>character made to prove a moral system doesn’t work
>fans don’t care because he’s still a hero
Powerful
>character made to prove a moral system doesnt work. >fans dont care because hes still a hero
>character made to prove a moral system doesn’t work
>fans don’t care because he’s still a hero
Powerful
part of the reason is because he fails to prove the system doesn't work, merely that the character has mental problems. it gets worse when he's also the character that ends the story with any shred of moral integrity.
He’s a smelly incel you idiot
Yeah, and whats bad about that?
Please explain,
People say this and I don't get it?
He hates women, he's pretty has a dim view on people, he doesn't think that anyone's worth saving at the end of the day, and he feels justified by doing his actions instead of helping the system by changing it with the cops.
He's basically a shithead with a shitty moral agenda, the problem is that Moore made everything shitty moral agenda so it's hard to actually see the problem with this character for the most obvious reader.
It makes me sad there was a little cute moment with him and owl, they actually got rid of the drug trade. That was a nice achievement.
They should have stuck together.
You are somehow even more moronic than anyone else in this moronic thread.
>and he feels justified by doing his actions instead of helping the system by changing it with the cops.
Lmao, imagine thinking police are the answer in 2024
To be fair, in the world of Watchmen, the cops are preferable to self righteous crazy people who dress up in costumes and take the law into their own hands.
>instead of helping the system by changing it with the cops
This idiotic statement made me understand why commies cry about "shitlibs" rolling with the status quo
It's simple
But truth exists men literally said killing hundres of thousands of innocent people to avoid further bloodshed was fine earlier in the book you moron. Fricking mongoloids skip the non comic portion of Watchmen and then pretend they understand it.
>But truth exists men literally said killing hundres of thousands of innocent people to avoid further bloodshed was fine
But not lying about it, dumb frick.
Except it can easily be argued "we had to bomb civilians bro we couldn't have used it on a military target bro it had to be civilians we had to stop the war by killing civilians" is a lie.
>we couldn't have used it on a military target
They did though. You think they picked Nagasaki and Hiroshima at random?
funny, because Kokura was the original target of the Nagasaki bomb
Kokura was one of five possible sites. Hiroshima, Kokura, Yokohama, Kyoto and Niigata. Kyoto was replaced by Nagasaki because it was a major port for the Navy and the largest shipyard and repair center for the Navy
Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army and a top military site. Nagasaki was a major port for the Japanese navy. How illiterate are you?
Hiroshima was literally a last minute change due to weather conditions.
Does it change if it had headquarters or not?
And? It was one of the five. Two of those were going to get bombed. They chose multiple targets so that if something like weather affected the mission they could change targets. Also Hiroshima was not changed last minute due to weather. It was always the first target. A recon plane was sent out ahead of the Enola Gay to confirm that the weather was clear. Are you making this shit up or just repeating some ignorant shit you heard on the internet?
>When you're so bad at reading you have to make up things to prove why something no one ever said is wrong
have a nice day troony homosexual
In Alan Moore's own words, he was created to show what Batman would be like irl.
Now stop posting this shit.
I love it when twitter chuds seriously think that the fricking CREATOR doesn't know what he's doing. It always makes my ass cackle.
You're even worse. Alan Moore never intended for it to be political.
You're one of dumbest people in the world if you think Watchmen isn't political.
All Moore's comics are political though. Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta, Halo Jones, The Killing Joke, WHttMoT, TLoEG, Marvelman and others are all political, just like all Gaiman's comics are religious and all Morrison's comics are philosophical.
And all Hickman's comics are mathematical and all Ellis's comics are sociological.
>I love it when twitter chuds seriously think that the fricking CREATOR doesn't know what he's doing.
Moore obviously didn't know what he was doing when he wrote Rorschach. Which actually perfectly ironic, since Rorschach tests are all about personal interpretation. Everybody, including the author, looks at this character and sews something different.
