Just read "Watchmen"...
Scott Hollifield
On 18 May 1998 04:55:44 GMT, "Dale Hicks"
<icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>Of course, I've heard that Moore intended R. to be a villain, and that
>he failed when people identified with him, so I'm living testament to
>that failure.
It'd have to be perhaps the most beatiful failure of the book,
then. Rorschach is, I think, both a monster and a human being
-- a full-on psychpath who also happens to be easy for
many to identify with. Is that a failing? I think it's an
achievement.
---
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
Kestrel
Spoilers for a long-over mini:
"Dale Hicks" <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>
>
>Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote in article <355FBF53...@cheerful.com>...
>>
>>
>> Timberize wrote:
>>
>> > I remember coming away with the impression that many parts of it were quite
>> > over-written. Ponderous. However, it is a pretty fine piece of work, imho.
>> >
>> > As far as identifying with the characters -- I really found myself connected to
>> > that Night (Nite?) Owl.
>>
>> It's funny, nearly everyone that I've asked said they relate more to him than
>> anyone else... myself included.
>
>Hurm. I didn't.
>
>Of course, I've heard that Moore intended R. to be a villain, and that
>he failed when people identified with him, so I'm living testament to
>that failure.
Rorschach was a villain. He went around murdering and
crippling people without mercy. His reasons for doing
so were understandable, but he was a villain, just like
Ozymandias. Both of them had laudable goals (justice,
world peace), but were willing to go any length to
achieve them.
Kestrel
Contrary to popular opinion, the United
States government is a bozocracy: a
government of clowns, by clowns, and
for clowns. Any explanation to the
contrary is just plain silly.
bat...@earthlink.net
>Rorschach was a villain. He went around murdering and
>crippling people without mercy. His reasons for doing
>so were understandable, but he was a villain, just like
>Ozymandias. Both of them had laudable goals (justice,
>world peace), but were willing to go any length to
>achieve them.
Rorshach was complex. And one of the greatest characters this medium
will ever see.
Remember when the dogs ate the kidnapped child's bones? Before that
point, Rorshach was essentially "normal", Batmanesque (whether
"Batmanesque" qualifies as "normal" is a discussion for another time.)
He was intelligent and methodical. After that point, however, he
snapped. He had simply seen too much...
That will never happen to Batman. which is the reason Batman will
always be essentially a two-dimensional character. (I'm not insulting
Bats here--most other comic heroes strike me as one-dimensional.)
--Moon Knight
(If you want to e-mail me, remove <die spammers> from the reply-to address.)
"I was born in the desert/I've been down for years/Jesus come closer/I think my time is near..."
- - God.
Carl Fink
On Mon, 18 May 1998 06:49:49 GMT, Kestrel
<kes...@diespamsucker.airmail.net> wrote:
>Spoilers for a long-over mini:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>crippling people without mercy. His reasons for doing
>so were understandable, but he was a villain, just like
>Ozymandias. Both of them had laudable goals (justice,
>world peace), but were willing to go any length to
>achieve them.
And notice that they were similar in another way: they fixated on one
(laudable) ideal and ignored everything else. For instance, Rorshach
didn't care about world peace at all, and Ozymandias cared nothing for
justice. (He slaughtered his own assistants when it became
convenient.)
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Maybe you should get a Sherlock Holmes outfit to disguise the fact that
you have no clue. --Scott Adams
Pariah
Dale Hicks wrote:
> Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote in article <355FBF53...@cheerful.com>...
> >
> >
> > Timberize wrote:
> >
> > > I remember coming away with the impression that many parts of it were quite
> > > over-written. Ponderous. However, it is a pretty fine piece of work, imho.
> > >
> > > As far as identifying with the characters -- I really found myself connected to
> > > that Night (Nite?) Owl.
> >
> > It's funny, nearly everyone that I've asked said they relate more to him than
> > anyone else... myself included.
>
> Hurm. I didn't.
Glad to know there are exceptions.
> Of course, I've heard that Moore intended R. to be a villain, and that
> he failed when people identified with him, so I'm living testament to
> that failure.
