Show-and-Tell: Rorschach

[spaceplayer]

(originally published at Superhero Babylon)

Today for show-and-tell I brought in my Rorschach figure, just released as a tie-in to the WATCHMEN movie. I bought this figure as a meditative tool, for when I write about heroes as they are in our culture. Like the inkblot test that adorns his mask, Rorschach reveals to us our own attitudes about heroism.

Originally, I wanted to buy this to rub it in Alan Moore's face while I appropriate Rorschach for my own purposes; it's no secret that WATCHMEN is his takedown of superheroes in the real world, claiming that they would be "nutcases." He's also said some pretty nasty things about Ayn Rand and Steve Ditko, claiming that they stand for a type of fascism. It should also be noted that he's for anarchy himself, as he claims in an interview about V for Vendetta: "Anarchy is, and always has been, a romance. It is clearly the best way, and the only morally sensible way, to run the world. That everybody should be the master of their own destiny, that everybody should be their own leader."

Well, I AGREE with the last sentence, although I sometimes sympathize with him on the first, when I see the shenanigans in our government. But Rand is no fascist, nor Ditko, who Moore attacks for his "black and white/no shades of gray" stand via the Mr. A character, on who Rorschach is based. But if Moore believes what he does about anarchy, it's strange that he would come down so hard on vigilantes AND Ayn Rand, when she wrote that anarchy WOULD lead to vigilante "justice"...I do sympathize with Moore's warning about vigilantes and superheroes being about power-lust (not the idealized superhero, but superheroes as they have been presented so far).

Hrmmm... I'll leave Moore to work out his own contradictions. But back to Rorschach: Moore's made a joke about Steve Ditko, upon hearing Ditko's reaction to Rorschach. Supposedly Ditko said, "Oh, yes, Rorschach, he's like Mr. A, only he's insane," to which Moore responds with a "knowing laugh," as if to say "Steve, you missed the joke, and you're the punchline." And yet, Rorschach did get away from Moore enough to steal the story; even if Moore thinks he's "mad," he does admit to his popularity being based on his "ferocious moral integrity."

Moore does have some praise for Ditko, despite his misgivings, noting the "tormented elegance" of his work, his nine-panel layout, and his incorporation of the landscape into the story itself. But it seems that Moore's "love of Ditko" centered on the more disturbing aspects of Ditko's work, the paranoia of the characters, the way that they "always looked highly strung...on the edge of some kind of revelation or breakdown." But Moore is not (totally) wrong; these things are all there, and from the stories about him, were probably there in Ditko himself. A highly secretive and private man who has broken (most, if not all) ties with friends, his Marvel work, and society. (Note: Bob Palin, for one, has testified elsewhere that this is not quite the case, in contradiction to Blake Bell and Stan Lee, among others. But because Ditko refuses to speak or defend himself beyond his work, for most of us, this is all second-hand.) He has taken Rand at her word and, for all intents and purposes, has went "on strike." (Whether or not this is "martyrdom" or "self-sacrificial" is for Ditko to decide for himself.) Hrmmm....

Now, as far as I know(!), Ditko has never killed anyone or broken fingers while eating sugar cubes. But his characters in his post-Marvel work have no compunction about extreme justice. But I don't know that his characters ever went so far as Rorschach! It is Moore's interpretation that for someone to be that morally certain, one must be a traumatized child wearing a mask, like the psychotic versions of Batman, reliving the past over and over and over...and yet, Moore DOES believe in morality, based on the quote above about anarchy. So one has to ask, how far would Moore go in defending HIS morality? Hrmmm....

But at the same time, I do sympathize with the notion of accountability; who watches the watchmen, indeed! (I stress accountability, not to society in general, but to the principles that make society possible, meaning OBJECTIVE rules for society.) I, like Ditko, am an Objectivist. I do believe in self-defense, and heroes as protectors of "what is right." But without an objective basis for liberty, "right" becomes "because I said so," or "because God said so," or "because the State said so," and so on. And even if it can OBJECTIVELY proven that one is right and the other wrong, freedom does require that we leave others to make their own mistakes, as long as others aren't infringed upon.

Earlier, I said that Moore was attracted to the "creepier" elements of Ditko's work. But, to be fair, and because this is a good segue for what's next, I should add another quote from Moore: "I at least felt that, though Steve Ditko's political agenda was very different to mine...I would basically disagree with all of Ditko's ideas, but he has to be given credit for expressing these political ideas."

