Talk:Rorschach (character)

Pronunciation?

in the wiki articel it says something like rohr-shock. in the actual comic one of the detectives prior to Rs arrest pronounces him as "raw shark". what do you say? --88.73.2.136 08:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "roar-shack".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.132.117 (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the creator of the inkblot test that Rorschach takes his name from is pronounced similar to Raw-Shock. The IPA for the comic Rorschach (as currently listed, not necessarily correct) is as follows: rɔrʃɑːk. r as in run, ɔ as in paw, r as in run, ʃ as in she, ɑː as in father, k as in cat. The IPA for the psychologist Rorschach is 'ʁoɐʃax: ʁ is pronounced like the French pronunciation of Paris (sounds like Pahree), o as in no, ɐ as in nut, ʃ as in she, a as in father, x as in rock. I'm not very good with IPA, I might be a little off in my examples.

The real question is whether the two Rorschachs should have the same pronunciation or not. From a linguistic standpoint roar-shack isn't an unreasonable pronunciation, few people who read the comic or watch the movie are likely to consider that the creator of the Rorschach test was not from America, most will pronounce Rorschach phonetically, "Roar-Shack." Someone using the correct pronunciation might run into problems when trying to talk to people who are using the technically incorrect pronunciation. Words are only as valuable as their ability to convey ideas or information, the correct pronunciation isn't as good as the incorrect pronunciation in a world where nearly everyone uses the incorrect pronunciation. Maybe we should include both pronunciation keys in the article. Dr. Arbitrary (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "ch" at the end of his name should be pronounced like the sound you make when you snuffle and then want to get the 'stuff' in your mouth to spit it out or when you snore. Only not quite as hard as the examples, a bit softer, like breathing out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.105.208 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent?

I disagree with what the assertion in the Analysis section that his feelings toward the atomic bombs and the "alien" show inconsistencies or progression in his character. The events are not comparable. When the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, everyone knew who did it. The "alien" is a lie. It's not that Rorschach is opposed to half of NYC dying to achieve world peace--it's that he's opposed to the deceit behind it. He'd rather the truth be known and the possibility of losing peace than everyone to live in the dark with peace.

You make a good argument. I initially agreed with the article as it stands, as I had also gotten that impression when reading Watchmen. However, I find your argument convincing. Anyone opposed to adding a qualifier explaining alternate interpretations that require no inconsistency? Argyrios 04:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleting the assertion works best. That the character has an inconsistency because both events have a nuclear commonality is not an interpretation but an analysis and one that may or may be held up by the actual story. Either way it is irrelevent.

Besides, the only commonality whatsoever is the introduction of a nuclear element.

I guess the question is analysis by who? The authors of the article? That's not very npov. Citations from an outside source should be put in.

And I guess I view it differently. Rorschach was never a utilitarian, he believed in moral absolutes. He would rather the us and russia go to war because he viewed the us as right. He also believed the us was right in the case of world war 2. He is not opposed to the violence of the situation, he views violence as a tool, which should be inflicted in the proper cases. - Xtreme680 00:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Rorschach never mentioned anything about the importance of truth. Are you saying he would prefer that millions of people were killed as long as everyone knew who did it? He wouldn't want this, that would be ridiculous, what he wanted was for Veidt to pay for what he did. But he realized his own contradiction and flawed vision and accepted death showing his real face, the human being who was still inside... Yes he was being inconsistent. He said if it wasn't for Truman's decision, millions of people would die. When he said that, he didn't mention anything about people having to know the truth. It's the same thing. Are you people actually saying that Moore didn't think about this connection, that it was a coincidence? Ridiculous. GeorgeBP 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should put back the Inconsistent comment. Rorschach didn't admire Truman because he believed war was somehow morally just; he admired Truman because he hated his mother and his mother had told him (lying, presumably) that his father left them over political differences, and little Kovacs chose his preferred parent's side. Hiroshima was a city full of civilians, and thus the two atomic blasts were exactly parallelled by Ozymandias's alien. "Dr. Manhattan," Einstein's quote about preferring to be a Watchmaker, Osterman's father's declaration Hiroshima invalidates "petty" mechanics, Mal Long's interpretation of the Knot Top's embracing couple spraying, the atomic trefoil/pirate comparison, the whole Cold War Nuclear Buildup....how many more textual symbols do you need to cement the metaphor already?! Similarly, though he stands up for the millions Veidt killed, Rorschach does not vigilant to protect the innocent but rather to punish the wicked. And yet he's the only person who admires the Comedian, arguably the most morally reprehensible of the main characters. Alan Moore's whole point about Rorschach was that even though he rejects Utilitarianism for Objective Morality, that doesn't mean he's got any sort of moral compass that's consistent or logical. You don't like the Utilitarian's scientific method of calculating a human life's worth? Well, the alternative is the pure randomness of shifting black and white viscous in between two layers of latex. To miss that is to take the easy road and automatically declare Ozymandias the bad guy. -- Me

are you joking? the majority of the inconsistency paragraph is incorrect. it says that rorschach resents welfare defrauders, while he himself is unemployed. wouldn't it instead be fair to say that his job is being a masked vigilante? welfare defrauders don't do anything for a living. rorschach kills rapists. also, it mentions that he broke an innocent man's fingers. that largely depends on who's perspective you're following. according to rorschach, nobody who hangs around drinking in underworld bars is innocent. that's not a very nice assumption to make, but it's hardly inconsistent with his over-all outlook and day to day behaviour. the bomb thing is sorta sketchy too. firstly, he was like, eleven when he wrote that essay on truman. if you said something when you were eleven, and then said something different as an adult, would that make you inconsistent? furthermore, the alien drop and the bomb drop are entirely different things. we were at war with japan, meaning they could have dropped the nuke on us, too(if they'd had it). the u.s. also allegedly gave warning to the citizens of the impending attack. veidt wasn't operating under a formal declaration of war, and he didn't give any sort of warning to anyone(he couldn't have done so if his plan were going to work out correctly).

but most importantly: eleven year old kovaks is not rorschach. kovaks also never killed anyone until after his transformation into rorschach. so even if there was a sudden turn about in moral decisions, it wouldn't be the result of "inconsistency". it would be the result of a psychotic break with the self. kovaks might have been all about lesser evil for the greater good, but rorschach has always been about punishing evil(with relative disregard for the suffering of innocents. remember the random bone breaking of people who may know something, maybe not? remember the rapist in the alley who had a knife? didn't sneak up, just confronted him without regard to what he might do to the girl. remember his attacking the cops who'd come to arrest a murderer? rorschach isn't a good man as defined by common majority. he just punishes people who he sees as "wicked". again: crazy, but still consistently crazy).--Entropicflux 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to change it, but ignorant people with a mad-on for Rorschach will just revert any changes, misrepresenting creator comments to cover their own bias. WookMuff 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of bad arguments here, but the key surely lies in Rorschach's role not being to protect the 'innocent', but to dispense justice. Despite Veidt's 'good intentions', what he did was murder, and Rorschach wants him brought to justice for it. In Rorschach's view, the ends do not justify the means, and whatever Veidt's intentions, he remains responsible for those he has killed. Ultimately, in Rorschach's view, no-one is innocent, as everyone has done some evil, large or small. For example, he does not (as some seem to be implying) condone the Comedian's behaviour, but calls it a 'moral lapse' - not implying it is unimportant, for to Rorschach all moral lapses are serious, he just can't deal with all of them, there's too many (note an early scene where he bemoans the amount of evil and his inability to deal with it all). As well as acknowledging the Comedian's failings, he also respects him as the only other one of the 'heroes' to have recognised the depths of evil in the human heart. To reverse the Comedian's comment on the 'CrimeBusters', Rorschach has recognised that averting nuclear war is not going to solve the problem; humans will still be as evil as before. -- Dan

Killed for sure -- yes or no?

