The Many Excuses of Rorschach
I love Watchmen. I just do. It’s a work I am just glued to when it comes to any discussion on comic books, psychologically-complex character studies and just general philosophy. It does so much for me. And, in that regard, there is an ugly stain among its fans which I am tired of having to silently face. I am, of course, talking about Rorschach and the poorest interpretation I’ve ever seen of him.
In the Watchmen universe, Rorschach (a.k.a. Walter J. Kovacs) is a man with childhood trauma, violent tendencies, a moral and personal fear of sex, a black & white morality with unspoken biases and exceptions, extreme politics, an air of superiority over everyone, and who is, at the present time of the comic, illegally acting as a vigilante long after they’ve been outlawed. Rorschach has no problem hurting and killing people he considers evil, makes strong implications that sexuality and sex is somehow connected intrinsically to most evil, excuses bad people as long as they align with his politics or worldview, and is generally a bottle of hatred. Rorschach is bad in so many ways he’s too fascinating to be disgusting. And this is where the problem comes.
You see, and some of you might have already expected this, there is a silent but persistent sentiment among Watchmen readers that Rorschach is… not that bad of an individual. Some will even go as far as to say he’s good, but let’s not dive into the absurd just yet. This article acts as an index for arguments and counterarguments for why no, Rorschach is by no means a good person, not in a million years, stop fooling yourselves.
“The world of Watchmen is so bleak and depressing, Rorschach does not stand out as being a particularly dangerous kind of evil. Everyone sucks in Watchmen.”
May I remind you that Laurie Juspeczyk & Dan Dreiberg exist in this comic? People who say that all of Watchmen is a big pile of cynicism & nihilism either skipped pages in issue 11 or are, themselves, nihilists and cynicists, and are just projecting (or both). The world of Watchmen is way more tame than people make it out to be. The small storyline between the newspaper guy and the kid who constantly comes to read his comics without paying is yet another example of that, seeing how, even appearing with a tough exterior, men will hold each other away from disaster. Sure, some may argue that the nuclear threat only generated altruism in people because of fear, but… why wouldn’t fear cause further egoism, more cynicism? It certainly did for Kovacs. That’s because people care, more than they show, and this theme also applies to Watchmen fans making this exact argument. They judge at face value.
The implication here also seems to be that everything that Rorschach does in the comics is nothing because the world is somehow worse than him? Are you really saying that Moloch, a cancer-ridden retired supervillain who does nothing but posses a gun without a permit and have phony medication is at any rate matching Rorschach, who still kills people at the moment the two meet? If you only want to use The Comedian as a point of comparison, than we’re no longer talking about ‘everyone’, because The Comedian is by no means a regular individual, but in many ways just a less restrained and more free version of Rorschach. Don’t get me wrong, The Comedian is outright evil, but Rorschach is also the one defending him.
Kovacs is probably one of the main reasons the world sucks; that the world is afraid. When people are afraid and untrusty with superheroes, they are untrusty with heroes like Rorschach.
“Rorschach is fascinating because, while his methods are objectable, he makes good points and has ultimately good goals.”
No. Rorschach is interesting because it’s confusing to figure out whether his beliefs are the result of a depressing childhood and psychological trauma or a deep intellectual conviction and the possibility that he might be right. Just saying outright that he’s right or he’s mentally ill ruins the depth. Saying he’s both, now that’s something. His points are not interesting, it’s the way he describes them that are.
Rorschach reflects the image of a twisted holy crusader, ‘cleaning’ the world of its evils, and by result feeling ‘cleansed’ himself. Calling his alter ego his real self is just a form of distancing himself from the people he is killing. Moral superiority is a tool Rorschach uses in many occasions to trick himself that he has a good reason to be judge and executioner of anyone he finds ‘evil’, but it also seems to have convinced readers, somehow. It almost seems like the readers have become Kovacs’ therapist at the end of issue 6, fully nihilistic and losing a debate against a lunatic.
This also gives him power to call everyone a sinner. Rorschach does often seem like he hates everybody, and because he considers his human self a ‘disguise’, he’s not part of that group. This is a metaphor for general supremacism, by the way.