Imagine thinking anything but the reader's interpretation matters. The character stopped being Moore's the moment he lifted his pen off the paper.
If people fail to interpret the creators intentions then the creator is the moron for failing to clearly making a point. This is supposed to be a die hard belief and they cant even articulate it properly? Moronic!
>chuds
Go back to your FSM arguments and leave us alone.
Huh? It’s leftists who push “Death of the Author” not us on the right.
Though it’s hilarious how much you guys seethe when we do use it
Wouldn't Ozymandias be closer to batman than Rorschach? After all The most defining feature of batman was his wealth. He also acts more like Batman (uses prep time, contingency plans, very analytical).
>Rorschach is Batman if he real
>despite not having anything in common with Batman
Both are revenge-driven vigilantes that inspire fear.
>Implying Rorschach had any moral integrity whatsoever.
Alright anon, let's examine his sense of morality.
>Claims he was inspired to become a vigilante by the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese... Yet he wrote off the Comedian's attempted rape of the Silk Spectre as a "moral lapse."
>Believed Ozymandias's plan to kill millions to prevent WWIII was bad, but is okay with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (despite them claiming far more lives than Ozzy's pseudo-alien attack).
Yeah, sure anon, he doesn't seem like a raging hypocrite at all.
>Believed Ozymandias's plan to kill millions to prevent WWIII was bad, but is okay with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Yeah anon, because using a bomb to stop a horrible bloody campaign that would have likely ended with several times that death toll is totally equal to dropping a giant squid on a city to kill millions because you think it might stop the cold war
I mean, it's not like the west and the soviets were united by a threat before and then went back to fighting the moment it was over, right? It's not like this would just cause even more ridiculous arms militarization because everyone's scared of an alien.
the bombs were never necessary and there was no real plans to invade japan. the idea that the bomb stopped a future invasion was made up post war to justify it. the japnese government didnt give a shit about the bombs either and only cared about the emperor being deposed
The bomb almost definitely helped ensure that japan surrendered faster
nah the leadership didnt give a shit about the bombs, tokyo already got firebombed so the attitude was like "eh, whats one more city" the only reason they surrendered is the US promised not to depose the emperor, which was their biggest concern, in addition to the soviets approaching from the other side
Documentation of high level discussions in the Japanese government shows otherwise. The emperor himself was smart enough to throw in the towel and morons in the army tried to stop him by force.
This isn’t even a fricking debate. You can read countless Japanese released intel showing they felt they could make the Americans bleed enough from an invasion to extract a negotiated peace. The nukes and the fact there seemed to be a lot of them from their (poor) intel made them realise that was not going to happen now. There would be no land invasion just nuclear destruction
The firebombings had already done all the damage they could in the previous years because Japanese cities were previously massively constructed with wood. The structures largely remaining were non wood or fire resistant. So they didn’t give a shit about firebombing any more.
Oh and their source of intel for how many nukes America had was just torturing one American pilot who got downed there months ago, after the two nukes dropped they tortured him some more until he made up some shit to make them stop and said the USA was making 500 a week lol. Which is nowhere near reality but I guess they bought it. He didn’t even know what nukes were
Amazing. Everything you just wrote is not just wrong but demonstrably so.
>there was no real plans to invade japan
homie, how moronic are you? They made so many purple hearts for the planned invasion of Japan and the expected casualties from it, that the USA hasn’t had to make any purple hearts since. Even after the Korean War, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc
Do you think they made those for giggles?
>In all, some 1,506,000 Purple Hearts were made for the war effort with production reaching its peak as America geared up for the invasion of Japan. The unexpected ferocity of the Pacific fighting led to last-minute scrambling by the Navy to have awards ready for the invasion of the home islands. The Navy had believed that its initial 1942 order for 135,000 Purple Hearts would be sufficient for all wartime needs but found that it had to order 25,000 more in October 1944—and, alas, 50,000 more in the spring of 1945. These orders could not be fulfilled until as late as the next year—months after soldiers and Marines were expected to fight their way ashore while sailors battled fresh waves of Kamikazes. The director of the mint reprimanded her Philadelphia facility, which was responsible for producing the medal’s central components: “Think of the 20,000 heroes at Iwo Jima, due to receive the Purple Hearts which we are unable to supply!” The Navy brass swallowed hard and made arrangements with the Army to “borrow” 60,000 decorations.