End of this debate: Manhattan on Mars tells Laurie that he foresees himself killing someone in the snow shortly after the event that kills half of New York. (unknown)

I don't think this could possibly be a matter of dispute, but a recent edit seemed to imply the existence of some sort of controversy regarding whether or not Manhattan killed Rorschach. If you check the panel again, Rorschach has clearly been converted into a bloody smear in the snow -- you can even see copious amounts of his blood splattered on the rent scooter and nearby tree, which is inconsistant with Manhattan's teleporting.

I know Manhattan can do anything and could have created the blood to make it seem like Rorschach was killed, but based on that logic, you could make an argument for any other equally absurd claim -- I could claim that the Comedian never died; Manhattan just made it seem that way. (Why? Who knows! He's Dr. Manhattan!)

Since when does red smoke is blood is beyond me baby.

Yes because we all know that smoke is a liquid substance that smears all over everything.

It was boiled blood. While it's sort of technically incorrect (blood itself is green, blood CELLS are red), you could say that the blood cells were burnt into a dark red smoke by Manhattan's attack. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides, tricking people is completely out of character for Manhattan. He has no motive for deceiving the others; what does he care if they think R is dead or not? Why would he go to the trouble? If he did want to teleport Rorschach away, he just would have done it; it wouldnt have affected the world peace one way or the other if he's dead or disappeared.

Yeah, I remember that part where Manhattan promised Veidt to kill Rorschach. Totally man. Also that part when he said he despised and hated human life by the end of the comic. It's awesome.

actually, manhattan does joke. did anyone else notice the great pun when he lifted the glass palace into the air on mars? something to the effect of "trust me, i fully understand the gravity of the situation". eh? eh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Entropicflux (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor did you address my point, which was that the only way to believe that Osterman teleported Rorschach would be to believe that he created the fake blood to trick people, and that's not how he rolls. And yes, it's blood. Blood blood blood 100% blood. That you could even suggest it is "smoke" indicates to me that you're not capable of honest argumentation.

And finally, people who make the argument that Rorschach is alive are probably basing that on a misreading of page 27, panel 3 of the relevant book. In fact, they're missing the joke completely, which is a shame, because it's pretty funny: Manhattan says, "You needn't consider Rorschach. I strongly doubt he'll reach civilization." Remember Dr. Manhattan talking about water spontaneously turning to gold, and other technically possible but astronomically improbable "thermodynamic miracles?" Well, it's POSSIBLE that Rorschach's disintigrated atoms will spontaneously reform by pure coincidence, and Manhattan's statement is a delicious bit of dry, ironic understatement. That's all. Argyrios 10:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Osterman was well known for a sharp sense of humor and a total simpathy for terrorists and murderors. Like when he helped The Comedian kill that asian woman and protected him from a sharp broken bottle aimed at his face.

I never claimed Osterman was making a joke. He's just being who he is, and it is funny. Your arguments are rife with straw men.

Personally, I thought he was referring to the Journal being understood by society at large. I guess Veidt would misinterpret that though. Also, the other mystery commentator here who keeps writing his entries in "surfer speak", good heavens! Stay in school, young man. -- 60.46.249.243 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I changed it back because he so completely obviously killed Rorschach

Also, no original research/ideas allowed on wikipedia. If you want to make the claim that Rorschach was teleported and support it with arguments from the text, good for you I suppose, but this controversy simply does not exist anywhere else. Do a Google search and check, and every site says Manhattan killed Rorschach. This is no place to post your little pet theory.Argyrios 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can in the discussion areas. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this topic a bit of a moot point? This would be a relevant topic if there was a continuation of the story, but besides the up and coming movie (which has been in-the-works for probably 10 years), there's been no discussion of continuing the Watchmen comics / genre (that I am aware of).
--ric_man 06:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality

This whole section seems pretty flaky if you ask me. Misogeny does not always equate to homosexuality, and his uncomfortably long handshakes are hardly viable evidence. Rorschach is someone who has lived with hardly a single social contact in years, it's no wonder he has trouble with common ettiquette.

I'll leave it as it is for now, but a few instances of circumstancial evidence don't seem suffecient case for a place in this article to me.

I disagree. You are mixing up the standards of judgment for real life with those of an elaborately constructed work of fiction: Nothing in Watchmen is done just for the hell of it. If there's an obvious parallel such as the respective handshakes of Nite Owl and Rorschach, it is there deliberately, and it is there for a reason. After reading this section, I looked up the panels myself, and the parallel is obvious once it is pointed out... I advise you to take a look; Rorschach clearly holds Dreiberg's hand for several panels beyond Dreiberg's comfort zone, causing him to sputter and lose his train of thought. This topic is certainly encyclopedic and an important part of Rorschach's character. Argyrios 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this theory really has a leg to stand on. The alternate persona of Rorschach is utterly inhuman, and sees himself as such. He sees everything as details pertaining to his goal of destroying crime wherever he sees it, and has little interest in humans, sexually or otherwise (except when he beats them up). If anything, this section ought to be refined to state that it is likely Kovacs' repressed human side resurfacing, who is obviously not used to things like handshakes since he's been pretty well dormant for decades.

You are ignoring the most important evidence cited in the section, or at least misrepresenting it. It isn't surprising that Rorschach took Dan's hand for too long. By itself, this isn't evidence. You're completely right about that. That's not so much the point. The point is that this sequence almost exactly parallels an earlier sequence showing Dan taking Laurie's hand for too long. This is a very specific thematic element. It is not something that happens coincidentally. What, you think that after they went to print, Alan Moore was like "Shit man, those panels are almost identical! I forgot I'd already drawn that interaction."

Throughout Watchmen, Alan Moore meticulously uses repeated imagery as wry commentary, elements of themes, and plot devices. To suggest that he did it everywhere else but that this is a coincidence is absurd. So yes, the fact that he took Dan's hand is not evidence of his being gay. The fact that there is a parallel between two scenes, the first of which definitely shows Dan betraying his feelings for Laurie, and the second of which shows Rorschach occupying that same role, is very strong evidence. Argyrios 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The parts of this section about potential homosexuality may violate WP:OR. Jefffire 12:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm owned. It's not as if there's a large body of scholarly material to cite, but I can't find it anywhere else. I honestly think the NOR rule breaks down when the topic of the article is not really the subject of in-depth research... at least I haven't been able to find any articles analyzing specifically Rorschach at all, so of course there isn't going to be anything to cite. Nonetheless you are correct that this violates the NOR rule. I won't attempt to re-add it. Argyrios 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think you might be right about it, but the rules are a harsh mistress. Also it wasn't me who added the comment above, despite it getting editted into my message, but I did appreciate it. Jefffire 09:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; I just saw two lines and then your sig... should have checked history first. Peace. Argyrios 18:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I will second the motion of the reason for Rorschach holding Dreiberg's hand not necessarily being sexual, from my own thought the moment I read it: psychologically, Rorschach trusted no one; Dreiberg's self-doubts are utterly alien to the former's absolutism. After he had been betrayed to the authorities after taking such precautions, Rorschach's grip on Dreiberg was, by this reader at least, taken to be the kind of warning that he gave early in the story, when he snapped the informant's finger without a thought: cross him/betray him, and [insert] would be annihilated; that, and likely, too, his studying of Dreiberg's actions in response to his own, to determine if he was the traitor. As elaborated later in the work, Rorschach's trust of either of his would-be rescuers did not completely reemerge (if completely is the adequate word) until the moment he knew it was Veidt instead. --Chr.K. 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems slightly odd - given Rorschach's views on most things, is it at all likely he would condone homosexuality?

If anything, I think it's most likely that Rorschach would be asexual.

