to hit first. Manhattan leaving when he did, with the situation as it stood, set the apocalypse in motion in all likelyhood.

I think there's something the Ozy haters overlook or at least I don't see it brought up. Manhattan was going to leave Earth sooner or later anyway. He had been drifting since Vietnam. His very presence fueled the Soviet fear that the US would attempt a strike against them. He enboldened the US into believing they were invincible. There was no Cuban Missile Crisis to make everyone take a step back for a minute and the US won Vietnam so there were no lessons learned and the US still felt invincible. This whole thing is a recipe for disaster and Ozy saw the writing on the wall. So long as Manhattan remained, the threat of all out nuclear war would remain with both sides constantly trying to figure out if they had enough of an advantage to destroy or somehow disable the other.

As for the comments about New York being hit last, didn't LA also get hit?

As for the journal, will it really make any difference? The journal of a man who isn't exactly popular in a paper that no one reads claims that the richest man in the world is a shadowy figure with big plans who may have killed some people. I assume their other cover story is that water is still wet. If anyone ever began to question Adrian, he could easily blow it off as the ramblings of a lunatic. Anyone who really looked into it would be lucky if they were found again. Being the richest man in the world allows him to crush stories like that if he so desired. No one really believes the tabloids anyway. Or did they finally find bat boy (plotting with some shadowy powers for global domination based on signs ranging from seeing someone's face in a hurricane to finding a school of multiheaded shark/whale hybrids in the Great Lakes no less) this week and I missed it in the legitamate news?

All good points. I haven't read the book or seen the movie in a while, so my recollection of the situation is a bit fuzzy.

Some of what you just said sounds like my own opinions:

On Ozzy: I think his plan is ridiculously crazy, unnecessary, and probably wouldn't work.

But since he's the smartest person in the world, I just assume that his plan will work and is necessary—I'm just not smart enough to understand how and why. Thus, I think he's a good guy, what with saving humanity and all that.

If he wasn't 100% sure on both counts, though, he's an arrogant prick with no regard for human life. Well, he probably is that anyway, but my point is that I would no longer find him sympathetic.

NOTE: If I sound a little inconsistent, it's probably just because I'm still not quite sure how I feel about Ozzy and his plan. Curse you, Alan Moore, for making me think!

[Lycan 01]

Meh. So, no matter what, the bad guy still won. Whoopie...


Yes, yes, I know. He did it for the greater good. I understand that much. But... The impression I got from the comic was that rather than find some diplomatic solution or something, he killed all those people because it was the most "effective" option. And that... just didn't sit well with me. I don't recall the world powers actually launching their bombers and stuff - only threatening it. I'm sure they could have figured out some way to stop Doomsday besides causing a Pocket Doomsday. He just waved all those innocent lives off because the only purpose he thought they suited was accomplishing his goal of scaring the world into shutting up and getting along. He didn't seem to have a sense of humanity anymore, only logic. So between large scale murder and forsaking his sense of humanity and moral decency and all that, he struck me as a villain. And the villains aren't supposed to win.

Plus, Rorchach, the only part of the book I liked, died.


So yeah. I was always told Watchmen was a super awesome superhero comic. I wasn't told what sort of superhero comic. It wasn't what I expected, or wanted to read. If I'd been told it wasn't what I thought it was before I started reading, I'd have just skipped over it. Sure, its a good story and everything. Its just not the sort of story I like.

[Lord of Rapture]

Well, too bad, it's exactly the kind of story I love.

Too many stories are about black and white morality, and the bad guy getting beat up by the good guy because the story says the bad guy is bad. Watchmen presents us a situation where there is no main protagonist or antagonist to identify. Is Ozymandias the hero who is the only one smart enough to do the right thing while everyone else is too short-sighted or uncaring to do anything? Or is he a deluded madman who killed 50 million people for his own ego? Is the Comedian simply a sadistic thug who uses his beliefs of gloom and doom as an excuse to do horrible things? Or is he just a man who cracked under his own beliefs, a scared and sad man who lashes out at everything to relieve his own madness? Is Rorschach noble or evil for trying to reveal Ozymandias' plan?

Quite frankly, I'm tired of boring old superhero stories with knights in shining armor and cackling super villains. Watchmen is the perfect antidote for me.

(And yes, I do hate most superhero comics. Go figure.)

[Tyrant]

Meh. So, no matter what, the bad guy still won. Whoopie...