>And then the war ended. The most wonderful of all its surplus: 495,000 unused Purple Hearts.
Holy frick you know nothing about history. You have the entire fricking internet to learn about something yet here you are spouting the most ignorant bullshit and you cap that shit sundae off with something so completely provably false about the emperor that it makes me wonder if you have ever cracked a book that didn't have superheroes in it in your life
can I get an express class then?
Here's a good start
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-15-what-shall-be-done-about-japan-after-victory-(1945)/why-did-japan-choose-war
Also if you are one of those "Russia won WW2" you might be surprised to learn that Russia and Germany were the ones responsible for the war in Europe
https://share.america.gov/the-secret-pact-that-ushered-in-world-war-ii/
He breaks the fingers of a dude who just made fun of him, the dude literally didn’t do shit.
The comparison to the atomic bombings is an easy one to dismiss due to the element of deception and the unknowns involved with the alien plan, and the fact hat the firebombings killed far more people than both nukes combined.
If you read Hollis Mason’s book excerpts the attempted rape of Silk Spectre is pretty glossed over. Just says he was a bad man. So unless her or her daughter felt the need to tell Rorschach the details for some reason, why would he assume it was a brutal rape compared to the multitude of much less serious offences?
He also lets off his landlady for completely lying about him for money just because her kids are around.
>Believed Ozymandias's plan to kill millions to prevent WWIII was bad, but is okay with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (despite them claiming far more lives than Ozzy's pseudo-alien attack).
I don’t understand why this gets bandied around every single watchmen thread. I’m sure Alan Moore thought this was super smart but it’s moronic. They’re similar at all
>US president warns Japanese beforehand he will use his new nuclear weapons on Japanese cities unless they surrender, has planes mass drop leaflets on the specific cities in the weeks before telling them to evacuate because they are gonna get destroyed
>Truman claims full responsibility and doesn’t pass the buck after he nukes them
>Veidt kills millions of people in a false flag attack then blames a fictitious third party
Please, explain how these are meant to be the same? Because from where I’m sitting it’s just “lots of people died in both… THATS THE SAME” in which case you and Alan Moore have a more black and white autistic view than Rorschach lmao
By the same logic the Holocaust is the same as the allies killing German soldiers in battle. Both are masses of people getting killed when they wanted to live after all
>Believed Ozymandias's plan to kill millions to prevent WWIII was bad, but is okay with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I understand this reasoning. I'm morally against dropping bombs on civillian targets and pretending it was a valid military strategy, but it WAS an act of war. It was HONEST.
He was morally opposed to the LIE of what Ozy was doing. And he also understood it was likely a beneficial thing in the end, but he couldn't betgray his principles and demanded that Manhattan man up and kill him for his convictions.
So, yeah, as someone who appreciates someone sticking to their pinciples and convicitions, Rorschach is admirable. I consider him the only hero of the story. Doubly so to spite the author and those snivveling cowards that try to tell me I'm wrong for doing so.
Comedian I also like because he was just an interesting character all around.
How come this thread is made so frequently?
I sometimes point people to a direct source refuting most of these claims, but it seems people just come back with the same exact inaccurate conclusion. If it was just OP, I'd know it's merely bait, but a lot of times it's an entire thread of people that are wrong.
His mental problems are the reason he's so hard-wired into his beliefs. These are larger-than-life characters that have great effect on the world they live in, even the smelly hobo vigilante.
That was cheek. There's a lot more to him.
No, but he did want to take a way of thinking that he heavily disagree with to an extreme. Moore largely chose to do things for maximum entertainment. He actually loved Ditko at the time and long after Watchmen, like a fanboy.
