|
Walter Joseph Kovacs (1940-1985) was Rorschach, a "second generation" vigilante who made his own rules and lived ... and died by those rules no matter how powerful the adversary or how grim the situation he faced. Poetically nihilistic, he was the most existential hero in WATCHMEN; he kept a journal which initiated and framed the comic book's storyline.
Kovacs was the son of an abusive mother, Sylvia Joanna Kovacs, who lived most her life as a prostitute and died a prostitute. He never knew his father because he left Sylvia before Kovacs was even born. According to Sylvia, however, his father's name was "Charlie." Despite this small, unsubstantiated scrap of knowledge, Kovacs chose to idolize his father and President Truman, for whom young Kovacs believed Charlie worked in some secret yet important capacity. In 1951 Kovacs was removed from his mother's custody and put into the Lillian Charlton Home for Problem Children after he attacked two older boys who were mocking him, partially blinding one of the antagonists with a lit cigarette. During his time at the Charlton Home, he was noted to be a "bright but quiet" child who excelled in literature and religious education as well as boxing and gymnastics. He stayed in foster care until 1956 when he got a job in the garment district and moved into an apartment of his own. It was through this occupation that he came upon the specialized synthetic fabric which became the mask he wore for crimefighting.
Standing only 5 feet 6 inches and weighing 140 pounds, Rorschach was the notorious nemesis of all New York's criminals as well as any police officers who got in his way. He never had qualms about maiming or sometimes killing those thugs who were unfortunate enough to become his prey.
He was charged with two counts of murder--but may easily have killed more. His first murder in 1975 changed him irreversibly--so much so that hebecame Rorschach for good and being Walter Kovacs was, from then on, just a mask he sometimes wore. This first killing involved the kidnapping of a little girl, Blaire Roche, who was mistaken to be the heir to a "chemical fortune." When the kidnapper, Gerald Anthony Grice, discovered his error, he killed Blaire and fed her remains to his German shepherds. Upon discovering this heinous crime, Rorschach killed Grice and his dogs, burning Grice alive. After passage of the Keene Act outlawing vigilantism in 1977, Rorschach killed serial rapist Harvey Charles Furniss and left the corpse in front of the police station as a message that he would never retire from his chosen calling.
In 1985, because Rorschach's investigations threatened Ozymandias' (Adrian Veidt's) plot to "save the world from itself," Kovacs was framed for the murder of ex-criminal mastermind Moloch (William Jacobi) and apprehended by police. He eventually escaped from prison with the help of Nite Owl II (Daniel Dreiberg) and Silk Spectre II (Laurie Juspeczyk). Shortly after, however, he was killed by Dr. Manhattan (Jon Osterman) during his failed attempt to reveal to the world Ozymandias' plan.
QUOTATION: "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us."
Alan Moore on the watchmen and Rorschach in general:
CBA: Do you recall The Question?
Alan: Yes, I do. That was another very interesting character, and it was almost a pure Steve Ditko character, in that it was odd-looking. "The Question" didn't look like any other super-hero on the market, and it also seemed to be a kind of mainstream comics version of Steve Ditko's far more radical "Mr. A," from witzend. I remember at the time—this would've been when I was just starting to get involved in British comics fandom—there was a British fanzine that was published over here by a gentleman called Stan Nichols (who has since gone to write a number of fantasy books). In Stan's fanzine, Stardock, there was an article called "Propaganda, or Why the Blue Beetle Voted for George Wallace."
[laughter] This was the late-'60s, and British comics fandom had quite a strong hippie element. Despite the fact that Steve Ditko was obviously a hero to the hippies with his psychedelic "Dr. Strange" work and for the teen angst of Spider-Man, Ditko's politics were obviously very different from those fans. His views were apparent through his portrayals of Mr. A and the protesters or beatniks that occasionally surfaced in his other work. I think this article was the first to actually point out that, yes, Steve Ditko did have a very right-wing agenda (which of course, he's completely entitled to), but at the time, it was quite interesting, and that probably led to me portraying [Watchmen character] Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character.
CBA: Just to map this out: The prototype for Rorshach was The Question, right?
Alan: The Question was Rorschach, yep. Dr. Manhattan and Captain Atom were obviously equivalent. Nite-Owl and the new Blue Beetle—well, the Ted Kord Blue Beetle—were equivalent. ….
CBA: Keith Giffen modified the tag line to read "He loves peace so much he's willing to kill for it." [laughs]
Alan: Bomb, murder, assassinate! Because we're not doing The Peacemaker or The Question, we could be much more extreme with all these characters. We probably couldn't have had The Question living in a completely filthy slum room and being mentally disturbed, who had a personal odor problem, and be a little guy who was ugly—you would've had to have had Vic Sage, successful TV commentator…….
