Certainly, off his wagon. But I'm sure we'll find someone here to argue his sanity.
I'm not sure I'd categorize Rorschach as insane.
He's definitely delusional and he has some serious psychosis, but he also displays some rational decision making and clever problem solving skills, so he's in control of his mental facilities to some extent.
I think the graphic novel talks about how Rorshach was a relatively typical superhero when he first teamed with Nite Owl, but the incident with the child molester drove him insane and turned him into what he became.
I don't think that incident alone is what "drove him insane."
Rorschach's childhood years and rough family life probably had the greatest impact on his instability. His mother was a prostitute and he was physically abused, so that's probably where it all began.
If you remember, a flashback showed him attacking and biting the face of another child, so I'm inclined to believe he was mentally/emotionally unbalanced at a very early age.
The incident with the child molester may have been the tipping point in his career, but it certainly wasn't THE event that led to his mental condition. I believe that transformation from was gradual.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Shadow13, there are many definitions of "sanity". If we want a legal definition,
Reasonable understanding; sound mind; possessing mental faculties that are capable of distinguishing right from wrong so as to bear legal responsibility for one's actions.
So the question is whether Rorschach can distinguish right from wrong. He certainly believes that, despite it being illegal to go off killing people, what he's doing is right. I think it's pretty clear that he's not capable of seeing his killings as immoral.
So if you believe that his vigilanteism is wrong, then he's insane. If you think what he's doing is right, then he's not only sane, he's blameless.
"Sanity is the lot of those who are most obtuse, for lucidity destroys one's equilibrium: it is unhealthy to honestly endure the labors of the mind which incessantly contradict what they have just established." - Georges Bataille, 20th Century French novelist and critic
"In a mad world, only the mad are sane." - Akiro Kurosawa, 20th Century Japanese director
|
As Dr. Ryan Howe points out there is no cinical defenition of insanity, only a legal one. So thee is no way to establish whether Rorschach is insane clinically because thereis no such diagnosis. To be clear, the wa the carcter is portrayed he shows many of the tells of Paranoid Schitzophrenea coupled with post traumatic stress disorder. He also seems to have Oppositional Defiance Disorder and a whole stew of othe psychosis that I could not even beging to list. However, to answer Heathy's original question, by the only definition of "insanity" that actually exists then yes he is insane.
Yeah, it really depends on your definition of insane.
He knows who he is, where he is, what time it is, and he can interact with reality.
He doesn't see his actions as wrong per se, but he has enough presence of mind to know that he will be punished if he's caught. He knows what Society expects, even if he chooses not to adhere to it. Rorschach doesn't see his actions as wrong, but he knows full well that everybody else does!
In that respect, he's closer to a sociopath, but even that is an incorrect definition. Because a sociopath doesn't adhere to ANY rule or code of society- other than to blend in and act 'normal' for the sake of survival.
Rorschach does not attack old women and children. He doesn't go out of his way to inflict misery on anybody but a select group that he judges as unfit.
I'm not defending him BTW.
I don't think there's a cookie cutter definition of insanity that fits him. Actually, I don't think there's any such convienent definition for any mentally ill person. Mental Health Professionals just do the best they can to try to find one.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Um. Even if you think he's right to be a vigilante (and Watchmen is rather an indictment of vigilantism, I don't know if you noticed), he's pretty plainly self-deluded on a lot of issues, has difficulty interacting with others, lashes out at pretty much everyone, and is a threat to anyone around him.
You've defined "insane" to mean only "incompetent to stand trial". Legal dictionaries are typically used for legal discussions, not general ones.
1) I did notice that it was a major topic. I don't know why you might have thought that in question. But Watchmen is more nuanced than a simple "vigilantes are bad" screed. Rorscharch's dogged vigilantism makes him the only person who cares enough to investigate Blake's murder and see it through, wherever it might lead. Veidt's actions are the epitome of clear-headed, sane execution of a rational plan, and that doesn't come off as terribly attractive, either.
2) What delusions, in particular? All the rest of that makes him "surly" and "unpleasant". (And "dirty" and "smelly". All in contrast to Veidt.)
3) What definition of "insane" would you like to propose?
I think the point of Watchmen was that none of the masked adventurers are clinically "sane". Each of them has their own delusions, psychosis, emotional traumas, what-have-ya. The most successful of them has a god complex and the least accepted is a paranoid murderer. The only one among them with true superpowers suffers from extreme emotional detachment and ennui, who finds it difficult to interact with reality without extreme objectification.