In my personal opinion, as stated above, Rorschach is really more asexual than anything. Rorschach and Superman have a lot in relation. When Watchmen is going over Rorschach's past and he is explaining with the paintings and the kidnapped girl Rorschach states that it was, "Walter Kovacs that closed his eyes, and Rorschach opened them." What that says to me is at that time, Walter Kovacs as a person actually "died" in a way. My point with all of this is, like Superman, during the day and "off-hours" it is Walter Kovacs on the street like Clark Kent; but, when it is time to fight crime, Superman takes off the glasses, just as Rorschach puts on his "face." Since Rorschach is not technically a person I don't see how he could be sexual. I wouldn't be surprised if Rorschach spoke monotonely while the only emotion that he shows was through his mask, excpet in the end with Dr. M. -Greg G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.230.2 (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's asexual. I think he wishes he was, pretends to be, but isn't. He's definitely repressed and highly uncomfortable with sexuality, though, especially female sexuality. He's uncomfortable handling ladies' clothing at his job, had to cut up the blot dress when he first took it home so it "didn't look like a woman anymore," he's "never liked" Laurie's costume (presumably because it is ridiculously revealing), and then of course there's that childhood nightmare about his mom and a john having sex, where he woke up with "dirty feelings." All of the above I think are signals that Kovacs does get aroused by women and that it actually doesn't take much, either, if handling dresses and underwear makes him uneasy.

I say Kovacs because there is a dichotomy there between Kovacs and Rorschach, and the comic makes it fairly clear that Kovacs is still in there, that Rorschach hasn't really killed his humanity anywhere near as thoroughly as he tries to put across. Rorschach is inhuman in a lot of ways, basically a monster, but underneath all of it he's still Walter Kovacs, Human Being, with all the unfortunate weaknesses and trappings thereof. 12.36.8.62 (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Right after Rorschach leaves Dr.Manhattan base,he is walking accross the street and sees a naked women in a window,he stops and starts to see her body,but when a man comes to have sex with ther,he continues to walk. I think that its not the female sexuality that disturbs him,is the whole idea of sexual relationship. By that scene,whe can even assume that he feels both aroused and disturbed when in contact with women. And his Handshake with Nite Owl II does not have a clear parallel with the relationship between dreidberg and silk spectre,simply because they (Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre) dont have a handshake. Specifically,Dreidberg touches Laurie´s shoulder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.30.204 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that in the special Watchmen book, Moore states that he did not want Rorschach to be a parody of right-wing adepts,he wanted a character with deep personality and characterization. See,he already put a homosexual character who is right-wing (Captain Metropolis). I dont think Moore would lack creativity to do something different with Rorschach backround. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.7.231 (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

if it helps Daqve Gibbions said the hand shack was to show his social awkwardness, not draw a parallel to the other similar dan laurie thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.156.166.222 (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Analysis Section

I'm not entirely happy with the whole analysis section here - it seems rather POV, and specfically, Ozymandias's point of view. The analysis section seems to take the view that although Veidt's actions were morally ambiguous, his end result was good. I'd argue that, and say it was all ambiguous. Did he do the right thing at all? Who knows. It's perhaps worth observing that real history has shown that the US and Soviet Russia didn't come to nuclear war, without the benefit of an apparent alien invasion wiping out most of New York. Remember the pirate comic, where the protagonist descends into the utmost depravity, then goes on a killing spree in his town in order to save it from the Black Freighter, only to discover he hadn't needed to at all and had become just as bad as they were. Veidt had apparently been dreaming about that, suggesting (to me at least) that perhaps he hadn't been as justified as all that anyway.

So, in that case, Rorschach wasn't cracking in the face of a massive moral ambiguity, but merely wanting to deal with the biggest single crime in human history. His tears may have just been frustration that the people he'd trusted, the few people he could have hoped to rely on to see things the same way as he did, didn't see it that way at all but were swayed by Viedt's rhetoric.

(On a slightly different note, why does Manhattan kill him? He couldn't give a monkey's either way, and he's just going along with what most people want. After all, he's so far beyond right and wrong by that point that he couldn't see them with a telescope on a nice clear night.)

And so Rorschach isn't as black and white as all that either. His normal view seems to be that the ends justify the means, but clearly he doesn't feel it in this case. Like his mask, he may look all black and white, but there's something more complicated underneath. I think that's the central point of the whole book - can you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, and vice versa, and which is which? I have my own opinions on the case presented in Watchmen, but I don't think it can be simplified to the way Rorschach is described in here. It should be counted as a possibility that, maybe, he was the one in the right. And by the end of the book, the only one. Or, again, maybe he wasn't.

This has been a bit incoherent, I realise. I hope some of it makes sense to someone. There does seem to be an unacknowleged division among fans of the book into Rorschachites and Ozymandiites. Perhaps there's a phd thesis in that for someone?

On a soewhat different tack, I'd disagree with the comment that Rorschach's murder of Big Figure and his henchmen demonstrates his sadism - I don't think he is sadistic in the normal sense. It's not that he gets a thrill out of extreme violence, he just treats the people he views as criminals/scum/lowlife in the way he thinks they deserve. Which is not the same thing at all. Then again, coming back to the main point yet again, is it motives or actions which count more?--MockTurtle 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you make good points, and if you want to rewrite or revise the analysis section, I'll support you and review the changes. Argyrios 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a bit of thought over the next day or two and see what I come up with. --MockTurtle 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting take, MockTurtle. I especially liked the bit about Rorschachites and Ozymandiites -- my own thoughts were kind of heading that way, too, if not quite so eloquently. I do want to point out, however, that the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union never waged a nuclear war in the real world is irrelevant; the book takes place in an alternate reality in which the existence of Dr. Manhattan has brought them much, much closer to the brink of war than they ever were in non-Watchmen reality. But I agree that the book is ambiguous, and this article less so. I would imagine that the ambiguity over whether Veidt's actions were necessary or not is just as deliberate and carefully controlled as the ambiguity over whether they were moral or immoral (or "other"). MrBook 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"I do want to point out, however, that the fact that the U.S. and the Soviet Union never waged a nuclear war in the real world is irrelevant; the book takes place in an alternate reality in which the existence of Dr. Manhattan has brought them much, much closer to the brink of war than they ever were in non-Watchmen reality." 100% agreed. This information is supported by the back-up article in issue 4. I think Rorschach is a crazy piece of shit. A fascinating character, but, as a person, an extremely racist, terrorized prick. He loved the newspaper that defended the KKK. He defended Truman for Christ sake! Anyone that admires him must have a problem. Moore himself said he was a terrorized man, and that he never would agree with his philosophy. I do think there will still be war in the universe of Watchmen. Veidt's plan wasn't perfect. Like Manhattan said, nothing comes to an end. GeorgeBP 02:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Alan Moore's message in these paradoxes is that just because one rejects utilitarianism in favor of objective morality does not guarantee that one's moral choices will be correct." Aside from removing a cite request (I assume inserted by someone who thought "message" meant an email or something, not "author's meaning"), I tried for quite a while to clean this line up and eventually just deleted it. I'm not sure if it's because it implicity assumes that there is a way to determine "correct" moral choices, or that it claims knowledge of Moore's intent. If someone can clean up those lit. crit. and ethics problems, go for it. =) Bopo 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

MockTurtle is correct: Rorschach was not necessarily sadistic; such is a subjective interpretation of his actions based on one's own worldview; is a wolf sadistic when it eats a prey's entrails? Rorschach's mindset was as alien to the society around him as was, say, Ahab's, to the Victorian one. Rorschach is sadistic only to those who believe that people deserve mercy when they make mistakes or commit crime. --Chr.K. 12:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Objectivism

