an·ti·he·ro
–noun, plural -roes.
a protagonist who lacks the attributes that make a heroic figure, as nobility of mind and spirit, a life or attitude marked by action or purpose, and the like.
Would you consider it irony that a super-hero is also an antihero?
The reader is brought into the world of Watchmen by an unreliable narrator, Rorschach. His inner voice filled with criticisms, misgivings and blatant paranoia. From the cops we are told that his body count is impressive and somewhat indiscriminant. This is now a world where vigilantism, or being a masked superhero, is outlawed. There is no place for him in this new world order but retiring was never an option for him.
What about him do we find gripping? Why does a part of us still believe his mental meanderings?
With the Comedian’s death we watch him systematically follow leads that, for the most part, hold loose logic. He immediately leaps to the conclusion that the Comedian’s death is just the beginning of an all out slaughter on heroes. Even though there is no direct evidence to correlate his hypothesis, added to the fact that we know the Comedian had plenty of enemies, we still think there is truth in what he says.
I just find it mystifying that I hold some type of faith in this unreliable character. Am I somewhat programmed to believe in him just because he allied himself on the side of “right”? Unlike Batman, whose moral code is sparse but unbendable, Rorschach only sees himself as judge and executioner. What are a few broken bones if he can get some answers? If he couldn’t get any answers, well, then it’s just a few broken bones.
Maybe it’s his chaotic lawlessness that attracts me, a character that can’t be typified as a criminal or a hero. Someone directly outside the lines of comfortable labeling. The perfect antihero.
I think Rorschach is an example of a good anti-hero. Like Batman in DKR (as others have mentioned), Rorschach is likable because we know that he has his own code to get the job done, and even if the code is of his own making and is separate from the law, we know it’ll be more effective than the law in place. The “job will get done no matter what it takes or who it hurts to get there” mentality is always problematic, but often is reassuring to those who are looking for an answer.
Kelley
I know Rosen argues that from the very first page of her article that Rorschach is an unreliable narrator—and she offers evidence to support it. But I wonder if we can so easily dismiss his reliability in a wholesale fashion. Am I wrong in thinking that in some ways Rorschach does indeed provide a moral compass to Watchmen. Or maybe “moral” is not the right word. But I’d argue that more than once in the graphic novel, the cue for the reader’s expected emotional reaction to events comes from Rorschach.