>chuds
Maybe it's a false flag? It's so easy to get (You)s no matter which stance you take on this comic and author. It could be discord-type lefties pretending to be righties to rile up the actual righties. Must investigate further.
>How come this thread is made so frequently?
Take a peek at the archives and it becomes obvious the same handful of schizos have been making these threads daily since the mid-2010s. They do it for (You)s, but also because they genuinely have a huge hateboner for Moore, and they don't got nowhere else they can go to to shoot their collective wad.
it's funny because moore is a champagne communist
My understanding is that Moore was just mocking Steve Ditko autism.
This. Rorschach was a piss take on Ditko's character "Mr. A", a character whose sole purpose was to express Ditko's fascination with Objectivist principles. Moore intended Rorschach to serve as a critique of said principles, right down to his design - the black and white colors of his mask never mix, which both symbolizes and denounces the Black and White moral worldview of Mr. A and the philosophy he represents.
Nothing in your post is accurate. See:
>no source
>Rorschach isn't rich with limitless resources, nor is he gadget focused like Batman
>Is explicitly a pastiche of a Ditko character, The Question, as all Watchmen characters are pastiches of Charleston characters.
>Mr. A shares a ton of similarities with The Question
Shut the frick up you casual moron
>Doesn't believe in good and evil
wow Moore sounds like a homosexual
It's not a piss take. You don't pull all that shit out your soul and mash up a multitude of interesting characters to do a fricking "piss take".
Ozymandias looks cool as frick. He was also given villain colors from the get-go.
He clearly knew what he was doing. You don't make something as dense as Watchmen by being haphazard.
I don't disagree, but readers are morons a lot of the time. I can only trust myself, especially in this place.
Watchmen is a masterpiece.
It's not the creator's fault that a large portion of his audience didn't read the comic.
have a nice day homosexual
What's the problem?
No. See:
He is one of the cool boys like ozy and the comedian.
Trust me one cares about Alan's gay romance he always adds, we get it Alan you got married and that got your shitty life on track but stop with the softcore porn and get back to the cool stuff.
Who the frick thinks Ozy is cool. Worst costume
>it's a "i only saw the movie which completely handwaved all of rorschach's faults" episode
This
HE READ A NEWSPAPER WITH A RACIST CARTOON. HE IS EVIL
He murders people without thought and it's explicitly stated not all of them deserve it (the "supervillain" who was just a masochist that liked getting beat up that he threw down an elevator shaft for example), so yes, he's definitely evil.
>Giving people what they want is evil
>Giving people what they want is evil
Think about the things that YOU want anon. Can you say there are no self destructive desires within you whatsoever?
I'm into little girls, my entire being is wrought with self destructive desires.
He wanted to be hurt, not killed you moron.
Watchmen sucks anyway, so it doesn't matter.
his commitment to true just before his death is what made me like him, i do believe that people need to know the true even if is for the worst.
>Reading this page
>Seeing him take off his "face" and openly cry
>Still thinking that's Rorschach
You lack media litercy
Or you would, if you were serious.
OP is a pathetic shell of a man that regularly makes this thread just for basic human contact. He doesn't believe a word he posts.
I'm know that's walter talking
>media literacy
Does this just mean agreeing with the writers?
Yes
That just seems like media slavery then.
lolno, once a creation gets out of your heads and into everyone's the interpretation is no longer just yours. Creation of meaning for those blotches of ink is a dialog between artist and observer and there's no guarantee the artist is going to come out on top. Moore's just pissed that this incarnation of his shadow actually resonates with a lot of people, since by nature it's made up of ideas and images that he rejects for his own internal narrative.
Pretty much. Death of the Author is bullshit but you don't need believe in metaphysical bullshit to not subscribe to the author's moronic worldviews.
This. The book was written before people knew how incompetent the Soviet Union was.