Wasn't there one something here about Rorschach being an objectivist? It seems like someone replaced that with "moral absolutist". Did the person who added that (and probably deleted objectivism) not know that Rorschach is based on an objectivist character (The Question), and is an extreme version of this? -- LGagnon 23:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Rorschach is near-universally described as a moral absolutist, as that much is very clear from the comics and, I think, has been stated in official interviews or articles or somesuch, whereas the "objectivism" label is more disputable and less common, and, as you yourself say, is more applicable to his source character (The Question) than to Rorschach himself. Properly referenced, detailed explanations of interpretations of his philosophical stance, etc. merit inclusion in the article, but simply labeling him, without clarification, as "objectivist" is probably overstating how accepted that interpretation is. -Silence 00:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to look up a few sources that mention that Rorschach is supposed to be an objectivist character. I've seen them before, and it's a pretty common interpretation given that Moore has publically stated that he considers objectivism to be laughable (not an uncommon sentiment for a leftist anarchist such as Moore). I did find one source recently that might help somewhat (note: it's a PDF file): [1]. -- LGagnon 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Silence. Why would Rorschach be an objectivist? Objectivism is essentially the idea that one's own personal interests and happiness should be their singular moral purpose. Quite to the contrary, Rorschach is willing to sacrifice every ounce of personal happiness or self-interest for the good of humanity (as he sees it in his black/white terms) and, in the end, he gives up his life. If he was an objectivist, he would've been more concerned with his own well-being and self-preservation. So I really don't think the connection between Rorshach and objectivism makes any sense at all. -- anonymous

Well in that case Mr. A and The Question (Ditko's version) aren't objectivists. But they are. The thing about the so-called "objectivist" vigilantes is that they only subscribe to the metaphysics of the philosophy of objectivism, i.e., objective reality (most notably shown as the law of identitiy "A is A"). Good is good and bad is bad, a choice is made by a character and they are judged by the Objectivist on-looker, who is always shown to be infallible. Moore may have been trying to show that the judgement made by a morally objecivist onlooker can in itself be biased and fallible, and even unstable (in the case of Rorschach). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.24.3 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Artistic details

Rorschach's 'face' is also identical on Chapter one, Page 24, panel 6; As his journal states "...even in the face of armegeddon I shall not comprimise on this' to Chapter twelve, page 20, for most of the panels (though most prominant on panel 7) where he says 'Joking of course' then 'No, not even in the face of armegeddon'

His mask is also identical in chaper one, page 15, panel 3, and in chapter 10, page 14, panel 2 - both of them during visits to Happy Harry's bar to for "interrogation". Not sure if it has any significance, just something I noticed. //Frostious 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Something that's bugged me: why does Rorschach take his mask off just before Dr. Manhattan kills him? Is it because that way, somehow, it will be Kovacs dying, and not Rorschach? He made it pretty clear earlier that he thinks of Kovacs and Rorschach as two different people. Although he also seemed to say that he thought Kovacs "died" during the kidnapping incident and Rorschach took his place. Fumblebruschi 20:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I really like your your point, Fumble; Kovacs the man dies (everything of him except his blood is vaporized), but Rorschach the concept endures. At the end, his mask ink reverts into a single lump of black, without someone inside to "scrawl his will over a morally blank world." The other reason Kovacs takes his mask off is so Gibbons can draw him crying. It's not about stubbornness, Kovacs truly feels the pain of ruining a perfect world by divulging its awful genesis in the same way Veidt feels the pain of every innocent he killed. Maybe that's why he asked Dr. Manhattan for death; he couldn't resolve his morals and the desire to see the world a better place. Plotlessviolence 04:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that Rorschach cared two hoots about the world being a better place. Evil had to be punished; that was all that mattered. I take his tears as being of frustration in the face of a truly immovable object that would not let him accomplish the one goal that mattered to him. His statement about preserving Veidt's new Utopia and one more body among the foundations making little difference comes across as bitter sarcasm.

You could say, if you like, that when he removes his face, he is himself putting an end to Rorschach, leaving Manhattan to dispose of Kovacs.

One part I like is the earlier scene between him and his landlady, when she begs him not to call her a whore in front of her children as they do not know what she does for a living. It seems as though Kovacs breaks through for a moment with the realization that, as vile a mother as she is, she is still better than the one he had. It'd be nice to work in a mention of this somewhere.Captain Pedant 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Don't we have a Gibbons picture of him that we can use ? --Beardo 18:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a Gibbons picture at the end of the article but I would suggest moving out the Mayhew one completely. Unless there is a connection that I am unaware of and that is not pointed out, there seems little reason to make this the primary visual focus of the article. Perhaps if there were an "other artists renditions" section to hold non-canonical interpretations of the character (the largest problem I see with the work is the ability to read the entire question that has been spray-painted on the wall) it would have a place. As it is now, it almost seems like a random bit of fan-art. PatboyX 09:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea where this image came from, but I can't think of any reason to include it in any Wikipedia article. Rorschach was visually created by Dave Gibbons, and Gibbons is the author of every authorized drawing of the character; his is indisputably the definitive illustration of Rorschach and should be the primary (and probably the only) version featured in Rorschach (comics). -leigh (φθόγγος) 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing this image; its use stretches Fair Use far beyond a reasonable point. Mangojuice^talk 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone please find a Dave Gibbons picture? The article looks so empty without an image of Rorschach in the beginning. GeorgeBP 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima, Veidt and Rorschach

From Moore's interview on http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/?p=613 : "The thing with Rorschach was intentional. He mentions President Truman on the first page of Watchmen and there is that brief essay which ends up saying “I think President Truman was right to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and that’s all I have to say about my parents”, and so, you know… that was a pretty common thought, that Truman was right to drop the bomb for that reason." "But at the end of the book, Ozymandias – who does this awful thing to New York… which is really, by extension, no more horrible than Hiroshima – you’ve got that parallel there."

Now, please, stop vandalizing the article just because you think Rorschach is a knight in a shinning armor. GeorgeBP 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't prove your OR, it says that Rorschach was pro-hiroshima, which I left in, and that Ther e is a parallel between Hiroshima and Ozymandias' plan. It doesn't say that there is irony, or that he is conflicted, or that he is a moral objectivist, and it certainly doesn't mention Ayn Rand. You are reading what you want into the article, not what is there. If you want me to stop "vandalizing" this article that you obviously feel you have a right to add drivel to, go complain to an admin, because as long as you keep adding this crap i will keep improving the article by removing it. Also, I think that Rorschach is a sick and flawed individual, I don't particularily see him as a Knight in Shining Armour. WookMuff 20:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, if there is a parallel, if the two situations are similar, then of course he is being inconsistent by defending one and condemning the other. You know it's true, accept it. You can change the paragraph, but you can't just remove the information. I'll keep putting the information back, for as long as you don't come up with a better response. Steve Ditko was an objectivist and Moore used this as a base for Rorschach: "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. During the '60s, I learned pretty quickly about the sources of Steve Ditko's ideas, and I realized very early on that he was very fond of the writing of Ayn Rand." http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html . Now shut up and accept that you're wrong. GeorgeBP 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a very simple way of looking at things. Once again you are using paragraphs that DON'T SAY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THEY SAY!!! If you wanna say Steve Ditko was right-wing, then sure, thats a great paragraph for it. Steve liked Ayn Rand, right on. Ayn Rand is an objectivist, Ok. But Rorschach is an objectivist, NO. It doesn't say that. You can spin it all you want but thats not what it says. Also, Rorschach isn't based on Ditko, he is based on a creation of Ditko's which Moore then imbued with some of Ditko's attitudes. Please stop the weak attacks, by the way. If you can't say what you mean without telling me to shut up, thats hardly my fault. WookMuff 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

He's based on The Question, who is an objectivist. Also, Moore says he took Ditko's politics and applied them to Rorschach. He even mentions Ayn Rand in the same context. Ditko was an objectivist. I've proved you wrong with quotes and interviews with the CREATOR of the work and you keep saying the same bullshit over and over and wanting to shape the article with your opinions. Now stop vandalizing this article.

