A wee thought on Rorschach
As I pretend I'm not buried in homework.
Rorschach is not an Objectivist. Not even in his earlier scenes. He does have shades of Objectivism in his character:
Moral absolutes are a huge part of the Objectivist philosophy. There is always good and there is always evil, and the middle is always evil because compromising on your principles will always have a negative effect on your self-worth. Perhaps it's a tiny pinprick of negativity that you compromised, it's still negativity.
Respect for skills is another piece of Objectivism. Rorschach is anti-Jewish, but he has respect for Daniel because Daniel has impressed him with his skills. Objectivism is crystal clear on the importance of knowing you're talented and skillful and recognizing it in others. It brings forth mutual respect based on objective qualities in a person. In Dan's case, the respect from Rorschach comes from Dan's talent with gadgets and his investigative skills. Dan is useful to Rorschach, and Rorschach--being willing to break fingers and bust heads--is useful to Dan. They have a mutually beneficial relationship based on things they can do and prove to one another.
Beyond that, Rorschach's not really an Objectivist at all. Objectivists aren't against helping people in bad situations; they're against being forced to help people in bad situations. And Rorschach's distaste of money and decadence is decidedly non-Objectivist. To quote Atlas Shrugged:
Reporter: "Do you want us to quote all the things you have said?"
Dagny: "I hope I may trust you to be sure and quote them. Would you oblige me by taking this down verbatim?" [She paused to see their pencils ready, then dictated.] "open quote--Ms. Taggert says"I expect to make a pile of money on the John Gault line. I will have earned it.--close quote.--Thank you so much."
Alan Moore wrote Rorschach with his personal view of Objectivism. Using Rorschach as the avatar Moore meant him to be for the philosophy, people take away the idea that Objectivism is hugely anti-people and anti-hero. It's just not true. In fact, it's a blatant mis-representation of the facts. Objectivism is the celebration of talented, skilled people willing to work hard and enjoy their success. Objectivism is about appreciating heroes and heroic ideals. The end of Watchmen is Alan Moore basically stating that heroes are liars who won't stand up and fight once things have gotten bad enough. Rand would argue that heroes fight because they believe in the fight.
And, in that case, Rorschach is a true Objectivist. At the end of Watchmen, knowing what Adrian's done, he tries to run and fix it. Dropping to his knees in front of Dr. Manhattan and demanding he be killed so as not to live in the world that everyone else is agreeing to is also very Objectivist. He'd rather go down for his principles than live in a world that doesn't respect them. But again, these are brief shades of a character. The whole of the character tells a different story.
That different story is this: Moore wrote a character who was anti-Jewish, anti-woman, and anti-immigrants. Ayn Rand was a Russian Jewish immigrant and had her accent until the day she died. Rorschach would have bought her books to set them on fire.
I'm not saying people should stop writing Rorschach the way Moore gave him to us to read. Rorschach is a fascinating character because of how broken he is, how hard he fights, and how much he honestly feels though he pretends otherwise. I just wanted to point out that there's Objectivism as Rand wrote it--and she's the one who came up with it, so it's hers to define--and then there's what Moore wrote. Which is decidedly not the same thing.
[To learn more about Objectivism, visit your local library, or talk to The Husband, who helped immensely in writing this entry.]
Rorschach is not an Objectivist. Not even in his earlier scenes. He does have shades of Objectivism in his character:
Moral absolutes are a huge part of the Objectivist philosophy. There is always good and there is always evil, and the middle is always evil because compromising on your principles will always have a negative effect on your self-worth. Perhaps it's a tiny pinprick of negativity that you compromised, it's still negativity.
Respect for skills is another piece of Objectivism. Rorschach is anti-Jewish, but he has respect for Daniel because Daniel has impressed him with his skills. Objectivism is crystal clear on the importance of knowing you're talented and skillful and recognizing it in others. It brings forth mutual respect based on objective qualities in a person. In Dan's case, the respect from Rorschach comes from Dan's talent with gadgets and his investigative skills. Dan is useful to Rorschach, and Rorschach--being willing to break fingers and bust heads--is useful to Dan. They have a mutually beneficial relationship based on things they can do and prove to one another.
Beyond that, Rorschach's not really an Objectivist at all. Objectivists aren't against helping people in bad situations; they're against being forced to help people in bad situations. And Rorschach's distaste of money and decadence is decidedly non-Objectivist. To quote Atlas Shrugged:
Reporter: "Do you want us to quote all the things you have said?"
Dagny: "I hope I may trust you to be sure and quote them. Would you oblige me by taking this down verbatim?" [She paused to see their pencils ready, then dictated.] "open quote--Ms. Taggert says"I expect to make a pile of money on the John Gault line. I will have earned it.--close quote.--Thank you so much."
Alan Moore wrote Rorschach with his personal view of Objectivism. Using Rorschach as the avatar Moore meant him to be for the philosophy, people take away the idea that Objectivism is hugely anti-people and anti-hero. It's just not true. In fact, it's a blatant mis-representation of the facts. Objectivism is the celebration of talented, skilled people willing to work hard and enjoy their success. Objectivism is about appreciating heroes and heroic ideals. The end of Watchmen is Alan Moore basically stating that heroes are liars who won't stand up and fight once things have gotten bad enough. Rand would argue that heroes fight because they believe in the fight.
And, in that case, Rorschach is a true Objectivist. At the end of Watchmen, knowing what Adrian's done, he tries to run and fix it. Dropping to his knees in front of Dr. Manhattan and demanding he be killed so as not to live in the world that everyone else is agreeing to is also very Objectivist. He'd rather go down for his principles than live in a world that doesn't respect them. But again, these are brief shades of a character. The whole of the character tells a different story.
That different story is this: Moore wrote a character who was anti-Jewish, anti-woman, and anti-immigrants. Ayn Rand was a Russian Jewish immigrant and had her accent until the day she died. Rorschach would have bought her books to set them on fire.
I'm not saying people should stop writing Rorschach the way Moore gave him to us to read. Rorschach is a fascinating character because of how broken he is, how hard he fights, and how much he honestly feels though he pretends otherwise. I just wanted to point out that there's Objectivism as Rand wrote it--and she's the one who came up with it, so it's hers to define--and then there's what Moore wrote. Which is decidedly not the same thing.
[To learn more about Objectivism, visit your local library, or talk to The Husband, who helped immensely in writing this entry.]