Rorschach has an unspoken link with Batman in the way trauma drives their morality and they are devoted to a 2-dimensional worldview. Thing is, I like Batman the same way I like Rorschach: not as someone who’s necessarily ‘right’ about his stance on moral values, but someone who is really just an emotionally-fueled nightmare for criminals. The difference is that Rorschach doesn’t always respect his own code, and would probably be scum by his own standards.
Rorschach is a hypocrite. This is important. Rorschach is willing to excuse any action as long as the result appears favorable to him. He excuses The Comedian’s many, many accusations and actions because he’s a patriot and works for ‘the good of the country’; It doesn’t matter that he broke in Dan’s house and ate his food because he had important things to tell him. However, when Veidt achieves world peace and ‘logical checkmate’, Rorschach refuses to accept the good Veidt has achieved for the world so that he can punish him for his actions. The stance itself is not bad, I’d imagine a good portion of us would feel the same way. The problem comes from the fact that Rorschach would’ve most likely done the same thing if he had the power. Not to achieve world peace, just the killing people part.
If you believe Rorschach’s moral stance is right, than you believe in no moral stance, because Rorschach just uses a system of people he likes and doesn’t like based on his political leanings and other views to determine who deserves death and who doesn’t (yet). If you believe Rorschach’s goals are just, than your goals easily change depending on how you appreciate the circumstances.
“Rorschach is the only one to truly challenge Ozymandias’ utilitarianist view and actions. As bad as he is, he takes a surprisingly interesting stance here.”
Like mentioned before, and is obvious from reading the pages, Rorschach is not the only guy making this point. No one among them is on board with the idea, but they acknowledge that they don’t have any solid arguments to justify not leaving the world enjoy its peace and letting Veidt slide.
My personal inquiry is why did Rorschach not just kill Ozymandias (or die trying to)? His cat was gone, that was his chance. He clearly didn’t fear anyone else, not even Dr. Manhattan, so why did he choose to unravel Veidt’s plans instead of killing him for it first?
Some of you may point out one of the final scenes from the novel, where Dr. Manhattan tells Veidt that “Nothing ever ends” before leaving Earth. Veidt’s plan was going to fail anyway! Rorschach was right! If you truly fall for this as well, you’re missing a lot more depth from Watchmen.
We have to wonder , if Manhattan really thought that Veidt’s plans were thin, why did he say aloud that he was intellectually defeated by his logic? Manhattan did agree with Veidt that it would work, and just because war never ends, that doesn’t mean peace does. Manhattan’s statement in itself contradicts the assumption that peace would end, but also the one that all conflict would end.
“But this doesn’t make sense?” Well, like the comic says:
There is no objective answer, there is only the answer that you choose, if any.
“But he spared the landlady because he empathized with the kid! And he spared Moloch too! Rorschach does pity people!”
These two instances are special. The first happens because the kid reflects Rorschach. He too was raised by a single prostitute mother, and not many cruel people would want to reproduce harm specific enough to what they’ve had. That is not surprising at all.
Also, Rorschach has three encounters with Moloch. We’ll exclude the third, because that’s when he just finds his body, but in the first one, after assaulting and questioning him, he learns about Moloch’s cancer. In their second encounter, Rorschach continues to harass him in an interrogation that boils down to “Are you sure it’s not you who’s doing the killings?” Rorschach may believe that Moloch is sick, but he still claims he’ll go after the drug company, and further pressures Moloch about not having a gun license.
“Rorschach has become the way he is as a result of a horrible childhood. We must still empathize with him.”
Of course! But empathizing doesn’t mean to call him a good person, not by any measure. We have no guarantee that Rorschach would’ve been a good kid under better conditions. That’s not how it works.
Rorschach is not good by any moral measure. Hell no. But he is a good character. His appeal is not, and should not be, to find his actions inspiring or just. His appeal is the study, his psychological profile and the contrast between his very human person and his idealistic philosophy.
To conclude, stop defending Kovacs. He was made as a projection; a mirror of a very real reflection of the sheltered, the extremists, and the sociopaths, and why they might be a more believable crime-fighter than anything else we have in DC.
I know I could’ve talked about more general weak criticism of Watchmen, but I’ve found more importance to this one. Unlike those who simply didn’t like reading the comic series, opinions that will not change if I start explaining why Watchmen is good, the notion that Rorschach is a ‘hero’, comparable with the rest of the DC do-gooders, this is fog. Fog that can be cleared.