You didn't answer why you erased the Hiroshima inconsistency once again. I will repeat one more time. Moore said there is a parallel between Hiroshima and Veidt. He said one is no more horrible than the other. Rorschach supports one, but condemns the other. That's inconsistent, and if you can't come up with a better response, just go take care of your life and leave this article to people who have sources and really know what they're talking about. GeorgeBP 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll waste my time one more time just to put this quote here from Alan Moore: "We were able to do all this stuff, so yeah, it was much better the way it eventually worked out but there was a sort of a seed of the original Charlton characters but we took them further. Steve Ditko's Question/Mister A, Rorschach is a kind of logical extension of that character but I'm sure it's not one that Steve Ditko himself ever imagined, in fact I did hear that someone was interviewing Steve Ditko and asked him whether he'd seen Watchmen and this character in it called Rorschach and he said "Oh yes, I know that, he's the one who's like Mister A, except Rorschach is insane." [Laughs] I thought, well yeah, that's about what I'd expect! Well, Mister A wasn't, presumably." http://www.blather.net/articles/amoore/watchmen2.html

Mister A was the perfect example of an objectivist character. Like Alan said, Rorschach is a logical extension of him, only he is kind of insane. There are tons of websites saying that Rorschach is an objectivist character. I believe this discussion is over. GeorgeBP 04:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit old, but I feel like Moore's parallel is flawed (though of course, the article should report his opinion, not my own OR). Supporting the nuclear attack on Hiroshima while condemning Veidt's actions is not at all inconsistent. The problem with Veidt is not that he kills some large amount of people, but rather that his actions cause the USA to seek peace with the "immoral" and "evil" enemy (Soviet Russia). I propose that this would be unacceptable to Rorschach, and to anyone who believes in the objective superiority of America (as a nation if you characterize Rorschach as a right-wing nationalist, or as a form of economic organization if you characterize him as a Randian Objectivist). It was all right to "save lives" with the atomic bomb in the case of Hiroshima, since imperial Japan was all but defeated anyway, but with Veidt's actions, the fundamental goal - destroying evil - remains unaccomplished. You must absolutely account for this fundamental goal, since without it (and based solely on the essay) Rorschach almost seems like a pacifist, which he obviously isn't. --Nurax (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to find the reason why Rorschach was able to draw the distinction, and to me, it is simply that Japan was the enemy whom we were at war with. They, as an entire country, were the criminal who needed to be caught and no mercy was shown to them. These clearly fits Rorchach's world view. Show no mercy to evil (however you define evil). With Veidt's plan, there was no war and no enemy. Everyone is punished equally, including the innocent. This is not how Rorchach operates.WikiHistoryEditorGuy (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this is the place for it, but I disagree with both of you. Rorschach Is pro-Hiroshima and anti-Ozymandiues' plan because IT IS A LIE. Rorschach can't live in a world which is defined solely by a lie, but he knows that its over, its done, and it is for the best. Thats why he begs Doc Manhattan to kill him... can't live with it, can't live without it. Of course, all this is immaterial without any proof, so meh. WookMuff (talk) 06:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Moore's negative opinions of Objectivism

Rorschach is not an Objectivist. He is a Sociopath. He is the creation of a Socialist/Anarchist that sees Objectivism as a philosophy of Sociopathic personalities. That is his opinion and not a fact. To say Rorschach is Objectivist is to make the statement a fact.

To say, "Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display a belief in objectivism and moral absolutism, where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished." is incorrect. At no moment in Watchmen does Rorschach mention anything about Ayn Rand or quote any one of her books or essays. It should say, "Rorschach’s actions and journal writings display Alan Moore's negative opinions of Objectivism. He treats it as a kind of moral absolutism where good and evil are clearly defined and evil must be violently punished."Billyjoekoepsel 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's moral objectivism article: "Moral objectivism or moral realism is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. According to Richard Boyd, moral realism means that:"

"Moral statements are the sorts of statements which are (or which express propositions which are) true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc.); The truth or falsity (approximate truth . . . ) of moral statements is largely independent of our moral opinions, theories, etc.; Ordinary canons of moral reasoning—together with ordinary canons of scientific and everyday factual reasoning—constitute, under many circumstances at least, a reliable method for obtaining and improving (approximate) moral knowledge."

So, yes, Rorschach does display a belief in moral objectivism. CuriousDog 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any sort of interpretation of Rorschach should be mentioned in the article, including those of the authors stated in interviews. The only canon should be that written in Watchmen. The authors' own views can change but Rorschach as a character exists only in the novel, which is constant. 68.42.72.226 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No. This article isn't meant to show canon. If you can prove Alan Moore said that he meant for the character to be objectivist, then "it's not in the novel itself" is no reason to exclude the fact that Moore himself thought Rorschach was objecivist. --68.161.144.212 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Themes and Sexuality

I think the Themes and Sexuallity section should just outright go.

I just re-read Watchmen and I haven't noticed misogony. Sure, he got ---- up by seeing his abusive mom have sex. Who wouldn't?

Sure, he doesn't like handling women's undies. Who does? Well, some people do. But most people feel weird handling stranger's nether-things.

I've seen no evidence Roschach hates women. Heck, he even restrains himself when asked to by a woman he has every reason to hate. Lots42 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that he's misogynistic at all. I can see how he is portrayed as being uncomfortable with sexuality though. --Havermayer 06:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Argeed, I've removed that senetence. Tomgreeny 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering that these sections constitute original research, they have been removed outright and should not be restored without verifiable coverage by reliable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

I remember Doc Manhattan saying that he didn't believe in God, but I don't remember Rorschach saying that he doesn't believe in God. So I'm not sure if the fictional atheist category is appropriate. --Havermayer 06:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In his interview with the psychologist there are some relevant passages (chapter 6, page 26):

Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone

and:

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 the dogs. It's us. Only us.

So we can see that Rorschach believes in free will – that is, people are responsible for their actions rather than being determined by a higher power. You could probably make arguments either way as to whether the text implies atheism. --James 06:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Before the incident with the girl,Rorschach believed in God (according with Dr.Malcon scriptures recording kovacs time in school). When he started to live with the worst elements of the human society,his sense of spirituality was destroyed by the chaotic events and the high amount of suferring he saw and endureded. He is not atheist by option,not because he feels atheism is the right way of thinking.He is an atheist because his hopes in a sense of purpose to humanity were shattered. In my opinion Rorschach wished the existence of God,but the events he witnessed destroyed his former beliefs and hopes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.63.177 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the categories. Atheist is not there. Though in any case, I do not think that the second quote implies atheism. I think that he was talking about man's savage nature and how we often think that the bad things in life are God's fault, even though they are not. He also could've been stating that he doesn't believe in fate or destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.140.179 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is from when we used to categorize characters by their religious beliefs, we don't anymore. Rorschach used to be in the Fictional atheists category before it was decided such sections weren't relevant.Ash Loomis (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rorschach.png

Image:Rorschach.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rorshach 300.jpg

Image:Rorshach 300.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Parallelism

I look at the Nite Owl II page on wiki and it sates that Batman was the inspiration for him, but in numerous interviews Moore has stated that they tried to explore the character of Rorschach and parallel him as being Batman. If you don't believe me here is a vid.(3:18)(http://watchmencomicmovie.com/092407-comics-britannia-alan-moore-video-02.php)

First off... new threads are supposed to go to the bottom of the page.

Second... The comments need to be sourced. It looks like you've got one for including the information here. Are the like comments at Nite Owl referenced or just there? Also keep in mind that there may be sources pointing to each of the two characters show some of Batman's characteristics. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the second sentence of the Nite Owl page. Here: "They are modified versions of the various Blue Beetle characters created for Fox Feature Syndicate and later sold to Charlton Comics, with the second Nite Owl bearing certain similarities to Batman." Well I guess its fine. I wont edit the Nite Owl one because I am not trying to say Nite Owl isn't Batman-like. I am just stating that Rorschach also has Batman-like qualities. And all the edits that I made, if you see my ip, are directly from the graphic novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.170.208 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach not right-wing?