I would say the least damaged are Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre II. Who, together, were able to work through their emotional problems by establishing a healthy, if not particularly normal, relationship. In the end I think that was the point of the book for me. In an insane world all we truly have is each other. We need love and friendship to help us cope. Without that we could become as megalomaniacal as Veidt or as paranoid and out of touch as Rorshach. In a nutshell anyway.
Damn good book though :)
So the question is whether Rorschach can distinguish right from wrong. He certainly believes that, despite it being illegal to go off killing people, what he's doing is right. I think it's pretty clear that he's not capable of seeing his killings as immoral.
So if you believe that his vigilanteism is wrong, then he's insane. If you think what he's doing is right, then he's not only sane, he's blameless.
Most people know the difference between right and wrong, yet they continue to do the "wrong" thing and make the "wrong" choices anyways. Making amoral choices doesn't mean that you're insane, it means that you think you're above the law and won't face consequences.
Killing is clearly amoral, yet many criminals do it. That doesn't mean that every murderer is insane, it just means they lack certain moral inhibitions.
My definition of insane: lacking an awareness of reality and control over your mental facilities.
I don't think Rorschach lacked control over his mental facilities. He knew exactly what he was doing. It's not so much a question of insanity, it's more about his lack of humanity and compassion. He killed criminals because his lust for justice was greater than his respect for human life. His value system is distorted.
He's Alan Moore's stand-in for the Punisher (and to some extent the grittier batman), the violent, psychotic anti-heroes who were emerging in comics in the mid 80s. The whole Roschach test theme plays directly into the psychological aspect of the character. In large measure the whole story is a comment on the state of comics in the mid 80s, so that's where he fits in.
|
|
I don't think that incident alone is what "drove him insane."
Rorschach's childhood years and rough family life probably had the greatest impact on his instability. His mother was a prostitute and he was physically abused, so that's probably where it all began.
If you remember, a flashback showed him attacking and biting the face of another child, so I'm inclined to believe he was mentally/emotionally unbalanced at a very early age.
The incident with the child molester may have been the tipping point in his career, but it certainly wasn't THE event that led to his mental condition. I believe that transformation from was gradual.
That's a great point regarding his early emotional instability - I didn't mean to suggest that he was a fully functional member of society prior to the incident with the child molester, but I do think that incident was where he firmly decided that criminals don't deserve to live, and other people commented that his behavior and demeanor shifted after that point.
Rorschach is incapable of interacting with people normally, can hold only the most menial of jobs despite being intelligent, and is personally inflexible. He finds normal activity (dating, sexuality, living a non-austere lifestyle, taking pain medication for illness) to be disgusting, is extremely judgemental of others' behavior, and indulges in fantasies about the elimination of the mass of humanity that doesn't meet his standards. On top of that there is a decided death wish - an urge to meet destruction face on, not only defying it but seeking it out. He has no hesitation in committing murder or torturing criminals. Rorschach was (rightly) considered to be rather scary by people he knew and worked with, as well as those he pursued.
Rorschach is definitely insane - his view of reality is largely removed from what we consider normal. Even granted that he deals with extraordinary situations, his interpretations are rather bizarre.
However, I would say that as Watchmen, in 1983, predated most of The Punisher and other dark hero types. From what I understand, he was largely based on "The Question".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, to start on the right foot, Rorscharch is a fictional character. Moore has explained in interviews that he wanted the major characters in Watchmen to come at the central plot points from divergent backgrounds and perspectives.
So one of the useful ways to reframe the question would be: "Does Moore present Rorscharch as a sane character? Why or Why not?" This is an important distinction. The characters serve different purposes in the work. You could ask: "Why do Daniel and Laurie make love in the night sky?" There are answers involving the symmetry of the plot and the themes of the work --the mundane versus the romantic-- that are as valid as answers involving the characters' personalities.
Rorscharch presents a point of view, an aspect of the Punisher or maybe the Batman taken to extremes, with all the melodramatic justification for the character's motivation (families butchered before his eyes) taken away.
I don't see Rorscharch as delusional. The events of 1975 change his perception of his central identity, which gives him a psychological label (probably Schizophrenic), but I don't think Moore's purposes would be served if Rorscharch were just clearly wrong, delusional, or psychotic. He's clear-seeing, and right, for certain values of "right".
Rorschach is incapable of interacting with people normally, can hold only the most menial of jobs despite being intelligent, and is personally inflexible. He finds normal activity (dating, sexuality, living a non-austere lifestyle, taking pain medication for illness) to be disgusting, is extremely judgemental of others' behavior, and indulges in fantasies about the elimination of the mass of humanity that doesn't meet his standards.
