What is it that makes a character "problematic"? Why a story about Rorschach ignites so many "NOOOO THIS CHARACTER IS TOO PROBLEMATIC YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO LIKE HIM" complaints, while an ongoing about, say, Dr. Doom, won't cause the same reaction?
Is Rorschach ideology more dangerous than Doom's ideology?
Other urls found in this thread:
user people can't have different perspectives or interpretations the author didn't intend, you have to enjoy the work the way the author wants you to enjoy it
>What is it that makes a character "problematic"?
When virtue signaling teenagers on twitter think that if a character isn't 100% pure cinnamon roll uwu they should be cast into hellfire and you, too, for liking them.
The occasional virtue signaling adult thinks so too but fortunately those are much much rarer and just as easy to ignore, and if you actually pay attention to either you should go back.
Rorschach is the only character who drives the plot by doing investigation work with The Comedian carrying the past and Dr. Manhattan linking the past and present. Laurie and her PMS tier rage drags the story own.
The Movie making her a dominant mommy who wants to be fucked raw was a step up along. Back to OPs point, I think comicbook writers missed the point and should be doing Rorschach and Night Owl books.
Teens just don't understand the appeal of street heros. Rorschach is a street hero just like Batman. He just doesn't deluded himself into thinking he can rehabilitate crooks by beating them up and locking them in prison.
>should be doing Rorschach and Night Owl books.
Don't give them characters to butcher, writters who "adopt" characters to write about are trash, they lack the connection with the characters.
He's only problematic because he's right-winged and kiiinda a conspiracy theorist. Watchmen was very political in general. And in the end, he's proven right.
I don't see why characters with conservative opinions are automatically "problematic". Hell, isn't Captain America like that, too?
Hmm, I don't really understand the fixation on characters entirely being black-and-white. The idea that there cannot be characters who are morally grey or make mistakes because it upsets or confuses people is worrying to me...
The problem isn't that Rorschach himself is #problematique, it's that 30 years worth of neckbeards have mistaken him for a badass.
Myself included. I remember reading Watchmen for the first time and doodling Rorschach blotches on my notebook in class. I briefly kept a journal (and should get back to it, as there's a lot of my life where I'd love to know what I was thinking).
So what makes Rorschach problematic is his supposed "neckbeard" fanbase?
I have met way more obnoxious Doom fans than obnoxious Rorschach fans. How come Rorschach is problematic, while Doom isn't?
No, he's the opposite.
I probably mean Captain America from the Ultimate series.
The people it upsets are a very vocal minority being vocal on a wide reaching platform (like twitter). The majority understand moral ambiguity but have actual lives and responsibilities to worry about so they don't want or need to make a any deal out of it.
That's why most of the people you see complaining about ambiguous characters are usually teenagers who either haven't matured yet or just want to pretend how much of a good person they are for hating the bad guy and need to keep up appearances. The latter also overlaps with adults who either make a living off of outrage or have too much time on their hands and a need to inflate their ego.
Don't worry he got replaced by a more woke black guy now, all is fixed.
Pay no mind to those people.
If you're talking about what Moore talked about, he never said you shouldn't like him. He said you shouldn't idolize or want to be him. That should be a given, but people still choose to misinterpret and get asspained over something that wasn't said.
He's a fucked-up character with a shitty life, so he clings to his hard-edged ideology and remains driven until the end. Not something to aspire to.
Comparatively, Dr. Doom is a cartoon.
None of your statements are entirely correct.
He is actually badass, while the other fags are superpower freaks , he learned to do with what he got and do his job as good as possible .
I miss when authors could be genuine and make political characters without pushing their own ideology onto them. Rorschach is super, super flawed yet the fact he was proven right in the end is interesting.
If he was written nowadays he's just be a strawman to hate on conservatives. Regardless of the character's political ideology, writers should try to give them some depth and realism.
In my experience, the more "problematic" the character, the closer to correct about reality they are.
You got a problem with me huh?