I won't call him an outright hero, but he wasn't the villain. He (potentially) saved the world. What did anyone else in the story actually accomplish in the grand scheme of things? They all talked about saving the world but he actually tried to do it. The others were content with the status quo (like so many superheroes) while Ozy saw that the status quo was going to get everyone killed. There really are times when the status quo is wrong and it needs to change. In comics, it is typically the villain who tries to do this which is one reason why Ozy appears to be the villain. Heroes are almost all reactive and not proactive. Apparently people don't like to hear this, but sometimes there is no good way to fix things and people have to get their hands dirty. You can't sit around saying there has to be a better way forever. Eventually you actually have to act on the information you have and hope for the best, and sometimes that information says that not everyone is going to make it the other side.

Yes, yes, I know. He did it for the greater good. I understand that much. But... The impression I got from the comic was that rather than find some diplomatic solution or something, he killed all those people because it was the most "effective" option. And that... just didn't sit well with me.

What would his dimplomatic solution be? What could he offer the Soviets to even consider talking? Likewise the Americans? How would he convince the Soviets to eliminate their nuclear weapons, which at that point were the only possible guarantee that the Americans wouldn't strike first? Could he convince Manhattan to leave Earth for good through peaceful means? While I prefer diplomacy to the alternatives, diplomacy isn't always an option. As for it being the effective option, with the survival of the human race on the line, I'll take the option most likely to succeed and debate the cost later. Someone will be able to debate the cost because there will still be people around thanks to the actions of the person who took the effective option.

I don't recall the world powers actually launching their bombers and stuff - only threatening it.

In the movie (and again, I haven't double checked the book but I know it is a little more extreme in the movie), the Soviets are amassing ground forces for a push into Europe, they have already invaded Afghanistan, and Nixon launched the bombers. Nothing short of a miracle could have stopped what was coming at that point.

I'm sure they could have figured out some way to stop Doomsday besides causing a Pocket Doomsday.

Like what? Why do people doubt his claims? What in story reason do you have to doubt him? I think some people just can't accept that sometime you simply can't save everyone and "for the greater good" really can be an acceptable reason to do things. Not always, but sometimes. When the survival of the species is on the line, I consider that one of the times to consider the greater good.

[doliest]

I doubt Ozzy on the basis that his plan is a more than a little crazy, Manhattan's statement of nothing ever ends, the fact that Ozzy is more than a little egotistical, oh and the fact that I think it was mentioned he becoming an even more powerful world figure was in his plan. Rorasach IS the only hero in this; even if he's not what most would call a good person.

[darkblade]

(And yes, I do hate most superhero comics. Go figure.)

Have you read anything since 1986? They have gone out of their way since then to try avoiding Black and White morality.

Unfortunately they all too often take it too far and the heroes look as bad if not worse than the villains but it isn't Black and White anymore.

[doliest]

Funnily enough I always like the 'Shining Knight punches out the cackling villain' if it's well written. Like Ditko's run on Question and Beetle; the moral ambiguity has the down side that when badly written(The 90s) it hurts worse than the silver age's stupidest story, because at least the Silver Age was TRYING; it had heart, if nothing. Moral Ambiguity is nice, but not something everyone can write correctly.

[Lord of Rapture]

Have you read anything since 1986? They have gone out of their way since then to try avoiding Black and White morality.

Unfortunately they all too often take it too far and the heroes look as bad if not worse than the villains but it isn't Black and White anymore.

Yeah, well it's still bad either way.

[Leliel]

Note: When I said Ozy's solution was temporary, I didn't mean that it wasn't a good idea at the time.

While I didn't like the fact that all those people had to die, I still realize that what the end was is noble.

And even if Rorschach's journal gets published, I realize that the spirit of camaraderie that the US and Russia built up will probably hold, so WWIII was indeed averted.

Ultimately, I think Ozy is the kind of person you can neither praise nor condemn without some nod to your own hypocrisy.

[Tyrant]

I doubt Ozzy on the basis that his plan is a more than a little crazy,

His world has a man who is all but a god and has people dressing up to fight crime based on comic books, Nixon is still the president, Ozy is known to be working on teleportation technology, and the Soviets have a truly massive nuclear stockpile. Crazy is kind of a relative term here.

Manhattan's statement of nothing ever ends,

It doesnt suprise me to hear a defeatist statement like that from him. That's right up there with "why bother fixing things if they are just going to break again" and "why build anything when it's all destined to crumble eventually". Given that he had awesome power and basically did nothing with it, I am not at all suprised that he believes that. How can anyone live if they think that way?

the fact that Ozzy is more than a little egotistical,

That has nothing to do with him being right or wrong.

oh and the fact that I think it was mentioned he becoming an even more powerful world figure was in his plan.