Doesn't Alan Moore say in an interview (read above)that he is? Is he wrong about his own character? Sure you can make an argument that he was partically influenced by Ditko's objectivist views, but in Moore's mind, objectivism and right-wing were related. Plus, in the novel, we see Rorschach is an avid reader of a right-wing newspaper. The only way you can say that he isn't right-wing is if you provide sufficient evidence that Moore doesn't know jack about politics, but this needs to be backed up with solid sources, not original content. I wanted to take it here before editing. No response in a reasonable time and I will edit the article. --Jtd00123 (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a cite that Moore says the dude is right-wing, then add it in. But saying 'Rorschach is right wing because he reads such and such and once said this and that' is original research and someone will probably delete it. Relatedly, I have read many left wing books and I tend to be right wing; I consider it good to know what the 'other side' is thinking. Lots42 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it is cited here on the this discussion page. Just scroll up to the Hiroshima section. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to paint conservatives badly, I am stating what Alan Moore intended the character to be. --Jtd00123 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, okay? If you want the cited information in the article, then by all means, go put it in. I fail to see what the problem is. Lots42 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html:

CBA: Do you recall The Question?

Alan: ...that probably led to me portraying [Watchmen character] Rorschach as an extremely right-wing character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.215.88.64 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My only problem with this comes from Rorschach himself. On the very first page of the comic, Rorschach laments about how "all the whores and politicians" chose not to follow in the footsteps of "good men" like Rorschach's father or Harry Truman. I added this to the article, and it was reverted with Nightscream saying that it was neither a contradiction nor salient. On the contrary, it is both of these things. For a character who talks about disliking liberals and "liberal sensibilities" so much, his endorsement of even one liberal - a very prominent one, no less - presents an interesting wrinkle to his character. It also presents a contradiction in that it is seemingly a flaw in Rorschach and his dealing with absolutes. Either that, or it was really poor writing on Moore's part. I won't bother to put the edit in again, as it's not that big a deal, but the reason given for removing it is entirely false. --Zotmaster 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty liberal, but I can't really say anything bad about Gerald Ford (sure the economy sucked, but that isn't something the president really has any control over, might as well blame the Pope), and I can cuss about a lot of stuff. That doesn't mean I'm not a liberal, it just means that Ford is an exception. Rorschach could happen to like not Truman the liberal politician, but Truman the man that dropped the bomb. Truman was also extremely anti-communist: he fired a number of government employees for having communist leaning political beliefs, and the Truman Doctrine was pretty much responsible for the Cold war. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I get all that. My point was that it is interesting because it is entirely out of character for a character who deals more in absolutes than arguably any other comic book character ever. Truman was also, presumably, a liberal with liberal sensibilities, yet Rorschach still thinks of him as someone others should have emulated. I thought the contrast would have been an excellent edition to the article since it clashes so much with the rest of what we know to be true about Rorschach...or, again, it was crappy writing. Based on the rest of the comic though, I'd assume the former. --Zotmaster 02:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality reprise

Short before Rorschach is killed by Jon, there is a big panel on the top of a page with a close-up of his mask. In said panel the mask's ink is reproducing almost exactly the picture Kovacs made about his nightmare when he was 13 (one body, two heads, two arms and four legs). I think this is a symbol of sex or male-female union, but since wikipedia doesn't allow original research, I wonder if this has been stated or analysed somewhere else. Thank you.89.131.127.92 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what scene you're talking about. That's actually a parallel with the previous page, where Dan and Laurie are coupling/embracing in Karnak. (I thought this added a phenomenal kind of sadness to the whole thing--Dan and Laurie have each other, but at that point, Rorschach's lost what comraderie he had regained with Dan and is completely alone again.) 12.36.8.62 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is one of the numerous uses of image echoing by Moore and Gibbons to link scenes and draw emotional connections. He pulls off the mask and again reverts to Kovacs. He stands in defiance but at the same time furiously admits defeat. He had reconnected with Dan, but lost that friendship. His moral absolution has been destroyed by Veidt. Rorschach knows Jon will not let him leave and now he has lost everything. His only saving thoughts are that his journal will be read. You are reading it....it is the book....it is the film. He has told you the truth even though he died for it. In the end, is he not the real hero? Vaginsh (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

someone earased most of this page. it was much bigger last time i checked. ido not know how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleA AAA (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was vandalised. The user who erased is a notable member, but I think he just wanted the article to include only notable content and exclued in-universe style writing. That should have been taken care of with a rewrite and not a wholesale deletion. That just kills any substance to the article. If the content is that small, then why create a seperate page for it? I undid the revision. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like WesleyDodds reverted that change. I'm not going to turn this into a revert war. Hopefully one of the admins will notice this. He thinks the content isn't notable. I disagree. A significant portion of the bio gives context to the character. Especially with a movie coming out, the bio is indeed notable. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, by the way. In fiction articles, the articles should not be overwhelming plot summary with no out-of-universe reference. In this article, the summary of in-story events is ludicrously overdetailed. This is not only a content issue, but overly-detailed plot info like this can be construed as copyright violation. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

If so little is written about the character, it makes no sense to have a separate page. It should be merged into the Characters List page for the comic or a shorter summary is needed. A shorter history would constitute fair use and I've seen character bios with enough detail that still manages to have a reasonable size. The deletion of the entire section is stupid. 67.189.165.70 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this should probably be redirected as well. indopug (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

the page was not actually vandilized. the computer i was looking at it with just sucked.

i found out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.238 (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Why

is Rorschach the only Watchmen character to have his own individual article left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.212.84 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm Afraid So. I don't know why but some dickhole deleted all the articles except Rorschach's. Bioman316 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its Editor favoritism, ala the guy thats doing it loves Rorschach to the point of deleting all the other characters for bs reasonings yet the Rorschach article falls guilty to those same reasons. 76.2.143.146 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This one was deleted as well but it keeps getting restored. I see no need for it. Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Lots42 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason is was kept is because Rorscharch is the only probable character with enough secondary soruce material available to merit its own article. And even that is debatable. If you want to turn it into a redirect, go ahead. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I, like many other Wikipedians, gave up on editing this site years ago. Great character articles suddenly became "non notable" and redirected to 1 big article. This was mostly started by TTN, and then continued by others. After questioning and fighting these actions for months, I just gave up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.136.235 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how the following removed text is considered original research.

-Nothing is known of the biological father other than the fact that his name was "Charlie" and that he frequently spoke in favor of Harry Truman.

- Rorschach is a very calm, methodical investigator and is capable of withstanding great physical discomfort. Unmasked, he had a physically unattractive face with a blank, unblinking stare. He was polite but aloof and humorless towards allies and enemies alike. Rorschach is described as speaking in a monotone voice. His speech pattern typically consists of sentence fragments and zero article grammar. He bathed infrequently and wore lifts in his shoes to increase his 5'6" stature. Rorschach was generally disliked by everyone except Dan Drieberg.

- During the failed Crimebusters meeting in a flashback, however, he was shown to speak normally, indicating that his characteristic speech pattern was adopted after his perceived mental breakdown following a kidnapping affair that he handled in 1977. Another instance when Rorscach appeared to speak normally was during his frequent visits to a newsstand. He was remembered by the newsstand owner as a "prophet of doom" signboard carrier (a guise Kovacs took during the daytime). One of these visits was seen in an early chapter long before it was revealed that this then unnamed character was actually Rorschach.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'unmasked' sentence is original research. The rest is just fancruft. True facts but fancruft. Lots42 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Universe Online?