To me Rorschach was the only sane one. He didn't allow societies hangups to interfere with what he believed was right and wrong. He didn't believe that true justice could be based on lies like everyone else. He believed in the truth no matter how ugly that truth is. The last I checked insanity was believeing in delusions of some sort, and Rorschach had both eyes open. The others accepted the lie for the sake of what will ultimately be a short term solution--who were really the "insane" ones in the end?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
living in a completely filthy slum room and being mentally disturbed,
Um Chris what part of Mentally disturbed don't you get?
A scandalous number of poor people live in filthy slums. That doesn't make them insane.
I have volunteered in homeless shelters, and there are a lot of disturbed people living under those circumstances. They're stressed, and they reached the end of their rope, and passed on through to a traumatized state. They know right from wrong, though, and they're not delusional. For the great majority, when they get a psychiatric evaluation, they're judged fit.
It's as if Dan Dreiberg wears glasses, and you're calling him blind. And I say, "No, he wears glasses. His eyesight isn't perfect, but he's not blind." And you ask, "What part of 'needs glasses' don't you get?"
To me Rorschach was the only sane one. He didn't allow societies hangups to interfere with what he believed was right and wrong. He didn't believe that true justice could be based on lies like everyone else. He believed in the truth no matter how ugly that truth is. The last I checked insanity was believeing in delusions of some sort, and Rorschach had both eyes open. The others accepted the lie for the sake of what will ultimately be a short term solution--who were really the "insane" ones in the end?
As I said in the other thread:
In the world of the mad, would not the lone sane man be considered insane?
mentally disturbed was one of several descriptors used by the author about the character. Thats like saying he is bland and he is deaf. But read into it what you will I will no longer post on this thread.
Disturbed =/= insane. That's the point Chris is trying to make, and you keep missing it.
Disturbed =/= insane. That's the point Chris is trying to make, and you keep missing it.
I'm just plain ignoring it as not germane to how people use the word in casual conversation. Unless you're in a group of lawyers, M'Naghten is not the first thing most people will think of.
I'm just plain ignoring it as not germane to how people use the word in casual conversation.
You're not in casual conversation with me and mine (or those who think like us, apparently) very often then.
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....
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.
And I would agree that both are pretty accurate assessments.
As for Moore's "mentally deranged", I think that about nails it. Mentally deranged is mentally deranged.
Sanity/insanity is too slippery a distinction.
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.
One, if body count is all you need, then just look at war. Serial killers abound.
And two, nice try slipping out of that one. I was interested in getting you to expound on your delusion of objectivity.
...
One, if body count is all you need, then just look at war. Serial killers abound.
And two, nice try slipping out of that one. I was interested in getting you to expound on your delusion of objectivity.
Ok. Excessively harsh on my part. Can't decide if it's deserved or not(on account of your one way discussioneering).
Whatever. Merry Christmas. You win!
One, if body count is all you need, then just look at war. Serial killers abound.
Yes. I have and I agree completely. I am in fact rather deeply horrified that this seems to be a minority opinion considering the brute facts on which all agree.
And two, nice try slipping out of that one. I was interested in getting you to expound on your delusion of objectivity.
What do you mean? I think the words speak for themselves. A perfect perception of reality is a perfect perception of reality. Where's the mystery?
Rorschach is so far from being a functional human being, it's not even funny. His vigilante actions could be argued as having a slightly positive effect on society, but he is clearly not well.
I didn't realize all of my D&D characters were all crazy.
|
One, if body count is all you need, then just look at war. Serial killers abound.Yes. I have and I agree completely. I am in fact rather deeply horrified that this seems to be a minority opinion considering the brute facts on which all agree.
Except that, for the most part, killing effects a soldier differently than it affects a serial killer. As a veteran who has been in combat, it deeply offends me that you would so flipently equate the two as being on the same level. I only killed because I had to in order to save my life or the life of someone else. I know someone will say that we should have found another way, but in my case the other way was to sit back and let the genocide of Bosnian Muslims occur. The difference between a soldier and a seriel killer is that a soldier kills because he has to, and a serial killer kills because he wants to. Rorschach doesn't have to kill, even if in his mind he tells himself he does. That is why he crosses the line into insanity.
Except that, for the most part, killing effects a soldier differently than it affects a serial killer. As a veteran who has been in combat, it deeply offends me that you would so flipently equate the two as being on the same level.