If you write a character WELL, there's a good chance the people you're making fun of won't get offended. King of The Hill is basically a show built on the premise of making fun of conservatives, yet conservatives love the show because the writing doesn't feel like it's written out of malice.
Even a show that makes such a ridiculous over the top parody of conservatives like SQUIDBILLIES is beloved by conservatives because it's just concerned with being funny instead of pushing some malicious agenda.
>Comparatively, Dr. Doom is a cartoon.
Rorschach is also a cartoon. I fail to see the difference.
Comedian was also interesting, because it's like all he did was being edgy to offend and mock others, but when he was proven right about his own worldview, he completely broke.
Dr Doom talks like a cartoon villain cliché. But that makes him so fun.
It's simple: Rorschach appeals to people who want to be costume vigilante to rough up freaks.
Same here. I really miss the days when authors wrote well, explored ideas not thrirvown or that they disagreed with, but still treated with respect.
So tired of this cookie cutter bullshit by "writers" who push agendas they believe in, but have never bothered to understand or examine.
This is fucking sad Tommy. Get help.
You are allowed to like a villain only if the villain refers to himself in the third person?
If Rorschach referred to himself as "Rorschach", would we not see as many "REEEEEEEEEEEEE PROBLEMATIC" comments?
I feel like I say this every time someone makes a thread about Rorschach, but the whole idea behind Watchmen is that each character has qualities that are both heroic and non-heroic.
>Rorschach is violent and paranoid but genuinely wants to be a hero
>Ozymandias wants world peace and tries to achieve it through mass murder
>Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre just want a normal life and to achieve this they're complacent in covering up said mass murder
>Dr. Manhattan is hyper-intelligent to the point of him not caring about anything anymore
>The Comedian is a war criminal and attempted rapist but still genuinely cared about his daughter
Watchmen isn't as black and white as the typical superhero comic, there is no centralized bad guy but there's also no main hero to look up to.
>>The Comedian is a war criminal and attempted rapist but still genuinely cared about his daughter
He was also smart enough to see how the world actually worked, he just coped with that by viewing it as a joke. That whole charade fell apart with the discovery of Veidt's plot, though.
Cool man, but what I am asking is what makes Rorschach a problematic character, as opposed to Dr. Doom or Loki or whatever.
We can cure them, there is a way to reform those people
King of the hill doesn't exist to mock conservatives that's retarded. They make fun of literally everyone.
If anything the show exists as parody of Texas and to a lesser extent America. The are many conservatives in Texas so they're obviously more prevalent but that's not the purpose of the show.
Your other point is spot on though.
Why are you so obsessed with Dr. Doom?
I don't think Rorschach is "problematic" and people who use that word to describe flawed characters who are perceived as such inside their own meta universe need to take a chill pill.
That said, Rorschach is a protagonist with an inflated sense of self worth, while Dr. Doom is usually an antagonist.
Because Doom is currently the character with the biggest body count of innocents that has an ongoing, and he having an ongoing didn't cause any sort of outrage.
>Tommy is still seething over Doom's ongoing
Let me guess, was it because of this page
I never mentioned in my comment what I like and what I don't. All I said was that Doom is way more comical. Rorschach without a mask would be just some regular guy.
Problematic is how leftists say “This offends me so it’s EVERYONE’s problem”
It’s a weasel word
I get what you're saying. Maybe "mock" isn't the right word but it's the type of jokes that come from people who have lived with those type of people and joke about it without any hate.
Like I'm from Massachusetts and I constantly joke about the BAHSTON accent with my childhood friend. Scenes like this are hilarious to me:
youtu.be
It's not funny out of hate, it's funny because I understand and grew up around people like that.
>All I said was that Doom is way more comical
Isn't Doom supposed to be one of the deepest, most complex, most thought-provoking character in all literature?
Maybe if you are a Doomfag.
That's a real dumb question if you had read Watchmen.
Noone ever said that. Ever. Doom is hilarious to me. But not to the point that he's a pushover joke character, more like that supervillain guy with lots of confidence.
I have read Watchmen.
What is it that makes Rorschach a more nasty figure than Dr. Doom?
Go home Tommy