I was like the opposite, as a kid. I felt so intensely it could be debilitating. I was intensely shy, because i had no boundaries between my emotions and the emotions of others, I could feel their emotion as intensely as my own. That was an issue for me well into my twenties, and it was only until my mid thirties when I learned some tools about how to maintain emotional boundaries. I'm much more at ease now than I used to be, but relationships where boundaries have to be opened up can be difficult.
I was more like you as a kid, but I got less shy in my teens. I think playing music helped, because I forced myself to perform on stage. I think for anyone doing developmental work on themselves, it's kind of a rule of thumb that introverts have to work on their extraversion, and vice versa. Glad you found the tools!
For awhile after I learned those tools, I started really appreciating the word "No", and used it a lot. But I also swung a bit like a pendulum at first, and stomped on a few people's emotions. Power is like that, when you access it but don't know how to handle it. Then I decided to be good and kind to people and treat people with dignity, and that has worked out well for the most part.
I was thinking about Watchmen just the other day... been wondering if the faked alien plot is the next psy op they are going to pull... seems they were playing with it with the balloons....
Yeah, it definitely has some contemporary relevance. I'm with Rich Dolan on this one though, in the sense that I think they'd be very foolish to try to pull something like that off. It could fail in so many ways. Especially with the number of people who would call BS from the outset.
I think the big difference between Bickle and Rorschach is context.
In Bickle's case, the only real context is the mood and tone of the film. Even his voiceovers don't really betray much about his own history, or provide us with clues about what might have gone wrong to lead him down his path. Stylistically this makes sense in the medium; his character is more of an analog for a city/world gone mad, and so the spare pencil sketch (if that) of his history actually assists the artist's purpose. He can be anyone.
The case of Rorschach is more complex, because, as with all of the characters, we are supplied with quite a bit of context (in the book, at least). Not only are we introduced to his traumatic upbringing via epistolary/document, but we are also shown in graphic detail a far more recent trauma that explains a dramatic change in his worldview. In the flashback of his case regarding the missing girl who was fed to dogs, we're shown a man losing the (admittedly fragile) stability and purpose he'd found in life.
Other characters noticed and commented on this profound shift in Rorschach; most especially Dan, who was his former partner and clearly his closest friend. So with Rorschach, we have a person who was damaged by traumacand forged a way to channel it in positive directions, only to be re-traumatized by the all blackest horrors of the world in one concentrated moment. I think the artists captured this transformation perfectly in the following two pages.
On this one, note especially the final "red" panel. This is Kovacs realizing what happened. "Solving the case" so to speak:
All of this is not to say that Rorschach and/or Kovacs was a "hero," exactly (none of them were, in the classic mold). But the way that Moore and Gibbons painted him seems to resist any model of schizoid personality as something inherent. Whatever he'd become by the time we met him in the story, it was molded by experience. It's also worth noting that he was essentially correct in most of his suspicions and instincts, for whatever that's worth.
All good points. In which case, despite their talents, I fault Moore and Gibbons for going for the Hollywood "childhood/trauma shapes everything" mold. And that goes back to my overall criticism of film representations as almost always inherently imperfect. The only ones that manage to avoid this are those that leave the subject's childhood vague - in which case the viewer can project their own pathology-genesis model. Or the ones that depict child characters, like "The Bad Seed", or "We Need to Talk about Kevin."
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a movie that makes a convincing "temperament PLUS environment/trauma" scenario that shows both the existing personality structure, and how that interacts with environment to produce a coherent adult personality. Different temperaments react differently to the same life experiences. And the SAME temperaments react different to different life experiences. I imagine the film equivalent of a twin study. It could be done. Imagine "Dead Ringers" separated at birth.
I don't think that they were going for the Hollywood mold here. In fact, I think they subverted it (though we may have different interpretations of what "it" is).