Alan Moore is pretty laughable when it comes to actually predicting shit, he set V for Vendetta in the future he legit imagined happening because he was certain Labour would win and Thatcher would lose even after the infamous “longest suicide note in history” manifesto.
Thus the V for Vendetta story taking place
>after a nuclear global conflict
>but the Labour government banned nukes, kicked American bases out and left NATO
>Britain thus survives because nobody nukes it
>Norsefire rises because everyone is pissed off with how shit things are I guess
Oh, and Moore was still certain thatcher would lose even after the Falklands war happened and she was the most popular prime minister since WW2.
I don’t know if he’s just moronic politically or is largely insulated from reality
Same thing happened in 2019.
Alan Moore breaks his hermitage and declares he'll be supporting Labour in 2019 and Labour suffers one of its worst defeats ever.
Dude's a great writer, but he's no less moronic than most comic writers. I don't know why everyone holds his opinions in such high regard.
Weird he calls himself an anarchist but also advocated for voting to remain in the European Union. Not sure how anarchism is compatible with wanting a superstate
He considers anarchism a romance.
>anarchist
>lesser of two evils syndrome
So what you're saying is that he can't even be a consistent anarchist.
Norsefire would have all ended up dead or in gulags, shipped there by the Labour government that would be very popular after keeping Britain unbombed. There wouldn't be any tolerance for troublemakers after such a war.
Yeah I don’t get where he was going with his predictions. Probably hedging his bets because he knows all left wing states fail and he wanted to blame some other element
Walter and Rorschach are two different people????? What??????? Next you are gonna tell me Clark Kent and Superman are the same person.
>Walter and Rorschach are two different people
honestly i tough it was like a Jekyll and Hyde in the book were there are actually the same persone and the "split personality" is only on Jekyll head
>bloodstain makes the Rorschach symbol on the snow
NOT SO FAST MY FRIEND
Dumbass, he tells Manhattan to kill him because he was proved wrong, that's why he is crying, because his whole fricking code was broken by some gay blonde.
False
>his whole fricking code was broken
No it wasn't. "Never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon" and all that.
Maybe that's how Moore intended it, but most people saw it as him choosing suicide by Manhattan because he was in a no-win situation. Compromise or freeze to death trying to get home.
Veidt's plan was dumb.
That was the point.
Rorschach, Nite Owl, and Ozymandias all shared aspects of Batman.
>The book was written before people knew how incompetent the Soviet Union was.
That's not why it was dumb.
The ending of Watchmen shares a few similarities with the aftermath of 9/11.
Watchmen is one of the most rereadable superhero comics that exists.
>I don't know why everyone holds his opinions in such high regard.
He's well-spoken, and people confuse his great comic book work for intellect. Not to say he isn't a smart guy, since was able to write well despite being a druggie dropout, but he's not an intellectual.
>The ending of Watchmen shares a few similarities with the aftermath of 9/11.
Lmao
Because russia and the usa became the best friends after 9/11
I mean, yeah. Putin called up W. before any other national leader, and they became best buds, but it went south pretty soon after.
Putin used it as a pretense to say "uhhh we're fighting Muslim terrorists too in the Caucasus"
Begone, tourist. you just like the design and only watched the movie.
>YOU'RE A homosexual, and you like MEN!!!!!
remember kids, always forgive your enemies, they will realize they wrong ways and will never try anything evil again.
That is not even the point of comic because he still ended up killing those kids. The point is "muh courts".
>>“Mr. A was inspired by Objectivism, the belief system and moral absolutism of the philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand. Ditko has been quoted as saying that his creation The Question was intended as a version of Mr. A that would be acceptable to the Comics Code Authority.”
