I don't understand why moore hates him...

Nope, the shattering of his world user
Rorschach was dragged kicking and screaming into the gray of the world and couldn't cope
It's very clear in the story that he was stunted and had an arrested development, a man child so to speak, which is why he saw everything in black and white, it was simpler that way for him, but at the end of the story when the scales were forcibly removed from his eyes he just couldn't handle it
What you guys call an unshakeable moral compass was really the last desperate act of a broken man so he wouldn't have to face reality
Rorschach didnt just break, he shattered

>What do you think the tears represent user?

Always took it to mean that despite his psychopathic monologuing he actually was upset that millions of people were dead and there was nothing he could do about it to stop it. Again.

Objectively, he is one. He saved a little girl from sex traffickers. Are you saying that's not heroic?

Moore didn't like it when his character became more powerful than his own writing and transcended beyond his ideological narrative. In fact, I think that Rorschach is one of the best modern examples of successfully applying of death of the author.

Attached: 1413748820638.jpg (600x740, 128.29K)

Can someone remind me what Rorschach was foghting?
It's been a long time since I've read it but I only remember him hating pretty much everyone.

Not the OP, but there are multiple ways to interpret the tears, but I actually agree with you. With all that said, he's still uncompromising. He realizes Ozy is right, but wont compromoise, and willingly dies according to his moral compass.

user didnt say it was a good moral compass he just said it was unshakeable

fuck you you fucking cunt i hope you burn in hell you mother fucker

The problem with Rorschach is this:
You read through his backstory, his love of Truman and the bomb and everything else. See his anti social tendancies. Sure, he is even compelling at times and almost becomes the moral centre of the book. But he is a critique and discussion of what trauma in a superhero would really be.

And the reason Moore "hates him" is because you have this kind of discussion but Rorschach fans don't care about that they just think he is a bad ass superhero they want to emulate. it is that kind of autism he hates.

It is kinda how any movement or attitude lives long enough to be commercialised. Punk gets sold. These kinds of comic book attitudes get dissected and made into extreme comics where mature is just an excuse for violence or sex with nothing else to say.

he asks death so he can die by his terms since he knows if he lives theres nothing he can do to stop it

He wasn't a hero. He was a hypocrite.

MOORE
DOES
NOT
HATE
HIM

Stop making this thread you autist.

>n-no his death was heroic, not a broken man seeking an easy way out in a world he just cant comprehend or deal with
lol

Moore hates Rorschach fags because they are as cringey as this "The True MGTOW Hero - Rorscach Hero Analysis"

youtube.com/watch?v=Mj2xuK1cQ3M

To paraphrase: Rorschach is badass and short incel who doesn't give any fucks and is best detective. It is kinda like how back in the day people saw TDK and edgy emo teenagers were suddenly like I AM ANARCHY. Or when people took Joker and got super into it. Fans can ruin a character by misunderstand and appropriating it into their weirdness.

Yeah, I don't think he ever said he had a actual issue with the character as he wrote him, he had an issue with actual sperglords identifying with him and saying that Rorchach's story is "their" story, too. Rorschach was a very unpleasant and abrasive person given how Dan was the only person to tolerate his presence for more than five seconds, and even then he exploded when he got sick of Rorschach shit talking him, so if anyone said that they saw themselves in Rorschach, I'd avoid them, too.

Let's be real, if anyone wasn't friends with that kind of person, you at least knew of them, and if you had any shred of sanity, you typically avoided them.

It is the difference between admiration or enjoyment of a character and emulation. I can enjoy some really shit characters but identifying with them to such an extent is weird.

Pretty much, being able to say that you enjoyed the character because they were compelling and moved the story along in an interesting way is far different than saying that you enjoyed them because you could see yourself in them, especially when said character is an unrepentant monster with no redeeming qualities, the most prominent example being Joker.

hehe roschach go boom

Attached: Image-1.png (720x751, 1.07M)

Rorschach was envisioned as what a person in real life would be like if they completely believed in a superhero's simple black-and-white moral code, with a little bit of Ditko Objectivism for flavor.
A nutjob who thinks his word is final and breaks down when faced with a situation that his childish views can't reconcile.

Anything else is people reading into things that aren't there.

>Fans can ruin a character
Only to a literal retard who give a fuck about fans. Newsflash, fans eventually die, fiction stay the same, fans don't affect canon.

user, don't pretend like authors, fans and societal attitudes have no effect. You can pretend to be above it all, but these things do change how you perceive things. And there will be things that you perceive differently on that basis. We are social creatures after all.