I'll have to consult the book on that one. The movie never had anything like that. In the book he had to become powerful to have any chance of changing things, but I assume you mean afterward.

Rorasach IS the only hero in this; even if he's not what most would call a good person.

So, willing to condemn the world to annihilation because of questionable principles is being a hero and not just being a stubborn jerk? Principles are great, but the real world has never and will never be black and white. If the choice is compromise your principles or the world is destroyed, the hero would compromise. The idiot and/or jerk is the one who condemns billions of innocents because he can't stand to set aside an idea that is ultimately meaningless. I can't even begin to imagine the thought process there. Anyone who thinks like that is not a hero. That is a completely and utterly selfish move. Everyone says Ozy is self centered for doing what he did, but no one ever cals outl Rorshach for his attempt at ultimate selfishness. Condemn the world to destruction so he can tell himself he has never compromised. Some hero.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Add to that (again if the movie is right), their tank divisions were lining up all over Eastern Europe to get ready to make their push into Europe. They had already invaded Afghanistan. They were clearly making their big push, so either they were going to make a push against the US or Europe, or the US was going to try to hit first. Manhattan leaving when he did, with the situation as it stood, set the apocalypse in motion in all likelyhood.

In the comic, tanks were massing on the Eastern European front too. And the governement was in DEFCON 2, which is.. almost war.

I don't see how it would have been defused.

Edit: to give perspective, DEFCON 2 only has been reached in the past once, and it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[doliest]

His world has a man who is all but a god and has people dressing up to fight crime based on comic books, Nixon is still the president, Ozy is known to be working on teleportation technology, and the Soviets have a truly massive nuclear stockpile. Crazy is kind of a relative term here.

It doesnt suprise me to hear a defeatist statement like that from him. That's right up there with "why bother fixing things if they are just going to break again" and "why build anything when it's all destined to crumble eventually". Given that he had awesome power and basically did nothing with it, I am not at all suprised that he believes that. How can anyone live if they think that way?

That has nothing to do with him being right or wrong.

I'll have to consult the book on that one. The movie never had anything like that. In the book he had to become powerful to have any chance of changing things, but I assume you mean afterward.

So, willing to condemn the world to annihilation because of questionable principles is being a hero and not just being a stubborn jerk? Principles are great, but the real world has never and will never be black and white. If the choice is compromise your principles or the world is destroyed, the hero would compromise. The idiot and/or jerk is the one who condemns billions of innocents because he can't stand to set aside an idea that is ultimately meaningless. I can't even begin to imagine the thought process there. Anyone who thinks like that is not a hero. That is a completely and utterly selfish move. Everyone says Ozy is self centered for doing what he did, but no one ever cals outl Rorshach for his attempt at ultimate selfishness. Condemn the world to destruction so he can tell himself he has never compromised. Some hero.

1.While much has changed, two things are still the same. War and Politics(Not in who's in power, but how politics work). His plan is massive in scale and has any number of holes; From the fact that if cities aren't nuked at some point in the future again, the two incompatible governments that built themselves on being against the other are going to go to war, eventually. The next being that if anyone genetically analyzes the squid, it's not impossible to realize what Veidt did.

2.On the other hand, Manhattan has been shown to dispense pieces of wisdom and was changed a bit by his conversation with Silk Spectre. If anything, I felt that was his way of telling Veidt that this is only temporary.

3.Yes. Yes it does. Arrogance and Egotism affect one's view of reality and can lead to any number of flaws in a plan.

4.It's not outright stated, but it feels implied. We can ignore this issue if you wish.

5.Selfish? No, what Rorasach's doing can be called many things, but not selfish. He's sticking to his principles, not compromising them. Refusing to be what he see's as either weakness or whoring one's self out. He's a hero in my book; better than Adrian, who knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it any way.

[SolkaTruesilver]

5.Selfish? No, what Rorasach's doing can be called many things, but not selfish. He's sticking to his principles, not compromising them. Refusing to be what he see's as either weakness or whoring one's self out. He's a hero in my book; better than Adrian, who knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it any way.

Putting your principles above humanity's survival is being selfish.

[doliest]

Putting your principles above humanity's survival is being selfish.

I prefer principled, mostly because it lends credibility to my argument.

[Dienekes]

Putting your principles above humanity's survival is being selfish.

Same could be said of putting your ego above peoples lives.

