Kevin's Watch

wayfriend wrote: The world has a lot of uncompromising tough guys. In the end, it was his (Rorschach) Achille's heel; he was incapable of surviving in the new world era.

Rorschach was a man of extremes. Good was good, and evil was evil. There was no gray. His mask reflected his views; the shapes on the mask were always shifting, but the colors never changed. He considered his response to evil the only proper response; swift, brutal, and final. So it's no surprise that he refused to let Ozymandias get off scot-free even when it was clear the pursuit of justice would kill him.


In other words, I concur.

___ wrote:

wayfriend wrote: The world has a lot of uncompromising tough guys. In the end, it was his (Rorschach) Achille's heel; he was incapable of surviving in the new world era.

Rorschach was a man of extremes. Good was good, and evil was evil. There was no gray. His mask reflected his views; the shapes on the mask were always shifting, but the colors never changed. He considered his response to evil the only proper response; swift, brutal, and final. So it's no surprise that he refused to let Ozymandias get off scot-free even when it was clear the pursuit of justice would kill him.


In other words, I concur.

yeah ... but the point is, I think, that he was a dinasaur, doomed for extinction. His morality has no place in the modern age of mankind. As such, it was only harmful, and never good. The USA and the USSR were, in the story, Rorschachs. Nothing but WW3 was to come from it. Only lateral thinking, as Veidt uses, could solve the world's problems. And lateral thinking means dropping the black and white stuff, focusing on the solution rather than the cause.

I said I agreed with you; how is it you're arguing with me? Do you not know? Have you not heard? There is no room for dissension in the modern age!

Well, not every reply is meant to be an argument. But, in this case, I guess I misread "I concur" to mean "I agree with Rorschach". So please consider my response a continued discussion.

wayfriend wrote:

___ wrote:

wayfriend wrote: The world has a lot of uncompromising tough guys. In the end, it was his (Rorschach) Achille's heel; he was incapable of surviving in the new world era.

Rorschach was a man of extremes. Good was good, and evil was evil. There was no gray. His mask reflected his views; the shapes on the mask were always shifting, but the colors never changed. He considered his response to evil the only proper response; swift, brutal, and final. So it's no surprise that he refused to let Ozymandias get off scot-free even when it was clear the pursuit of justice would kill him.


In other words, I concur.

yeah ... but the point is, I think, that he was a dinasaur, doomed for extinction. His morality has no place in the modern age of mankind. As such, it was only harmful, and never good. The USA and the USSR were, in the story, Rorschachs. Nothing but WW3 was to come from it. Only lateral thinking, as Veidt uses, could solve the world's problems. And lateral thinking means dropping the black and white stuff, focusing on the solution rather than the cause.

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't Veidt still use the black and white stuff? It's simply that he finds a way of using it that isolates the "black" as something
-Unknowable, foreign, etc in the case of the alien.
-Indestructable (as far as anyone knows) and godlike in the case of Dr Manhattan.

The real question is whether, with both of these delusions of evil dispelled, which actually pose no risk to humanity, Veidt's own methodology represents a risk to humanity. In other words, is putting a false evil in place good or bad?

It seems like Veidt's methodology is a lesser evil. Instead of the entire world being destroyed (USSR VS US), there's a reason for humanity to avoid self destruction. However, simply because he uses evil to accomplish a good purpose doesn't mean he isn't using a blend of good and evil. "Beyond" isn't the same thing as "combined".

((I remember Merlin in one version of Arthur telling his protege that "evil cannot defeat evil. Only good can do that." in an attempt to stop Arthur from an attempt to kill Mordred. I find that conclusion suspicious, except as a tautology - what stops evil is good, what doesn't stop evil is evil. Another alternative is that by putting off destruction but not finding a way to actually stop it, Veidt is simply having no net effect.))

If I'm simply repeating what others have said, please forgive me.

Holsety wrote:Hmm. I'm not sure I understand. Doesn't Veidt still use the black and white stuff?

I guess if you consider it from the rest of the world's point of view, it might still be black and white. Us=good, Alien=bad. However, from Veidt's point of view, he had to drop the black/white, us=USA vs them=USSR mentality in order to save all of them. And the idea of the giant lie that can save the world clearly is on rocky moral ground, and so can't be slotted into a black/white, good or evil category.

In the end, the black/white thinkers could not save the world, but they were allowed to live in the world that the grey thinker saved. The black/white thinkers are no longer the protectors, they're the helpless hordes needing protection.

Rorshach died because he was a wimp. If a naked blue freak tries to zap me, I'll turn him into a naked blue pretzel!