None of that makes Rorscharch insane. It makes him unpleasant, and serves to highlight his attirbute of "uncompromising". Just getting along as a member of society requires continual small compromises, and Rorscharch can't do that. Veidt, on the other hand, shows himself to be a master of compromise, of his friends, allies, employees, even of his most cherished values; and he comes off pretty well in society.
It's useful to compare Rorscharch (the vigilante, who never compromises) to the Comedian (even more violent, even less concerned with people as individuals with rights, but operating with government backing).
However, I would say that as Watchmen, in 1983, predated most of The Punisher and other dark hero types. From what I understand, he was largely based on "The Question".
Watchmen was 86-87, actually. Rorschach is definitely based on Ditko's Objectivist Question, though. Possibly even more he's derived from Mr. A, who is Ditko's Question, but more so.
And yeah, he's a nut.
Rorschach is incapable of interacting with people normally, can hold only the most menial of jobs despite being intelligent, and is personally inflexible. He finds normal activity (dating, sexuality, living a non-austere lifestyle, taking pain medication for illness) to be disgusting, is extremely judgemental of others' behavior, and indulges in fantasies about the elimination of the mass of humanity that doesn't meet his standards.None of that makes Rorscharch insane. It makes him unpleasant, and serves to highlight his attirbute of "uncompromising". Just getting along as a member of society requires continual small compromises, and Rorscharch can't do that.
Seconded. He's not crazy, just unlikeable.
Samnell, Crimson Jester, how do you see him as insane? He thinks there's a giant conspiracy behind the Comedian's murder, but there is a giant conspiracy behind the Comedian's murder.
Which is irrelevant. I can gut kittens in a public park, examine their entrails, and proclaim that Barack Obama is the President. The fact that I'm right about something doesn't make me mentally stable. I still gutted those kittens and thought their entrails were going to tell me something, hardly the act of a well-balanced mind.
(Feel free to replace kittens with the gruesome item of your choice. I had another one up here but I didn't like it very much and so changed the post.)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All right, Samnell, but in this case Rorschach correctly follows leads, gathers clues, and uncovers the conspiracy rationally.
So far, Crimson Jester has provided a lot of colorful metaphors about the character being insane, but nobody's provided any delusions, any evidence he's not making sense of the world. I assert that Watchmen needs Rorschach to be sane, if an abysmal personality, because he champions a particular point of view, in conflict with others throughout the story, and it doesn't do the story any good if his attitude is simply dismissible as the ravings of a lunatic.
|
Well,.....I figure I made this mess, so.....
Chris, in your case, I think you're getting at "criminally insane" i.e. whether or not Rorschach's so bonkers he doesn't know what the hell he's doing, or if it's right or wrong.
You don't think he's criminally insane, but might agree that he's mentally ill.
Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth; I'm just trying to clear up a mess that I think I'm partially responsible for due to my vague question.
All right, Samnell, but in this case Rorschach correctly follows leads, gathers clues, and uncovers the conspiracy rationally.
Sure. Doesn't matter.
Madness isn't just about having delusions. One can be cracked in the head and not have a single delusion. It's entirely possible that he could have a literally perfect perception of reality and still be a loon. The fact that he runs around murdering people is a pretty good clue. He spends most of the comic acting like nothing so much as a rabid dog. Not a healthy dude.
Wow, now I know why Orthos said I was on the wrong thread. Never noticed this one.
|
|
The comic book genre is chock-full of violent vigilantes, as are various other media (TV, movies, etc.). Generally, the protagonist, whether it's Jack Bauer or Agent Leroy Jethro Tibbs or John Rambo or the Punisher is not only excused for being a violent vigilante, but the authorities are shown as being as incompetent as necessary to justify their breaking rules to 'get things done,' and the villains are made as disgusting and unredeemable as necessary to encourage the audience to cheer for their 'comeuppance.'
What sets Rorshach apart to me is his obsession with sex. All women are filthy whores and any man who has ever had sex is a disgusting pervert. He's constantly talking about and condemning people for being 'filthy' and disgusting and perverted (and refers to the murder of the lesbian superhero as something she deserved because of her 'perversion'), and the author goes out of his way to describe him as basically a smelly homeless person, very unsubtly pointing out that a man who is so unclean that he *smells* is judging others for being immoral or unclean.
He considers everyone around him 'dirty,' and he himself is quite dirty. He considers everyone around himself lawless, and he breaks laws with wanton impunity. He considers even his allies unreliable and 'soft,' and they end up having to save him from himself.
I'm not able to say one way or another whether he's 'insane,' but he definitely lacks the self-awareness that God gave an oyster.
|
|
He's deluded, if not delusional. He's a serial killer.