Is this true? I have yet to see evidence of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.16 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

New image

I have uploaded an image of Rorschach in the new Watchmen film and replaced the old one. Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Origin of mask

The article currently states that Dr. Manhattan created the fabric that became Rorschach's face, but the comic itself says it was from the "Dr. Manhattan line". To me that says it was marketed using Manhattan's name, not created by Manhattan himself (especially because I can't imagine Osterman giving a damn about fabric). Thoughts? 72.83.180.155 (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The material should be presented as indicated by the source. If the source says that, then that's what the article should indicate. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then someone who is allowed to edit the page might want to fix that. 141.161.127.75 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Life before Watchmen section

Life before Watchmen

Some incorrect punctuation and a missing word . . . .

Please change -- "bearable but unpleasant". -- to -- "bearable but unpleasant." (punctuation goes inside quotes)

Please change -- "always changing, never mixing into grey". -- to -- "always changing, never mixing into grey." (punctuation goes inside quotes)

Please change -- His investigations brought him an abandoned dressmaker's shop. -- to -- His investigations brought him to an abandoned dressmaker's shop. (add word "to" to sentence)

Please change -- the kidnapper, Grice. had fed the girl to his dogs. -- to -- the kidnapper, Grice, had fed the girl to his dogs. (replace misplaced period with a comma)

Please change -- "Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach", and became "Rorschach pretending to be Kovacs". -- to -- "Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach," and became "Rorschach pretending to be Kovacs." (punctuation goes inside quotes - twice)

This should qualify as a minor edit Garbagemania (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the "to" in your third example and fixed the punctuation in your fourth. However, punctuation only goes inside quotes if the punctuation is part of the quoted material (see MOS) so I haven't changed them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted article to redirect to Characters of Watchmen article

As stated in my edit summary, every other character's article has been reverted to a redirect to that page; it isn't fair that Rorschach is the only character that gets a 'full' page. HalfShadow 03:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

More out-of-universe information exists for this character than for the other ones. It's not about fairness, it's about the level of out-of-universe dissemnated information. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is something "unfair" to a fictional character. Not even Ozymandias' towering ego will mind. The problem is that when you merge a page into another you generally have to cut content to prevent unbalancing the destination article. There is sufficient non-trivial information about R to merit the article being the size it is now, so leave it be. Please see the first and last lines of the introductory text to see why Rorschach merits his own page. - BalthCat (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. What does "fairness" have to do with a fictional character? For that matter, how does this pertain to Wikipedia policy? Are the rest of these fictional characters complaining, or something? Nightscream (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese

I have removed Dr Long's theory about Rorschach's motivations as they are completely irrelevant. That journal entry was clearly showed to illustrate that the doc is beginning to worry about what he is going to find out and is not ready to hear it ("case closed"). It doesn't say anything about Rorschach as indeed we find out a few pages later that the doc was wrong. Mentioning it as an alternative theory is confusing and misleading Mezigue (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The doctor's theories might perhaps be mentioned in his section/article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Where/how exactly was he proven wrong? Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We know he was wrong about Moloch's murder. No evidence he was right about Kitty's. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't need "evidence" that he was right abut Kitty's murder. It's a fictional story depicting fictional characters. The fact that Alan Moore saw fit to include the diagnosis makes it perfectly reasonable to mention the doctor's diagnosis. Just because he was wrong about Moloch's murder does not mean that we know that Alan Moore intended him to be wrong about Kitty's, as this would imply that being wrong about an unrelated matter makes a character, therefore, wrong about everything, which is a logical fallacy. Again, where was he proven wrong about Kovacs' motives for becoming Rorschach? Nightscream (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The "evidence" is internal, as it is in all good yarns. Rorschach is presented as being initially quite rational (see Nite Owl II's assessment), which erodes during the course of his career. Since the Kitty incident was at the start of his career, his recollection of it is presumably correct.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interpretation, which would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. My point is that Alan Moore makes no unambiguous indication in the story that Long's diagnosis is incorrect. For this reason, it should be included. Nightscream (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Course he does. This is all before the doc hears the story about the butchered kid and actually understands what Rorschach is all about.Mezigue (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And in what way does Moore indicate that hearing that latter story is intended to indicate that his earlier statement about his anger towards his mother being the inspiration for his vigilantism was wrong? Nightscream (talk)

In no way, but I don't buy the bit about Kitty being imaginary either. That is just intended to show how dismissive the psychologist is about reality he finds uncomfortable. He can only, at that stage, understand someone becoming a masked vigilante for Freudian reasons. However he later accepts Kitty's reality (diary entry 27th October). --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suprised this is even a debate. When I read the story I felt it was quite clear what happened to Kitty was true and Long's diagnosis was correct. Genoveses's murder is what initially made Kovacs to decide to pursue a career as a vigilante. However the Doctor's also correct when he says that the "flimsy story about Kitty Genovese" is just there for him to justify his behaviour to himself. I don't think he meant the story was untrue when he said it was flimsy, just that it's unlikely that that single incident was Rorschach's sole motivation. Long thinks it's more likely he's acting out against injustice because of the injustice he faced as a child. Upon hearing what happened to Genoverse he decided to use that as an reason to go out and beat up criminals because it sounds better than saying "I beat up criminals because my mother beat me as a child."Ash Loomis (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I never implied that the Genovese story was untrue or "imaginary". My position is that we should include all relevant information on this point, including the fact the diary entry in which Michael points out that Long accepts the reality of the Genovese incident (which I didn't recall when I first edited that passage). No matter how you slice it, when Michael says things like "I don't buy the bit..." or when Ash says "I felt it was quite clear...", what you're doing is explaining your personal interpretation, and this is not appropriate for inclusion. What we should do is include all information pertaining to Kovacs' psychology. Whether this should be in the aforementioned section, or in one that we create devoted to this, we should just list all the scenes, lines of dialogue, etc., that explicitly touch upon this point, and let the reader make their own interpretation. Putting our own in the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We were getting our wires crossed then. Although I can't help wondering whether such psychological analysis should appear in Dr Long's section? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we either put it as its own paragraph in between the current first and second paragraphs of the "Life before Watchmen" subsection, since it would immediately follow the passage about Kitty Genovese. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

- Given that the bit about Kitty is still there, wouldn't it be beneficial to use her name as a quicklink so that others can get the full picture? After all, it is only a small subtle change to make, should the reference be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.58.60 (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed the claim that R "decided" that it was Kitty's rejected dress material, preferring the more neutral "recalled". Since memories can be false the latter covers the possibility that R has erred in his memory. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Master martial artist"? "Peak human ability"?

Rorschach is too poor and too crazy to be a master in any martial art. He is a powerful, intimidating street fighter, with a background in boxing and gymnastics. That's it. He also happens to be a short, wiry cagey little man who is surprisingly strong and tough. He isn't Captain America, for chrissakes. His physical condition is hardly 'peak'. Furthermore, what qualifies Rorschach as "possessing surprisingly good detective skills"? He does very little detective work in the comic, and when he does, he jumps to conclusions, and disregards other theories. Sounds more like opinion to me. Someone should revert these changes.

His conclusions are generally correct. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Poverty and insanity aren't disqualifications for being a master martial artist. Just because he didn't go to a McDojo doesn't mean he isn't a martial artist. That he manages to hold up as well as he did against Veidt, break into military installations, and can chuck large dogs through windows at the dogs' owner without the owner knowing where he is are indicative that he is in darn good shape. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Rorschach is in "darn good shape", but he's hardly Shang-Chi or Richard Dragon. His proficiency in hand to hand is due mostly to his ruthless nature and raw strength. There's nothing to indicate in the source material that he has ever received martial arts training, aside from being an amateur boxer in high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.187.24 (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Like most characters in Watchmen, Rorschach has no "super powers".?