>fans eventually die, fiction stay the same, fans don't affect canon.
Fiction doesn't stay the same. How retarded are you? How someone views one piece of work a few decades ago is completely different to the context people see it decades after.

>nobody pointing out that he agreed with nuking japan because it was for the greater good, making him ultimately a hypocrite who made exceptions

I always interpreted it this way as well. That he totally failed and deserved to die because he had it figured iut but still couldn't stop it. I think it's a similar but slightly less edgy version of this take

He explained why it wasn't unshakeable using the text here and here you raving primitive.

But they cannot change the text you dipshit. Even sequels, word of god and even Lucas tier "remasters" cannot change the original text

>But they cannot change the text you dipshit.
I never said that you fucking retard. Can you even read? Stop being so autistic.

He also excused Comedian's rape attempt as a moral lapse despite constantly whining about everyone's sexual deviancy.

>user, don't pretend like authors, fans and societal attitudes have no effect.
They don't, the only thing that matters is you and the story you're reading.
>Fiction doesn't stay the same. How retarded are you? How someone views one piece of work a few decades ago is completely different to the context people see it decades after.
You're beyound stupid, do you let youtube and twitter comments change your views on everything you read? Stop being such a literal sheep following the flock. Getting influenced by literal 14 year old shitposting about something they didn't even read, this is just ridiculous.

Then the work is unaltered, the characters are unaltered.

Oh, and your example about the Joker, do you know that the whole "gamers rise up" is a fucking meme based on a single fucking obscure pic without known origin that could very well be sarcastic as well? You are literally being influenced by the satire of a group that simply never existed, that's how people like you end up, your mentality simply don't even hold ground nowadays where "public opinion" is constantly being confused with memes and propaganda.

>Anything else is people reading into things that aren't there
lol no, as a content creator you don't get to put the jack back in the box after the audience has turned the handle. The issue was always Moral Objectivism vs Moral Subjectivism and Moore is a staunch subjectivist so he goes out of his way to take the piss out of objectivists (Rorschach is smelly, dirty, rude and an all around dick) and people not only don't agree with Moore they end up championing his satire. If anybody is the autist here it's moore for underestimating the pull of his rival philosophy.

>do you let youtube and twitter comments change your views on everything you read?
>Getting influenced by literal 14 year old shitposting
You're purposefully using those examples to be disingenuous.

Things do have an effect. And pretending like they don't is retarded. I bet you're one of those people that swears adverts don't effect you even though it is literally one of the biggest industries in the world. What you read and how you perceive it is effected by things in the world. And pretending otherwise is silly.

You don't even know what I am on about do you? Fuck me you're retarded. The truth is you pretend like you're some individualistic being and that other people are effected by memes and shit but not you, while you are in fact spouting just as many memes/propaganda as everyone else. Which just proves my point.

No one said that user. What they were saying is: seeing cringey people worship certain characters is cringey. Because they misinterpret what things are about. Like how after The Dark Knight people were posting gay joker selfies. But you seemed to miss the point.

>Rorschach didnt just break, he shattered

And the HBO show peed on his grave by making him the symbol for a white supremacist movement.

The US didn't lie about dropping the nukes, Rorschach was never adverse to using force only the deceit neccessary in Ozzy's plan.
His worship of the comedian really is Rorschach's fatal flaw. He bought into the hero mythos with the Comedian at the center and since the whole books point was "heroes are bullshit" that's a bad idea.

>Things do have an effect. And pretending like they don't is retarded.
Only if you allow it, again claiming that public perception "ruin" a character is just fucking retarded, you are a fool. Maybe it will ruin to you but the character itself is the same it was since the author finished the fucking story and will be the same for all eternity. No one knows how future generations will react.

I'm not saying any of these things ruined it for me. They didn't. All you do is throw insults around when I am not talking about myself, I am saying these things have an effect on people. But all you can do is chuck ad hominems and miss the point entirely.

>No one knows how future generations will react.
The point is, that different generations and groups will react in varying ways. This is what I am saying that you seem to be entirely missing.

>finished the fucking story
Watchmen will never end. Doomsday Clock. The movie. The tv show. Before Watchmen.

>ad hominems
That's how this whole discussion started
>Fans can ruin a character by misunderstand and appropriating it into their weirdness.
You're in fucking denial now.

Because he thinks every woman is a whore, and women deserve the benefit of the doubt on at least that.