Your offense is irrelevant. Sorry. Facts are facts. People are just as dead at your hand as they were at Ted Bundy's. That the state approved of your killing spree in no way excuses it.
I only killed because I had to in order to save my life or the life of someone else. I know someone will say that we should have found another way, but in my case the other way was to sit back and let the genocide of Bosnian Muslims occur. The difference between a soldier and a seriel killer is that a soldier kills because he has to, and a serial killer kills because he wants to. Rorschach doesn't have to kill, even if in his mind he tells himself he does. That is why he crosses the line into insanity.
A soldier kills because he has to? I take it you were conscripted. No? Then you chose to. You could have stayed home and taken up landscaping, home improvement, played bingo, or any number of other things. You didn't kill because you had to, but because you told yourself you had to. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I'd have a bit more sympathy if you were drafted, but ultimately conscription relies on the cooperation of its victims as well.
|
|
You have no idea what you are talking about. An American soldier fights because he believes in liberty and freedom. We fight to preserve life. Just like most police officers, a soldier joins the military hoping he will never have to fire his weapon in anger, and trusting that if he does it will be for a good and just cause. Whethr it always is is up for debate, but that is the hope and prayer of every soldier. They live their lives by the U.S. Armed Forces Code of Conduct which states:
Article I
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Article II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
Article III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
Article IV
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.
Article V
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.
Article VI
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
You speak as a man who seems to have nothing that you would fight for. It must be sad to have nothing that is so precious to you that you would take up arms to protect it. I feel very sorry for you.
|
|
Except that, for the most part, killing effects a soldier differently than it affects a serial killer. As a veteran who has been in combat, it deeply offends me that you would so flipently equate the two as being on the same level.Your offense is irrelevant. Sorry. Facts are facts. People are just as dead at your hand as they were at Ted Bundy's.
And you have no idea how long it took me to learn to live with that fact. I almost killed myself because I felt that I could not live with having taken another person's life. Like we discussed in other places there are facts and there are truthes. And then there are idiots who think they have the facts, and make pronuncements based on that illusion, You have never been a soldier or fought in war I take it, so you don't have all the facts. Sign up, put on the uniform and live the life of those that you feel are beneath you. Grow up and stop acting like you are an authority on things that you have never experienced. This is one thing that you can not learn about in your precious ivory tower of liberalism, it is something you can only learn from doing. Until then SHUT UP and let men who are better then you protect your from the evil that waits to have you be the first stood up against the wall. People like you sleep soundly at night because those men that you deride as being no better than serial killers stand ready to take lives in your name.
|
|
Sam, I'm going to put this as plainly and civilly as I can. You have no bloody idea what the hell you're talking about. You want to compare a soldier, who puts his, or her, life on the line, puts themselves in the worst possible position, to protect ingrates such as yourself the same as a serial killer? Honestly, if you and I were face to face and you said something like that one of us would be heading to the hospital, but you didn't, and I'm trying very hard to keep my cool with this post, but you know nothing. Not a damn thing about what it means to fight, to risk it all, to carry those scars the rest of your life, and know that for the cause you fought for, you would do it again. I think you must get off on pissing people off online. Behind your safe little keyboard you pass judgment on everyone who doesn't think just like you do, then call them narrowminded. Your the biggest bigot and most narrowminded person on these boards. Go enlist, serve your country, fight, and then come back here and tell us what it's like. Untill then I got no use for you, or your BS little minded opinions.
And before this goes even further afield, I don't think this is even about liking a given war or action or whatever, but understanding that there are a great many people that have a desire to defend their country.
If you are a pacifist, that's fine, obviously you disagree with using violence, but I would hope that you could concede that, even if you disagree with using violence, that those who join the military are obviously motivated by much different standards than other elements that have been cited.
If you aren't a pacifist, but you don't agree with a given war or action this country has taken, once again, that's great, but most of the people that I know that have joined the military would have done so even if a given war or action was against their overall sensibilities, because in the long run they wish to defend their country.
Full disclosure: I'm obviously biased because my son is heading to Afghanistan in February, and we're blessed enough to see him this Christmas before he makes his final preparations to head over, and quite frankly, this is the last thing I would want someone about to deploy to a dangerous situation to have to deal with.
|
|
And before this goes even further afield, I don't think this is even about liking a given war or action or whatever, but understanding that there are a great many people that have a desire to defend their country.
If you are a pacifist, that's fine, obviously you disagree with using violence, but I would hope that you could concede that, even if you disagree with using violence, that those who join the military are obviously motivated by much different standards than other elements that have been cited.