The lefty as-hell Alan Moore would have known all about where The Question came from.There is no doubt in my mind he would have instinctively loathed Mr. A; the obsessed objectivist who asked questions that shouldn’t be asked can come across as a conspiracy nutcase, depending on the circumstances. And that was the aspect of the character that Moore leached onto. He set to work dragging Ditko’s right-wing creation through the slime as a dysfunctional conspiracy nutcase, hobo who couldn’t remember to bathe.*
I’ll give credit where it’s due.He stayed true to the core of a character that he didn’t create.And I will also grant that Alan Moore invented the deconstruction of superheroes.Martial Law, the Snyderverse, Brightburn, Miracleman, The Boys, Alan Moore is the one that opened the door for this cliche that is as hideous, godawful, and morally bankrupt as the men who create it.
Destroying heroism has always been the dream of Wormwood and his Uncle Screwtape. The methods for doing so are rhetoric disguised as dialectic (The Golden Compass) scientific proof (psychological technobabble) and art (Alan Moore comics). Yet, it always comes to nothing. Sure, it gets good reviews from Goodreads, and people like Kevin Smith go on at length over how brilliant it is. But at the end of the day, no one reads something like Watchman more than once.
But the story of a well-written hero will always enthrall.
Just like Rorschach, the one Alan Moore hates the most.
*The cold beans out of a can was a British thing, he should have had Rorschach continuously eating Spam.
>But at the end of the day, no one reads something like Watchman more than once.
Stick to genre fare, kid.
>Almost his heroic qualities are in spite of his moral system not because of it
>fans don't care because they're bad at reading
What are you talking about? His moral system is the only reason the story even happens because otherwise nobody would have found out about Veidts plan
His genuine heroic qualities that are all based in caring for others are antithetical to his moral system which is a cope to shield him from the blowout he suffers for caring. In the end he chooses to die not because "muh truth" but because he can't possibly stand the worst attrocity in mankind going unpunished, his final act is the exact opposite of his opening monologue. He witnesses the brutal culling of a wicked world and is disgusted, he chooses to throw himself in with the culled rather than live in a world where their deaths are just acceptable casualties. He constantly makes exceptions and shows mercy to people he should brutalize like any other thug according to his philosophy but doesn't because he does indeed have a heart.
Given that the character he was based on has made a distinction between failable people committing evil but trying to fix it and the people who willing do evil for profit, maybe your/Moore's understanding of his supposed philosophy was a strawman
>distinction between failable people committing evil but trying to fix it
Which Mr. A story is the one with the ex-con? I couldn't find a name or link.
"When Is A Man To Be Judged Evil?" from Mr. A #1. One of the better ones, but still not that great.
>reporter
>guided by the principle of justice
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks anon
Is America also run by zionists and epstein types in the Watchmen universe or is that only irl
Adrian would be the type of person who in real life was aware of Epstein but did nothing. Ironically, the Epstein crowd is about as cartoonish as Adrian, as Epstein himself was obsessed with immortality and virtual reality and all sorts of things that fit directly into the context of the fictional conspiracy.
death of the author
america was created to be a place were people could live and trade however hey wanted to
>death of the author
That's fine, but then turning around and saying the author didn't get it is a special type of arrogance.
i dont think he didnt get it
i think he grew buthurt and vindictive
>Warhammer 40k
>2000 AD
>Starship Troopers
>and now, Watchmen
Getting real tired of dumbfrick leftists going "erm, it's actually supposed to make fun of YOU, chud" with these properties, like it's supposed to diminish my enjoyment.
And then these morons wonder why they are gatekept from literally everything.
Who said what about 2000ad?
>Judge Dredd is... LE BAD!
>unrestricted authoritarianism is... LE BAD!
Absolutely groundbreaking stuff, I know.
Never would've picked up on that intricate detail in the narrative if xitter tourists here didn't point it out to me with their immense levels of """media literacy""".
Media illiteracy is the closest correlated trait with conservatism. Moore is quite literally an anarchist and formerly a communist. You are a moron. It is in fact making fun of you.
>Moore is quite literally an anarchist
Self-proclaimed. He's a lousy anarchist.
>It is in fact making fun of you
Ok?
What do you want me to do about it, b***h Black person?
