Rorschach is flawed yes, as is his idea of justice. But in this case, doesn’t his idea of justice correspond to Moore’s – and the reader’s? Because otherwise why the sense of helpless horror that greets Veidt’s solution?

This is how I read the story. Human beings are flawed and hence destructive of each other. The solutions they find are equally flawed. There are no exceptions. And there are no heroes. The best we can find is an antihero, and he’s as flawed as the worst of us.

To me this is not a condemnation of justice but of men’s ability to deliver it.

Note that I speak of men. The novel’s few female protagonists are defined entirely in terms of their relationship to men. Who would have thought that Moore and Meyer could be so close in their perspectives?

Here’s the deal: Would Rorschach find Veidt’s actions equally as evil if they were unleashed on a city full of innocent Soviet civilians? Granted, this might be mostly speculation on my part, but I think enough of Rorschach’s ideological motives are laid bare to assume that he wouldn’t.

Or does he assume Ostermann’s impersonal perspective, that yes, the end justifies the means, but also that it never really ends?

BTW, the reviews I’ve seen are very positive.

Moore paints Rorschach as at least partially an ideologue whose motivations are deeply personal. In the end, he’s right about the plot/conspiracy, but Moore doesn’t paint that as a defense of Rorschach’s sense of justice. Instead of a world of “good” and “evil”, Watchmen explores a universe driven by both personal and historical interests, and none are inherently more justified than any other. After all, once Veidt carries forward with his plan, the aftermath creates a more peaceful situation than the one that begins the novel. Yet, even to the very last, Moore complicates this “one world”, hinting that it has its own problems bubbling under the surface.

We know where the various characters fall on that decision. But doesn’t Moore agree with Rorschach?