If you aren't a pacifist, but you don't agree with a given war or action this country has taken, once again, that's great, but most of the people that I know that have joined the military would have done so even if a given war or action was against their overall sensibilities, because in the long run they wish to defend their country.
Full disclosure: I'm obviously biased because my son is heading to Afghanistan in February, and we're blessed enough to see him this Christmas before he makes his final preparations to head over, and quite frankly, this is the last thing I would want someone about to deploy to a dangerous situation to have to deal with.
My heart is with you and your family right now. I hope that he knows how much his choice to serve means to so many. God bless him, his courage, and you.
My heart is with you and your family right now. I hope that he knows how much his choice to serve means to so many. God bless him, his courage, and you.
I don't want to drag this off topic even further, but I'd be remiss if I didn't thank you for your concern and your well wishes. Thank you very much.
|
I'm sorry I even started this thread.
I'm sorry, David.
I was in the National Guard, but I never saw any action.
There was a massive drought and then series of fires in Florida when I was in; I even missed getting called up for that due to a majorly pulled groin muscle.
I think everybody thought I was malingering, but I swear to you I was injured as all getout. I could barely walk.
So I guess I just get to be a "serial killer wannabe" or something. Hotdamn.
David, I'm sorry you went through all that, and I thankyou for what you did for your country. From a rear-echelon pogue to a front-liner, I thank you.
KEJR, I'll pray every day for your son, and know you and all yours are now in my thoughts and prayers daily. I got kids; this kinda thing is prolly a long way off for me; oldest is six. I can't imagine how all that feels. It was easier on me when it was just me doing it all, and I didn't have any real thoughts of my own deployment at the time until about 1997 when Clinton was popping a bunch of cruise missiles at Iraq.
Just a dumbass cocky idea that nothing bad could happen to me....
Except that, for the most part, killing effects a soldier differently than it affects a serial killer. As a veteran who has been in combat, it deeply offends me that you would so flipently equate the two as being on the same level.Your offense is irrelevant. Sorry. Facts are facts. People are just as dead at your hand as they were at Ted Bundy's. That the state approved of your killing spree in no way excuses it.
I only killed because I had to in order to save my life or the life of someone else. I know someone will say that we should have found another way, but in my case the other way was to sit back and let the genocide of Bosnian Muslims occur. The difference between a soldier and a seriel killer is that a soldier kills because he has to, and a serial killer kills because he wants to. Rorschach doesn't have to kill, even if in his mind he tells himself he does. That is why he crosses the line into insanity.A soldier kills because he has to? I take it you were conscripted. No? Then you chose to. You could have stayed home and taken up landscaping, home improvement, played bingo, or any number of other things. You didn't kill because you had to, but because you told yourself you had to. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I'd have a bit more sympathy if you were drafted, but ultimately conscription relies on the cooperation of its victims as well.
The facts don't always tell the story.
Example: Tom X is on the stand in court for the purpose of determining if he is a credible witness
Defense Lawyer: Did you ever have sex with a 16 yr old female
Tom X: Yes
Defense: You see this man of 32 years old lust after young girls, why should we accept his testimony. If he is willing to do that he is willing to lie.....(Tom now looks like a pedophile)
May we call the next witness....
Truth of the Matter: Tom was 16 when he started having sex, and he married the 16 year old when they both turned 18 and is still married to her.
See how useful a fact is without digging behind it? The story was made up, but I think the point is valid.
It also seems that Sam is more concerned with trying to prove he is right than having a discussion. He does seem smart enough to know that a single fact does not tell a story, but refuses to acknowledge it.
If you are a pacifist, that's fine, obviously you disagree with using violence, but I would hope that you could concede that, even if you disagree with using violence, that those who join the military are obviously motivated by much different standards than other elements that have been cited.
I am a pacifist, at least for any war that's likely to ever happen. A month or two ago I laid out the singular exception in the Civil Religious Discussion thread.
I certainly agree that motivations may differ. Dahmer wanted to kill people so he could create the perfect sex slave, or something to that effect. The Zodiac Killer thought he was getting slaves for the afterlife. The Unabomber wanted to save society from technology. Herbert Mullin was saving California from being dumped into the sea in a massive earthquake. Obviously these motives run the gamut from purely hedonistic to a kind of utilitarian altruism. But the people are still dead because of them. Motivation may be an aggravating or a mitigating factor, I'll grant, but it doesn't really change the facts of the case. From the perspectives of the Unabomber and Herbert Mullin, at least, one has to grant that they were doing the right thing. Sometimes the motives are similar to those of some soldiers, sometimes not. Sometimes the similarities are with different groups of soldiers. So I have to agree in part and disagree in part as to the motivations of volunteer soldiers.