In my view, the Hollywood version goes something like this:
1. The villain does a bunch of villainous stuff.
2. We learn that the villain's backstory was full of trauma, making him seem more human..
3. The villain either is minimally defeated, reformed or revealed as the "real hero" of the tale all along.
Step two is the most critical one, and even precedes the the new "villains are actually heroes" formula of New Hollywood. The idea is more rooted in drama than morality; human villains with scars are generally more interesting and relatable than incomprehensible monsters, so the inclusion of logical "this is how they got here" details assists in suspending disbelief. By default we believe in cause-and-effect, and want their strands to be as simple as possible.
I don't remember how the film adaptation handled it. But in looking back at my original comment, I believe I used poor language when I said "retraumatized." That's not a great way of putting what happened to Rorschach in the house. What happened was this:
1. A child grew up in a horrendous environment that injured his view of human relationships and his ability to trust others.
2. As a man, he developed a powerful alter ego that could shield his wounds while simultaneously affording him a moral purpose.
3. Despite all his layers of shields and mistrust, he eventually finds himself accepted by a group of other scarred people, and begins to forge bonds with some of them.Not only does his sense of purpose grow, but so does his ability for connection and camaraderie.
4. A child is fed to dogs.
Obviously #4 constitutes a big break, but it's wrong to class it as "trauma." It is more like a vast existential horror that devours all his progress in an instant. The moment before, he was a hero, a rescuer, applying his mind to the normal problem of criminals and people with poor character, like the kind of people he was raised around. In the next moment, it is abysses and monsters, which he peers into and becomes.
But again: not totally. Rorschach isn't the villain of the tale. In many ways, he is it's primary protagonist. But to call him a typical Hollywood product I think is unfair to both the writer and illustrator (both of whom notably disowned Hollywood's adaptations long ago, if I recall correctly).
Yeah, Hollywood wasn't the best descriptor; your Hollywood template is more accurate than mine. I was going for a more generalized one. Freudian might be a better word to describe it.
And I totally agree he's not the villain. I genuinely thought he was the best of the bunch. He's complex in the way that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is complex. In that case, you can see how he becomes a hero to many. In Rorschach's case, you can see why he could so easily be a villain, but he's not. Or something like that!
I grew up with two dog killers—young men who demonstrated many of the traits detailed in this entry. I also know that animal torture/killing is a common training ground for serial killers. One of those kids has grown up to be the criminal you'd expect and has spent most of his life in jails and prisons. He's scary. Cold, cold, cold. The other kid has grown into a productive adult—a blue collar guy who does lose his temper in moderate ways. He's extremely eccentric, very socially awkward, but doesn't scare anybody. They were both extremely troubled kids who've diverged in a big way. Both of then had similar home lives. Makes me very curious about their development.
That's why I wish there was more clinical, case-study psychology these days, in addition to the statistical approach that dominates the field. I want to know people's lives. I wonder if the first kid had a more abusive family life.
Or what resources they discovered! Watching the right theater play at the right time was what changed things massively for me as a teen. Could be a book, a music record, a hike, an encounter with an inspiring person...
Well this is a brand new learning curve for me and now I have an idea of what this disorder looks and feels like for sufferers and it is so sad indeed. I was shy as a child and I can remember my cheeks burning hotly when I was embarrassed by something. I’ve had great emotional depth and empathy for others in my adult life but I also kept my rose coloured spectacles on for much of my life too until they were forced off always preferring to see the good and not the bad so for self protection I guess. My daughter asked me the other day if I have an internal dialogue with myself so I thought about it and answered her yes I most definitely do talk to myself in my head all the time and always have and she said she also always has. My other daughter chimed in that she too always talks to herself in her mind and sometimes wished she could shut up her inner voice especially at night when trying to go to sleep lol. We both asked my eldest why did she ask this question to which she replied she had been reading up on it out of curiosity and if you do have an inner dialogue with yourself it begins in childhood and she also found to her surprise some people don’t have this inner voice where they talk to themselves! I figure lots of stuff out in this way, come to a decision, weigh pros and cons of doing something etc.and cannot remember a time where I did not do it and cannot imagine not doing it. The human psyche sure is a strange and mysterious thing when we are all so individual and so complex. I was glad to learn in my family that we all have inner dialogues with ourselves and I can still remember joking with my parents as a child that it was ok to talk to yourself out loud as long as you don’t answer yourself lol.