Really, they were both flawed characters who tried to save humanity. Adrian killed innocents to try and save the sum of mankind. Rorschach killed criminals to protect what of humanity was worth protecting.

It's the old body vs soul argument, which do you think is more important?

[Raging Gene Ray]

Putting your principles above humanity's survival is being selfish.

In the end, didn't he ask to be killed because he knew this and couldn't live with the cognitive dissonance?

Forgive me if I'm wrong. I haven't read the book or the rest of the thread. Just saw the movie.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I'd like Watchmen a lot more if the ending wasn't such an ass pull. I simply can't believe that Ozymandias's solution will be a functional peace-bringer. From what I've heard of the movie, the ending was better, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[darkblade]

I'd like Watchmen a lot more if the ending wasn't such an ass pull. I simply can't believe that Ozymandias's solution will be a functional peace-bringer. From what I've heard of the movie, the ending was better, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't know where you heard that but if anything the movie ending is less likely to bring a lasting peace.

[Teron]

I'd like Watchmen a lot more if the ending wasn't such an ass pull. I simply can't believe that Ozymandias's solution will be a functional peace-bringer. From what I've heard of the movie, the ending was better, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, he doesn't expect things to just work out magically after the squid incident; he says that it's just supposed to shock both sides into worrying about something besides each other long enough for him to manipulate them into a lasting peace. Whether he's really good enough to pull it off is up for debate.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Well, he doesn't expect things to just work out magically after the squid incident; he says that it's just supposed to shock both sides into worrying about something besides each other long enough for him to manipulate them into a lasting peace. Whether he's really good enough to pull it off is up for debate.

I would go as far as saying that if anyone could pull that off, that'd be him. He is a genius social engineer.

[doliest]

I would go as far as saying that if anyone could pull that off, that'd be him. He is a genius social engineer.

Further proof of that whole 'making himself more powerful thing,' since that's the only way he would see the peace lasting.

[Tyrant]

1.While much has changed, two things are still the same. War and Politics(Not in who's in power, but how politics work). His plan is massive in scale and has any number of holes; From the fact that if cities aren't nuked at some point in the future again, the two incompatible governments that built themselves on being against the other are going to go to war, eventually.

I don't think that's absolutely certain. This was the first part of the plan. Once the two super powers see that there are threats larger than them, they (at least temporarily) ally themselves. The assumption is that this will lead to actual dialogue between the two. It wasn't just the nuclear war he was trying to prevent. He foresaw economic collapse as well due to both sides spending so much money on defense instead of actually trying to fix the problems in the world. This is the wake up call, so he hopes. If he can just force them to the table, hopefully they can start working together. If it doesn't work and they nuke each other anyway, what did he lose?

The next being that if anyone genetically analyzes the squid, it's not impossible to realize what Veidt did.

Connecting it to Veidt might not be as easy. So long as it isn't taken as a Soviet first strike, what really changes? The US isn't going to tell the Soviets it was all a hoax and get nuked into oblivion.

2.On the other hand, Manhattan has been shown to dispense pieces of wisdom and was changed a bit by his conversation with Silk Spectre. If anything, I felt that was his way of telling Veidt that this is only temporary.

So then a temporary victory isn't even worth trying for? It's better to just let the world burn? That's still a completely defeatist attitude. If he knows it won't last, why not help? Very much like Reed Richards, Manhattan is useless.

3.Yes. Yes it does. Arrogance and Egotism affect one's view of reality and can lead to any number of flaws in a plan.

I'll concede it could lead to flaws in the plan, but that's not what I am saying. I can be arrogant but it won't change the fact I am right if I say the sky is blue or that 2+2=4. You can be arrogant and still be right. The automatic assumption that he is wrong because he is arrogant is a questionable assumption in my mind. His disposition doesn't change facts. The US and the Soviets were staring down Armageddon. He didn't just make that up. Neither side was willing to back down. Manhattan made the situation worse, not better. Both sides were spending astronomical amounts of money on "defense". These are facts (in the story). His conclusions are quite logical from this set of facts. Him being arrogant has no bearing on the truth.

4.It's not outright stated, but it feels implied. We can ignore this issue if you wish.

I believe it feels implied because you believe him to be a villain and that is the next logical step for an arrogant, egotistical villain. I assume he would become more powerful but not in a "ruler of the world" kind of way. I am sure he would attempt to push his social agenda now that both sides are willing to talk. I am not so sure his social agenda is really a bad thing though.

Edit to add: Having said that, if his next move is a selfish power grab to attempt to rule, then your assesment of him is correct. I'm just saying I don't think it is. His next move will be what tells his true colors, so to speak.