This seems very debatable. The main Watchmen article uses the wording "obvious super powers" and that seems more accurate to the series. While only Doctor Manhattan has obvious super powers, it would seem that the others are more than just good fighters. Silk Spectre is a diminutive girl with an attractive but not chiseled physique who fights unarmored in a costume made of soft cloth. But she is able to defeat multiple rioting violent prisoners bare-handed. Even a well developed martial artist would find such a feet difficult on a good day, let alone while presumably out of practice. Her father, The Comedian is a super-soldier and yet carries no more weaponry than the average soldier. It seems that "realism" would dictate he survived being America's second best weapon against the Vietnamese by more than just his tall stature and possession of a gun (traits many “regular” soldiers have). We do not really know who Rorschach's father is. Rorschach's father could well have been a "super" himself, and so like Silk Spectre II, inherited some enhanced DNA that enables him to defeat multiple much larger opponents with little more than his bare-hands and the tools of his environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.165.240.116 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

At no point does the comic say that the Comedian is a super soldier, and your explanation fails to cover why the Silk Spectre I did well for herself: she didn't have a supposedly super-human father. Special forces folks don't cary that much more weaponry than the average soldier because there is only so much you can use. There are no super-villains in Watchmen, just odd-looking or costumed criminals. Go look up Krav Maga and Jack Churchill, and keep in mind that Bruce Lee was capable of stuff that honestly makes what the Watchmen pull seem kinda weak. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail

People, our job is to make a plot summary of what Rorschach does during the comic, not to elaborate in every detail of it. We do not, for instance, need to say what Rorschach said to the prisoners after he threw hot fat over the prisoner. In fact, I'm not sure if we even need to mention that event. We can just say that the prisoners rioted and during that riot Big Figure tried to kill him, but failed. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Nightscream (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach a guilt-ridden psychopath/murderer?

Has it ever been speculated that Rorschach might be a psychopath that eventually became a vigilante out of guilt? There are numerous aspects of his story that point to this.

1- He had an abusive childhood. 2- He was bullied. 3- Was put in a special home due to fight with bullies. 4- Kitty Genovese rejected the dress he made, saying it was ugly, and she was murdered soon after. 5- Blair Roche was kidnapped and killed by a dressmaker. Rorschach was also a dressmaker/tailor. 6- The Rorschach Test is described on Wikipedia, in part, as follows: "It has been employed in diagnosing underlying thought disorder and differentiating psychotic from nonpsychotic thinking in cases where the patient is reluctant to admit openly to psychotic thinking." 7- The "Rorschach inkblot" mask he wears is used to conceal his "identity", in fact he considers the mask his actual face, as if he was trying to hide something about himself, a psychotic nature? 8- Rorschach is also strongly against the idea of keeping the truth hidden from the public. When you take the above into consideration, it is similar to a psychological trait I forget the name of, where one openly objects to something that they are secretly in favor of or secretly involved with (for example, someone who is against gay marriage and gay rights who is actually secretly gay, etc.).

I'm wondering if this has been speculated among Watchmen fans? Thanks 70.48.76.127 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Snake

None of those things are exclusive to psychopaths. In any event, material can only be included if there are reliable, verifiable sources to support it. Nightscream (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, psychopaths do not suffer from guilt. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I feel it's inaccurate to describe Rorschach as a sociopath in the header. It is true the term is used to describe him in the film, but this is more indicative of the screenwriter's ignorance of the term's definition than Rorschach's mental state. Sociopaths are characterized by a lack of empathy or guilt, as well as being able to appear normal and even charming to get what they want. Rorschach's driven by his empathy for victims like he once was. In addition, he displays considerable empathy for the victims of Veidt's actions. Also, Rorschach is not charming in the slightest, aside from Daniel, no one in the book likes him. He also lacks a mask of normality, the other characters view him as insane. Lastly, this article is about the comic book character, not the film character. No one in the book describes Rorschach as a sociopath. If we must include that term, it should be in the section on his portrayal in other media. But I'd prefer we don't include it at all, because it's misleading. It could lead to people who read this article using the term incorrectly to describe any weird or insane character. I'm being bold, and editing it just to say Rorschach is seen as being mentally ill. Ash Loomis (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the description is inaccurate. Does the book have a character describing him as such? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Objectivism vs Nihilism

I do not know why somebody reverted my changes and put back the bit about nihilism. I have re-reverted. Numerous cites attach Rorschach's creation to Objectivism. Honestly, if somebody wanted to remove the claim that he is an objectivist, I wouldn't care. Feel free. However, there are no cites I know of for that bizarre "life is meaningless and a blank canvasse" stuff. --Bertrc (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the nihilism claims, again. In the interest of consensus, I also removed the objectivism claim. The claim about meaninglessness and blank canvasses needs secondary sources, hence my deletion of it as OR. Interpretations of Rorschach's psyche based on what he wrote in his journal are practically thesis material -- What does he believe? What does he come to believe? Do his beliefs in chapter 6 reflect his true or wishful or earlier or final beliefs? -- we shouldn't be claiming what he truly believes unless there are good, reputable sources. (IMHO) --Bertrc (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rorschach (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081107k.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007003510/http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1988/ to http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1988
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325104853/http://www.mania.com/before-watchmen-rorschach-1-comic-review_article_133908.html to http://www.mania.com/before-watchmen-rorschach-1-comic-review_article_133908.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130412023705/http://vip.usaweekend.com/2009/03/watchmens-jackie-earle-haley-on-playing-rorschach/ to http://vip.usaweekend.com/2009/03/watchmens-jackie-earle-haley-on-playing-rorschach
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016150724/http://skew.dailyskew.com/2012/08/before-watchmen-reviews-august-2012.html to http://skew.dailyskew.com/2012/08/before-watchmen-reviews-august-2012.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Abilities

The name of the infobox section is "abilities" not "character traits." Hence "will" and "unpredictability" (whatever those may refer to) are not relevant. Nor is it necessary to repeat one ability in various forms. (e.g. his "tactical brilliance" is on display precisely when he uses improvised weapons.) In general, it is not the place for editors to gush about how awesome Rorschach is in every way. 67.180.143.210 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Another infobox dispute: an editor or editors have twice replaced “torture” in the infobox with “advanced interrogation”. Rorschach breaks people’s fingers until he is satisfied with their answers. No more subtle description than “torture” is needed. 99.203.43.148 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Reggie Long cruft

This new character is barely notable, could we pleace move it away from the main article into a smaller section? Kovacs is the version of the character which people actually cover. Seeing "the name of two fictional characters" is painful to read, it implies the two are of equal notability. Several people have held the Batman cape and the Superman mantle, they're still not worth mentioning in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article.★Trekker (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 14:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Rorschach (character) → Rorschach (Walter Joseph Kovacs) – There are now two characters using the name Rorschach; the other is Rorschach (Reggie Long). NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose per StarTrekker above. Rorschach (Reggie Long) doesn't appear notable to me. It should be merged into this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The Kovacs version is without a doubt the primary topic.★Trekker (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and merge Kovacs is the clear wp:PRIMARYTOPIC and the Reggie version isn't notable—blindlynx 19:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I think the Reggie version passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural support: This request is technical in nature unless one of the articles mentioned here is WP:BLARed, merged, or deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Rorschach (Reggie Long) into Rorschach (character)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not believe that the "Reggie Long" version of the character meets GNG. Its article is a brief lead, a one sentence "publication history", and one short paragraph "reception" to go with mostly "fictional character biography". As it is so linked with the Kovacs character, it should be merged here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The page cites several articles that are specifically about the character. A merger would do nothing but muddle this page about Kovacs with irrelevant info about a different character.★Trekker (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• Come to think of it, I think Reggie should be merged into List of Doomsday Clock characters he only appears in the one arc and most of the coverage of him is plot points related to that. I don't think he's notable outside beyond the work itself. blindlynx 22:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.