Change my entire worldview and somehow retune my moral compass because of a comicbook character written by an unwashed wizard larper?
Mouthbreathing moron.
I want you to stop seething and posting pics of your Balesona that show how totally okay you are with your favorite media properties being completely misaligned with your worldview. If you don't think it speaks to some dissonance within yourself, you're kidding yourself. Fricking homosexual.
>being this much of a polarized moron
Holy frick, do amerisharts really?
>N-NUH UH A-AMERIc**t
Thanks for playing Black person
>NO! STOP ENJOYING THE THING! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT THIS FICTIONAL CHARACTER'S OVEREXAGGERATED TRAITS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING FUN OF *YOU*???
I mean, you put shit people make for entertainment over innate morality, that kind of shit is 100% burger-tier mental illness.
I told you to stop going on diatribes about how okay you are with it not aligning with your political views, not to stop enjoying it. And here you are on another diatribe about how okay you are with it lol.
Really fricking rich coming from a homosexual who wasted no time to go on an impassioned rant on how dissapointed daddy Moore would be with me.
so?
Reclaiming mockery into actual symbols happens all the time, across al political spectrums
It's not really reclaiming it from mockery when you're still being mocked, like right in this thread, you dumbass.
>I am an anarchist
>now go and vote Corbyn with me
>I am only a former communist
>no, don't ask me about writing a story where I criticize it nearly as much as I do US/UK
I hate the bits with the pirate story.
My stance is that Moore is a great writer, and Rorschach is a great character. If you disagree with either of these, your opinion is worthless.
Can he be called a great writer if he doesn't even understand his own character?
He completely understands Rorschach.
Sure, it's not unheard of for great writers to be unaware of the appeal of their own works. In fact, I'd say it's quite common.
It's just that most just accept it as it comes, they don't go on diatribes against fans of a particular character.
Non-Moore examples?
Unpopular opinion about Rorschach. The real reason people like is because he's the only hero in the series we see making a positive difference in someone's life, by mindbreaking his shrink out of middle class comfort to the point that he becomes someone who looks out for the well-being of strangers in need, as seen on this page.
>Unpopular opinion
>The real reason people like
I don't know about this one.
Rorschach does have a positive effect on Nite Owl as well, by helping him get out of his funk, which results in him and Silk Spectre saving people from a burning building.
So Rorschach was a hero, a flawed hero, but a guy with no powers, no money, or fame that made a bigger impact on people's lives than the blue god man, and the billionaire genius guy.
Not in the comic.
Reminder that leftards only ever side with the Word of God whenever they can sign under it.
What does that mean?
Anon is a hypocrite but thinks his hypocrisy is nonexistent if he points out his supposed enemy doing the same. Tolkien was a deeply Religious man whose faith was heavily and openly reflected in his writing, he extensively has has spoken on this with others. The Headline implies that many reject that fact like how Anon implicitly rejects what he thinks Moore's views on the situation are.
>The Headline implies that many reject that fact
Like Disney's biographical movie about him did?
Sorry, I think I'm sincerely too stupid for this, but could you explain again?
It was never about what Moore actually intended.
homosexuals here just want to throw shit at those with differing sets of morals while hiding behind authorial intent.
A proxy culture war.
Swing and a miss, dipshit.
>Moore: Rorschach is a flawed person
>Smelly Fanboy: SO THAT MEANS OZYMANDIAS IS THE GOOD GUY HUH!? RORSCACH IS LITERALLY ME! HOW CAN HE NOT BE RIGHT!!
>Moore: I didn't say any of that did you even read my book?
>Smelly Fanboy:YOU'RE A TERRIBLE WRITER! RORSCACH IS THE BEST! FRICKING COMMIE!
In a world of anarchy, there would be a billion more Rorschach types of people in society.
>muh media literacy
>muh Moore said so
>look at the interviews
How is it so difficult to understand that Moore might've slimply, you know, failed at getting his point across?