Thank you for the excellent overview of the disorder! I have another recent example for you. 001's (Vecna) monologue in Stranger Things. Sounded like a schyzoid declaration.
You mean to say you're not a King Crimson fan? Shame! Especially since there's a connection to Gurdjeff via mastermind Fripp.
Personally, I found Dr. Manhattan's explanation not so much autistic as wholesome spiritually, it conveys to me big picture thinking, not emotionally impaired or socially awkward thinking. Though of course it doesn't preclude those latter traits either.
Nope, didn't mean to imply I'm not a fan - I am! Just that those who aren't fans might never have even heard the word before. I was a Fripp fan before I learned of his G connection.
As for Dr. Manhattan, I see what you're saying, but I think that a more wholesome spirituality would include a better ability to lower oneself to the level of those around you - something DM struggled with. I kind of see him as an unbalanced Buddhist master who lost touch with humanity instead of integrating both aspects at the same time.
Reassuring. So that was just my deduction sense misfiring, not recognising that you might well have discovered Fripp's magikc since your first reading of Ponerology.
I fully agree that the other side of the spiritual medal is the ability to be "down with" everybody else, the "least of us". That of course is absent from Dr. Manhattan's little monologue and I'm just not familiar enough with the character to know whether he lacks it generally. I just thought that as a standalone response, it was beautifully uplifting. I especially liked how he was lovingly playing with his conversation partner's frustration and gently leading her to see her situation differently.
Sad.
I was like the opposite, as a kid. I felt so intensely it could be debilitating. I was intensely shy, because i had no boundaries between my emotions and the emotions of others, I could feel their emotion as intensely as my own. That was an issue for me well into my twenties, and it was only until my mid thirties when I learned some tools about how to maintain emotional boundaries. I'm much more at ease now than I used to be, but relationships where boundaries have to be opened up can be difficult.
Yep, I find it very sad too.
I was more like you as a kid, but I got less shy in my teens. I think playing music helped, because I forced myself to perform on stage. I think for anyone doing developmental work on themselves, it's kind of a rule of thumb that introverts have to work on their extraversion, and vice versa. Glad you found the tools!
For awhile after I learned those tools, I started really appreciating the word "No", and used it a lot. But I also swung a bit like a pendulum at first, and stomped on a few people's emotions. Power is like that, when you access it but don't know how to handle it. Then I decided to be good and kind to people and treat people with dignity, and that has worked out well for the most part.
"No" is a tough one. I still struggle with it sometimes, but am getting better. ;)
There is a lot of power in the word no. I recommend it.
I was thinking about Watchmen just the other day... been wondering if the faked alien plot is the next psy op they are going to pull... seems they were playing with it with the balloons....
Yeah, it definitely has some contemporary relevance. I'm with Rich Dolan on this one though, in the sense that I think they'd be very foolish to try to pull something like that off. It could fail in so many ways. Especially with the number of people who would call BS from the outset.
I think the big difference between Bickle and Rorschach is context.
In Bickle's case, the only real context is the mood and tone of the film. Even his voiceovers don't really betray much about his own history, or provide us with clues about what might have gone wrong to lead him down his path. Stylistically this makes sense in the medium; his character is more of an analog for a city/world gone mad, and so the spare pencil sketch (if that) of his history actually assists the artist's purpose. He can be anyone.