>That's how this whole discussion started
That's how your argument started.
>You're in fucking denial now.
Fucking Hell m8, what I am saying is that shit is super cringe. It doesn't stop me enjoying Watchmen. But the reason why Moore hates Rorschach fans is because of that shit and people worshipping those facets of a character.

The reason I like Rorschach is because if I was one of the people who lost a loved one during the fake alien attack, I would want Veidt prosecuted.

>What you guys call an unshakeable moral compass was really the last desperate act of a broken man so he wouldn't have to face reality
Riddle me this chuckle fuck: If Rorschach wasn't about to torpedo Ozzy's plan, then why did Manhattan kill him?
If Rorschach is going to die in the snow, why not let him?
If Rorschach was going to waste his life not being believed than why not let him?
Why did the blue demi-god with the ability to see the future see a necessity in killing Rorschach? Because Rorschach didn't break, he was never going to stop, never going to give in. He "had the scales pulled from his eyes" and he didn't blink, Manhattan did. You really think a couple of tears is an admission of defeat? Maybe, but not an admission of wrongdoing. Rorschach was the only actual hero in the book, which is why moore shat on him at every available opportunity.

>Fans can ruin a character by misunderstand and appropriating it into their weirdness.
means
>some fags missing the author intentions is cringey
Ok then? Retards claiming that "Punisher is right" when he was by the author own words wrong is indeed cringe as fuck but the character is not ruined at all.

>Like how after The Dark Knight people were posting gay joker selfies
Better than that, The Dark Knight Returns ruined Batman. The vast majority of the audience misinterpreted the work and as a result we've been stuck with edgy autistic narccisistic suicidal psychopathic Batman for the past twenty years. It's the perfect example of an author watching his own work fuck over his own point when put in the hands of the general public.

Yes, but a lot of people are brainlets who don’t get the distinction and just worship Rorschach. Just look at how butthurt they got over the TV show because they equated the Kalvary to mean the show said Rorschach was a racist and by association anybody who liked Rorschach was racist.

You cannot morally kill someone. Holy shit when will you realize this??? Killing one person invalidates any peace that comes from it.

Batman please leave.

Just like how One More Day ruined Spider-Man but turning him into an irresponsible impulsive and childish fool rather an actually clever guy trying to balance both lives.

>You cannot morally kill someone.
Okay user, I'll try and murder you. Don't try and defend yourself. That's wrong.

Ozzy and Jon were psychopaths. Killing a million people in ANY situation is still objectively wrong.

Self defense wasn’t used. Veidt murdered millions of people on the POSSIBILITY that it might stop nuclear war, and canon says it didn’t.

No, that was intentional, Marvel didn't want to age the character so they intentionally ruined him, destroying his personality and throwing away all character development to avoid "aging" and changes, even though that was one of the character main premises.

You poor dumb fool. Dr. Manhatten didn't kill him because he would have otherwise succeeded. (Though he would have. As broken as he was, he would have.).

Dr Manhatten killed him because that was the moment Dr. Manhatten saw that he killed him.

But if he really was unbroken, why did he say "Do it!" He should have said "Don't do it!" or "how dare you!" or anything that implied a resistance. He should have been trying, even if in a way that was still being resolute, to be succeeding. Instead, he said "Do it!" he ASKED for his death. URGED it on. Because he knew he'd keep going and succeed otherwise.

Attached: dc0666658bdedca0-600x338.jpg (600x338, 106.52K)

"Don't do it" would be pleading for his life and throwing away his pride, "Do it" means that he knows there is no way he will be spared but he will not beg for mercy.

>If Rorschach wasn't about to torpedo Ozzy's plan, then why did Manhattan kill him?
Mercy killing, Manhattan Old Yellered him

I wonder what the ratio is for people that think Rorschach was right compared to smelly incels that hate their mothers

>If Rorschach wasn't about to torpedo Ozzy's plan, then why did Manhattan kill him?
because rorschach couldn't grasp the full reality of what just happened and wanted to commit suicide by cop

Rorschach didn't think killing a couple thousand people with nukes was bad if it meant ending the possibility of more lives being lost either, that was the whole reason of the excerpt with his letter applauding Truman on his decision, to contrast with how he felt at the end of the book when he had a personal stake.

Suck a dick if you're going to use the reasoning of "IT WAS A LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEE!!! REEEEE!!!" that wasn't the fucking point of the excerpt.

Even if it wasn’t the point, you as the reader can take a step back and look at the situation. You know for a fact that millions just died on a HUNCH. Do you sit back and let it happen, or do you expose it? No matter his reasonings, Rorschach was going to do the right thing.