5.Selfish? No, what Rorasach's doing can be called many things, but not selfish. He's sticking to his principles, not compromising them. Refusing to be what he see's as either weakness or whoring one's self out. He's a hero in my book; better than Adrian, who knew what he was doing was wrong, but did it any way.

The bit on Rorshach has been covered by others. I will concede that his begging to be killed was something that I might call heroic because he understood his own limitations and knew that he would tell people which would doom the world. That is a heroic sacrifice. I also said I wouldn't call Adrian a hero. I believe he thoroughly believed he was doing the right thing. But, I find it hard to call a mass murderer a hero. I won't call him a villain though. He knew it was wrong, but he also knew it had to be done. He was willing to do a tremendously evil deed knowing it was for the greater good. Having the will to do something that must be done (so you believe) despite the fact you know you should think it is wrong. I think there are elements in heroism in that as well, but I won't call him a hero.

[factotum]

The bit on Rorshach has been covered by others. I will concede that his begging to be killed was something that I might call heroic because he understood his own limitations and knew that he would tell people which would doom the world. That is a heroic sacrifice.

I didn't read it that way at all. One of the first things we hear from Rorschach's journal in the book is (paraphrased), "Good and evil exist, and evil must be fought. I will not compromise on this, not even in the face of Armageddon". THAT, to me, is what sums up the man. Even though his speaking out would probably doom the world to nuclear holocaust, he would have spoken out anyway; because to his mind Veidt was evil and needed to be punished for what he'd done.

When he was asking to be killed at the end--well, he KNEW Manhattan was going to kill him to preserve the secret. Like any condemned man, he didn't want any sort of long-drawn-out anticipation, he wanted it over and done with.

[Dr.Epic]

In Shamus Young's recent post there was an interesting conversation about Rorschach, and many people claiming they dislike him vs. some liking him. And one element that come often in favour of Rorschach is that "He never compromise his principles".

Here is the post I just made in the comments, and I thought about opening up the discussion here.

I dislike Rorschach, but for a single reason: he likes the Comedian.

I don’t understand why people say that Rorschach never compromises, he DID. Rorschach has no problem about the Comedian because “he serves his country”. Yhea, a attempt-rapist, murderer, child/mother killer, is okay because he does the governement’s dirty work?

So, when you take that into consideration, the whole character collapse: No. Sorry. Rorschach is an hypocrit ******* that arbitrary decide who’s right and wrong. He beats innocent people just to get intel (I don’t care what neighbourhood you hang around, just being in a bar doesn’t warrant being attacked by Rorschach to give him a tip).

Hell, how many innocent bones did Rorschach broke just to get the Pyramid tip?

Ozymandia was my favourite character. He clearly had problem about what he was going to do, but.. he had to do it. He was afraid for humankin. He wants to have people to be healthier, richer, more propesrous. In peace. He kills only when he HAS to, and even then, he is fill with doubt and remorse afterwhile.

Did Rorschach even shown a pinge of remorse, or the slightest possibility that he might be wrong about his suspects?

Now, you may or may not agree about my interpretation of Ozymandia. Fair ennough, but this is isn't about Ozzy. It's about Rorschach.

What do you think?

I would say that the reason he DOES compromise is the reason he's not hated by all. You know who never compromised? Miko. Not after regicide, losing her paladin abilities, and imprisonment did she stop to think she might be wrong. Hell, it took the destruction of a Gate, a few words of wisdom from the founder of her group, and her death to realize she might be wrong.

Sure Rorschach compromised but that means he's human: he took a liking to the Comedian, she spared his landlady a beat down after looking into the faces of her children. He doesn't literally never compromise, but he lives close enough to the concept. He never retired and never gave up his war on crime.

But I think the main reason people like Rorschach is because he's the protagonist of Watchmen. Now, when I saw protagonist I don't mean hero or good guy, I mean main character.

[Ichneumon]

I always assumed Ozy had a completely different perspective.

Although no one knows for 100% whether or not a war is going to happen and what the results of "preventing the war" will be by destroying New York and killing all those people, Ozy does. Ozy knows exactly what will happen. If he doesn't act, people, a lot of people will die and war will continue. If he does act, and he knows he can succeed if he only he would do it, only some people in new york would die and there would be world peace.

Because he is the smartest man on the world, his moral situation is different. We have to deal with uncertainty, he does not.

I'm not saying that makes his actions justified, in fact I don't think it is, but I thought it was important to point this out.