Heresy...Rorschach is neither insane or deluded. He simply decided that monsters dont get treated like humans (humans get trials for murder, ice cream, etc). It may seem that He is arrogantly deciding who is a Monster and who is a Human (and the bar he sets on that is pretty shallow) but If civiliation is to survive you dont let the monsters remain within the walls of the city, you turf them out the gates to die in the desert. Rorschach doesnt see the wilderness - for him there is only the civiliation and no place to dump the monsters. Thats why he kills Baddies.
Exactly...He's also not very good at identifying sarcasm.
I believe the device you've used is called irony, not sarcasm.
Also, I'd like to thank Chris and Watcher for putting up the argument I didn't have time for on the "Victim goes to jail" thread. David's clinical models ring partially true, but it seems to me that he just doesn't quite fit. Lyingbastard also makes some good points, strange as that may seem judging by his alias.
Frankly here is a topic where I can really see it falling either way, and it depends on each of our individual models of what is normal, I suspect.
For my part, I think Rorschach is a sane, somewhat stable, but very extreme response to an insane world. He has some delusions, and his whole philosophy is cut by contradiction, but I can count a lot of people with the same problems among the functioning and sane masses around me.
I think the important thing about Rorschach is to take him in context: certainly the world around him is every bit as bad as him and then some.
...Madness isn't just about having delusions. One can be cracked in the head and not have a single delusion. It's entirely possible that he could have a literally perfect perception of reality and still be a loon....
Example? Also, what is a 'literally perfect perception of reality'. Count me interested.
|
|
The comic book genre is chock-full of violent vigilantes, as are various other media (TV, movies, etc.). Generally, the protagonist, whether it's Jack Bauer or Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs or John Rambo or the Punisher is not only excused for being a violent vigilante, but the authorities are shown as being as incompetent as necessary to justify their breaking rules to 'get things done,' and the villains are made as disgusting and unredeemable as necessary to encourage the audience to cheer for their 'comeuppance.
Actually I would argue the point with Special Agent Gibbs. I have watched the series since almost the beginning and I have never seen him act in a manner that could be described as "violent vigilante." The only time he came close to crossing that line was after Ari had killed one of his agents. He is an NCIS spcia agent in charge, and for a time was acting director of NCIS, neither of which is a position you get if you spend you time breaking the rules and treating authorty figures with disdain. In fact at one point Gibbs was offered the position of assisstant director and turned it down because he felt thre were people more competent than him to fill the job.
|
|
The comic book genre is chock-full of violent vigilantes, as are various other media (TV, movies, etc.). Generally, the protagonist, whether it's Jack Bauer or Agent Leroy Jethro Tibbs or John Rambo or the Punisher is not only excused for being a violent vigilante, but the authorities are shown as being as incompetent as necessary to justify their breaking rules to 'get things done,' and the villains are made as disgusting and unredeemable as necessary to encourage the audience to cheer for their 'comeuppance.'
What sets Rorshach apart to me is his obsession with sex. All women are filthy whores and any man who has ever had sex is a disgusting pervert. He's constantly talking about and condemning people for being 'filthy' and disgusting and perverted (and refers to the murder of the lesbian superhero as something she deserved because of her 'perversion'), and the author goes out of his way to describe him as basically a smelly homeless person, very unsubtly pointing out that a man who is so unclean that he *smells* is judging others for being immoral or unclean.
He considers everyone around him 'dirty,' and he himself is quite dirty. He considers everyone around himself lawless, and he breaks laws with wanton impunity. He considers even his allies unreliable and 'soft,' and they end up having to save him from himself.
I'm not able to say one way or another whether he's 'insane,' but he definitely lacks the self-awareness that God gave an oyster.
It is posts like these that say my point so well I feel no need to justify my feelings. Thank you so much Set. By the way the term I use is that he hasn't the sense that G~D gave to a squirl.[sic] But hey thats just me.
Example?
...Madness isn't just about having delusions. One can be cracked in the head and not have a single delusion. It's entirely possible that he could have a literally perfect perception of reality and still be a loon....
Roschach's body count is all the example I require. If he weren't in a book about superheroes (or an action movie) everybody would agree he's not of sound mind. He's a serial killer. Since the whole point of Watchmen is to drop most of the genre conventions, that was probably Moore's intent.
Also, what is a 'literally perfect perception of reality'. Count me interested.
I'm just reiterating the point that madness isn't limited to delusions. The guy who skins you and hangs you up in his closet because you cut him off on the freeway might be responding to a perfectly understandable stimulus, to an event everyone agrees happens, and is still completely cracked.