Moore has stated that he doesn't want people to mindlessly agree with him, but simply "to think" about these things. To that, I say, great. And that's what makes Rorschach a great character; not the actual Rorschach, the tragic figure, abused as a child into psychotic vigilance, but the "question" of Rorschach himself, the "questions" asked of him that make you think. The character of Rorschach, through the lens of Moore's take on Rand and capitalism, is just another fascist, imposing his will. He is what Moore sees when an inkblot of Ditko/Rand is presented to him, and what Moore sees is a psychopath. But that is not the only possibility. When I see an inkblot of Rand, I see achievement, purpose, productivity, creativity, defended by moral certainty that one's life is one's own, no apologies for living. But one isn't immune just because one calls themselves an Objectivist.

It is the question of Kira in Rand's WE THE LIVING, that makes her say to her Communist foil: "I loathe your goals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them. Except that I don't know, however, that I'd include blood in my methods."

It is the question of Rand herself, who, in a revised edition, removed this section entirely, except to say "I loathe your goals."

Rorschach, like the inkblot, is a test for what we want and choose to see: do we want to protect what we value, or destroy what we hate? Do we fight because it's necessary, or because we take delight in breaking our enemy's fingers and spirit? Do we regret the battle, or relish the death of our enemies?

So, in the end, I didn't buy this figure to "rub it in" Moore's face, but to serve as a reminder that heroism is a choice, one that brings great power and responsibility...to one's self. The responsibility to NOT become the very thing that we set out to fight. To not lose sight of the purpose of heroism: not the fight, but the defense of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What do you see in Rorschach's face? That's for your own "show-and-tell" to reveal.

Edited March 10, 2009 by spaceplayer

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I think the whole rorschach-test is faulty it has you make arbitrary guesses based on your feelings toward an ink blob.

Ink blob = ink blob.

[Grames]

Hrmmm...

A black starfish eating his nose.

[David Haggard]

I saw Watchmen at a local movie theater because I'm curious about observing other philosophies in comparison to Objectivism. I appreciated Rorschach's philosophy more than any others despite obvious flaws in its consistency. Rorschach never compromised in his beliefs, which is commendable, however irrational his actions were. I was surprised to learn that his character was created as an objective example; an attempt to show the failure of Objectivism in practice.

I had already come out of the theater considering the differences of Objectivism to each philosophy. Ayn Rand once wrote that a temporary submission to force is not a complete submission (a public reply to a letter; in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) Ergo it is not a moral failure of personal philosophy. Remember that a mind ends where a gun, or disintegration by Dr. Manhattan, begins.

Rorschach was an example of a tortured vigilante who decided to stand up for the innocent because the world was morally corrupt. He failed when he started losing his mind and rationality (killing animals out of anger and believing a mask was his true face, therein faking reality). An objectivist is not obsessed with dualities. Instead, an objectivist is interested in reality in and of itself, independent of common perception. There is a right way and a wrong way, however there are normally multiple ways to go about acting on each. For example, two correct responses from Rorschach would have been silence in the presence of force, with action later or false agreement in the presence of force with action and resignation later.

The style of Rorschach's philosophy leads me to believe that Alan Moore did not completely understand Rand's philosophy whether out of miscalculation or willful ignorance. Most defenders and opponents do little justice to the basic principles of Rand's philosophy. It is also possible that Moore never intended to do justice to the philosophy.

[Space Patroller]

I recognize the use of the term "fasci(ism, ist)" in this context. It is not a political context be a psychological one.

what it means is anyone who has a fixed, hardcore, immutable set of beliefs. although it was never put in those terms in the heyday of it's cration and usage (the late '60's to the mid late '70's). Yet by using a term that is synonymous with oppressive evil these people themwlves are being more judgemental than the worst of whom they attack. They portray themselved, and may even belive it, as open, reasonable, willing to listen and learn and all the "good" things that are the hallmark of the well-kempt intellectual in the face of a world that is "cold, cruel, hard-ass, anal..." whatever and the only imagined crime of which is that it demands that you become something other than a jellyfish with a nasty sting.

The fact is that any person who has grown up starts, at about age 27 to have fixed ideas. The liberal intellectual never grows up inside so does not harden into a fixed-characteristics human being or so he thinks but does in fact do so and attacks with a judgementalism and ferocity of a Nazi army others who have any visible fixed characteristics.

I don't know if he knows that he is essentially self-contradictory or if he knows the full meaning of the term "hypcorite" that he throws around in his bileous attacks. He is what Rand named when she talked about "dogmatic agnosticism, militant uncertainty and crusading cynicism" He is also what Billy Joel (perhaps unknowingly) meant in the lyrics from a song "Angry young men become angry old men..."., ANGRY YOUNG MAN

These types infected the education establishment and the (especially personality and social) psychology and sociology depatments of the 1970's universities and colleges.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Space Patroller