Yeah, I heard that Rorshach was intended to be everything that a hero wasn't... but
people took a liking to him (I missed the part about relating to him, though).
> Roman Numeral One icono...@mail.clis.com
> (who thinks this should be over in misc)
Heavens, no... this may not be DCU, but it is DC and this is the most appropriate place
for it, since it's neither vertigo nor legion.
If it wasn't racdcu, I would have missed out on it.
Pariah
--
University of Houston, TX
"You took my breath away, now I want it back. You should have killed me, honey, you
always looked so good in black." --Don Henley
Andrew Ducker
In article <35611CD5...@cheerful.com>, Pariah
<Par...@cheerful.com> writes
>> Of course, I've heard that Moore intended R. to be a villain, and that
>> he failed when people identified with him, so I'm living testament to
>> that failure.
I always thought that Rorsharch was the luckiest of them all. After
all, he was the only one with belief. Everyone else had their doubts
and uncertainties and unhappiness. R is the only person who is actually
sure that what he is doing is right.
Samael
--
Home: sam...@dial.pipex.com * I'm a brit. Infer Necessary Smileys
Work: and...@irw-associates.demon.co.uk * This is _not_ a rehearsal
Trevor Barrie
In article <01bd8218$e8e9bbe0$4333...@iconoclast.clis.com>,
Dale Hicks <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>Of course, I've heard that Moore intended R. to be a villain, and that
>he failed when people identified with him, so I'm living testament to
>that failure.
I doubt he intended him to be anything as simple as a "villain"... but
he was definitely a messed-up individual.
Trevor Barrie
In article <35611CD5...@cheerful.com>,
Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote:
>> Roman Numeral One icono...@mail.clis.com
>> (who thinks this should be over in misc)
>
>Heavens, no... this may not be DCU, but it is DC and this is the most
>appropriate place for it, since it's neither vertigo nor legion.
This is not an ambiguous case at all... it belongs in .misc. It's not
a DC universe title, so it doesn't belong in rec.arts.comics.dc.universe.
The fact that it's published by DC has no bearing.
>If it wasn't racdcu, I would have missed out on it.
That's unfortunate, but irrelevant.
Bradly E. Peterson
kes...@diespamsucker.airmail.net (Kestrel) done said this here
deal:
>Spoilers for a long-over mini:
>
>
>
>
>
>"Dale Hicks" <icono...@mail.clis.comXXX> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Pariah <Par...@cheerful.com> wrote in article <355FBF53...@cheerful.com>...
>>>
>>>
>Rorschach was a villain. He went around murdering and
>crippling people without mercy. His reasons for doing
>so were understandable, but he was a villain, just like
>Ozymandias. Both of them had laudable goals (justice,
>world peace), but were willing to go any length to
>achieve them.
"Possibly homosexual... Must check into that."
Rorschach
This may be where Priest got the idea for Woody's explanation
that all supervillains are gay. Thanks for bringing it up.
heh...
Bradly E. Peterson, Psychodrama Press
(Remove OMELETTEDUFROMAGE from address to reply)
<http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/drama>
"To do is to be" - Nietzsche
"To be is to do" - Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Sinatra
Bradly E. Peterson
bat...@earthlink.net done said this here deal:
Spoilers inserted for folks who haven't read "Watchmen".
If you haven't read "Watchmen" yet, you should. Soon.
>On Mon, 18 May 1998 06:49:49 GMT, kes...@diespamsucker.airmail.net
>(Kestrel) wrote:
>
>
>>Rorschach was a villain. He went around murdering and
>>crippling people without mercy. His reasons for doing
>>so were understandable, but he was a villain, just like
>>Ozymandias. Both of them had laudable goals (justice,
>>world peace), but were willing to go any length to
>>achieve them.
>
>Rorshach was complex. And one of the greatest characters this medium
>will ever see.
>
>Remember when the dogs ate the kidnapped child's bones? Before that
>point, Rorshach was essentially "normal", Batmanesque (whether
>"Batmanesque" qualifies as "normal" is a discussion for another time.)
>He was intelligent and methodical. After that point, however, he
>snapped. He had simply seen too much...
Yep.
"Too soft. Mollycoddled them. Let them live."
Rorschach