The case of Rorschach is more complex, because, as with all of the characters, we are supplied with quite a bit of context (in the book, at least). Not only are we introduced to his traumatic upbringing via epistolary/document, but we are also shown in graphic detail a far more recent trauma that explains a dramatic change in his worldview. In the flashback of his case regarding the missing girl who was fed to dogs, we're shown a man losing the (admittedly fragile) stability and purpose he'd found in life.
Other characters noticed and commented on this profound shift in Rorschach; most especially Dan, who was his former partner and clearly his closest friend. So with Rorschach, we have a person who was damaged by traumacand forged a way to channel it in positive directions, only to be re-traumatized by the all blackest horrors of the world in one concentrated moment. I think the artists captured this transformation perfectly in the following two pages.
On this one, note especially the final "red" panel. This is Kovacs realizing what happened. "Solving the case" so to speak:
http://marywashicomics.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Dogs.png
On the next page, Kovacs is truly transformed into the "Rorschach" we know, the mask becoming the face:
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cF6eKQT_OI_g4RkneIVTD_kbysI=/0x0:908x946/1200x0/filters:focal(0x0:908x946):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3915144/watchmen_06_-_21.0.jpg
All of this is not to say that Rorschach and/or Kovacs was a "hero," exactly (none of them were, in the classic mold). But the way that Moore and Gibbons painted him seems to resist any model of schizoid personality as something inherent. Whatever he'd become by the time we met him in the story, it was molded by experience. It's also worth noting that he was essentially correct in most of his suspicions and instincts, for whatever that's worth.
All good points. In which case, despite their talents, I fault Moore and Gibbons for going for the Hollywood "childhood/trauma shapes everything" mold. And that goes back to my overall criticism of film representations as almost always inherently imperfect. The only ones that manage to avoid this are those that leave the subject's childhood vague - in which case the viewer can project their own pathology-genesis model. Or the ones that depict child characters, like "The Bad Seed", or "We Need to Talk about Kevin."
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a movie that makes a convincing "temperament PLUS environment/trauma" scenario that shows both the existing personality structure, and how that interacts with environment to produce a coherent adult personality. Different temperaments react differently to the same life experiences. And the SAME temperaments react different to different life experiences. I imagine the film equivalent of a twin study. It could be done. Imagine "Dead Ringers" separated at birth.
I don't think that they were going for the Hollywood mold here. In fact, I think they subverted it (though we may have different interpretations of what "it" is).
In my view, the Hollywood version goes something like this:
1. The villain does a bunch of villainous stuff.
2. We learn that the villain's backstory was full of trauma, making him seem more human..
3. The villain either is minimally defeated, reformed or revealed as the "real hero" of the tale all along.
Step two is the most critical one, and even precedes the the new "villains are actually heroes" formula of New Hollywood. The idea is more rooted in drama than morality; human villains with scars are generally more interesting and relatable than incomprehensible monsters, so the inclusion of logical "this is how they got here" details assists in suspending disbelief. By default we believe in cause-and-effect, and want their strands to be as simple as possible.
I don't remember how the film adaptation handled it. But in looking back at my original comment, I believe I used poor language when I said "retraumatized." That's not a great way of putting what happened to Rorschach in the house. What happened was this:
1. A child grew up in a horrendous environment that injured his view of human relationships and his ability to trust others.
2. As a man, he developed a powerful alter ego that could shield his wounds while simultaneously affording him a moral purpose.
3. Despite all his layers of shields and mistrust, he eventually finds himself accepted by a group of other scarred people, and begins to forge bonds with some of them.Not only does his sense of purpose grow, but so does his ability for connection and camaraderie.
4. A child is fed to dogs.
Obviously #4 constitutes a big break, but it's wrong to class it as "trauma." It is more like a vast existential horror that devours all his progress in an instant. The moment before, he was a hero, a rescuer, applying his mind to the normal problem of criminals and people with poor character, like the kind of people he was raised around. In the next moment, it is abysses and monsters, which he peers into and becomes.