I don't know how many people, Japanese and otherwise, my grandfather killed in WWII. I don't think he did either. I did sit with him fifty years later the one time we discussed it. He was not convinced, even after all that time and knowing what we do now, that he had done the right thing. He was no bleeding heart liberal either.
If you aren't a pacifist, but you don't agree with a given war or action this country has taken, once again, that's great, but most of the people that I know that have joined the military would have done so even if a given war or action was against their overall sensibilities, because in the long run they wish to defend their country.
I know, and that's what's really disturbing. Saying one will kill for an organization or an ideology for any reason whatsoever is a deeply troubling act of moral abdication. That's not just signing on for the just wars, but literally for anything. Such an overriding desire will trump any moral qualm. It goes way beyond the notion that in this narrow and deeply regrettable circumstance, with all other options exhausted, we simply must use force in a limited, narrow, careful application designed to do the least harm. I'm a utilitarian; I can agree with that argument in principle even if I disagree with the particular applications.
(To be clear, I'm objecting to the killing half of the equation. If someone is prepared to die for a cause, I can understand that and if the cause is just, even respect it. Saying one is ready to die is one thing. Saying one is ready to make someone else die is, to me, vastly different. I don't necessarily think Roscharch was wrong to die in the name of the truth at the end of Watchmen.)
my son is heading to Afghanistan in February
That really sucks and I am sorry to hear it.
stuff
Wreaithstrike, you deliberately excluded pertinent facts. Then you say the facts don't tell the whole story. Well yeah, if you don't consider them all.
stuffWreaithstrike, you deliberately excluded pertinent facts. Then you say the facts don't tell the whole story. Well yeah, if you don't consider them all.
In the post I responded you to you only considered the fact that the poster had killed someone. What is the difference?
I don't even want to justify this by delving too far into this, but I think there is a huge difference between thinking that, for example, Iraq was a war that didn't need to be fought, and thinking that its wrong to shoot people that are clearly bad people that you run into once you are actually in a given conflict.
You basically twisted my words to make it sound like my son signed on to do anything for the government without thinking, which is not what I was saying. If you weren't so busy trying to equate my son to a serial killer, I'd apologize for not being clearer in making my point, because I'm truly sorry if my post was unclear. Perhaps it was, but I'm not so certain that it was so unclear that you would draw the conclusion that you did.
Also, please don't equate my son to a mindless serial killer and then profess any kind of despair over his upcoming deployment. I'm proud of him, and I hope in the end, the world will be better off for his actions. I also hope he is safe and I'll be worried about him every day.
...Except that, for the most part, killing effects a soldier differently than it affects a serial killer. As a veteran who has been in combat, it deeply offends me that you would so flipently equate the two as being on the same level.Your offense is irrelevant. Sorry. Facts are facts. People are just as dead at your hand as they were at Ted Bundy's.
Wow, David. Sorry that you have to put up with this s#+&, but I'm glad you're here to reply to Samnell. I've seen a lot of judgmental nonsense on these board and this one it right over the top. I'm behind you 100%.
Samnell, the words I put in bold are not only logically inane, but they actually offend me (something not even Samuel Weiss achieved). Anyway: reductio ad Bundy = fail. You are, quite frankly, an idiot.
EDIT: time to lock this thread.
stuffWreaithstrike, you deliberately excluded pertinent facts. Then you say the facts don't tell the whole story. Well yeah, if you don't consider them all.
Excluding pertinent facts is something you know quite a bit about, isn't it.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just say that I was over in Saudi when Clinton was firing the missiles over Saddam's forward positions in '99. It is a sobering thing when you go to a condition of open hostility, and it is something no soldier wishes.
However, the soldier knows that freedom isn't free. The fact that we have a society where people feel free saying whatever they feel like in a public forum is directly attributable to the many people who sacrificed their lives to see those freedoms preserved.
Likening soldiers to serial killers is about the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these boards. You may not appreciate the military, but they protect you nonetheless. You have every right to say whatever pleases you, even if I find it vile. Thank a soldier for that right, whatever you may think it didn't come from a lawyer or politician.
KEJR all the best for your son. May he do his tour quickly and without incident.
David, know that you helped keep an oppressed people from being exterminated. Some may not appreciate it, but I do. Hooah.
EDIT: time to lock this thread.
+1
Likening soldiers to serial killers is about the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on these boards.
Seconded, and that's all I have to say.
EDIT: time to lock this thread.+1
+2