But again: not totally. Rorschach isn't the villain of the tale. In many ways, he is it's primary protagonist. But to call him a typical Hollywood product I think is unfair to both the writer and illustrator (both of whom notably disowned Hollywood's adaptations long ago, if I recall correctly).
Yeah, Hollywood wasn't the best descriptor; your Hollywood template is more accurate than mine. I was going for a more generalized one. Freudian might be a better word to describe it.
And I totally agree he's not the villain. I genuinely thought he was the best of the bunch. He's complex in the way that Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is complex. In that case, you can see how he becomes a hero to many. In Rorschach's case, you can see why he could so easily be a villain, but he's not. Or something like that!
I grew up with two dog killers—young men who demonstrated many of the traits detailed in this entry. I also know that animal torture/killing is a common training ground for serial killers. One of those kids has grown up to be the criminal you'd expect and has spent most of his life in jails and prisons. He's scary. Cold, cold, cold. The other kid has grown into a productive adult—a blue collar guy who does lose his temper in moderate ways. He's extremely eccentric, very socially awkward, but doesn't scare anybody. They were both extremely troubled kids who've diverged in a big way. Both of then had similar home lives. Makes me very curious about their development.
That's why I wish there was more clinical, case-study psychology these days, in addition to the statistical approach that dominates the field. I want to know people's lives. I wonder if the first kid had a more abusive family life.
Yes, we don’t know what happened in private for those guys.
Or what resources they discovered! Watching the right theater play at the right time was what changed things massively for me as a teen. Could be a book, a music record, a hike, an encounter with an inspiring person...
Well this is a brand new learning curve for me and now I have an idea of what this disorder looks and feels like for sufferers and it is so sad indeed. I was shy as a child and I can remember my cheeks burning hotly when I was embarrassed by something. I’ve had great emotional depth and empathy for others in my adult life but I also kept my rose coloured spectacles on for much of my life too until they were forced off always preferring to see the good and not the bad so for self protection I guess. My daughter asked me the other day if I have an internal dialogue with myself so I thought about it and answered her yes I most definitely do talk to myself in my head all the time and always have and she said she also always has. My other daughter chimed in that she too always talks to herself in her mind and sometimes wished she could shut up her inner voice especially at night when trying to go to sleep lol. We both asked my eldest why did she ask this question to which she replied she had been reading up on it out of curiosity and if you do have an inner dialogue with yourself it begins in childhood and she also found to her surprise some people don’t have this inner voice where they talk to themselves! I figure lots of stuff out in this way, come to a decision, weigh pros and cons of doing something etc.and cannot remember a time where I did not do it and cannot imagine not doing it. The human psyche sure is a strange and mysterious thing when we are all so individual and so complex. I was glad to learn in my family that we all have inner dialogues with ourselves and I can still remember joking with my parents as a child that it was ok to talk to yourself out loud as long as you don’t answer yourself lol.
Yep, I was surprised to hear that some people don't have an inner dialogue too. First I heard about that was sometime in the last decade!
Thank you for the excellent overview of the disorder! I have another recent example for you. 001's (Vecna) monologue in Stranger Things. Sounded like a schyzoid declaration.
https://youtu.be/ldqfi5laV0k
I thought the same thing when I saw it! Good example. He's definitely got the worldview, plus some Dark Triad traits (and demonic powers).
You mean to say you're not a King Crimson fan? Shame! Especially since there's a connection to Gurdjeff via mastermind Fripp.
Personally, I found Dr. Manhattan's explanation not so much autistic as wholesome spiritually, it conveys to me big picture thinking, not emotionally impaired or socially awkward thinking. Though of course it doesn't preclude those latter traits either.
Nope, didn't mean to imply I'm not a fan - I am! Just that those who aren't fans might never have even heard the word before. I was a Fripp fan before I learned of his G connection.
As for Dr. Manhattan, I see what you're saying, but I think that a more wholesome spirituality would include a better ability to lower oneself to the level of those around you - something DM struggled with. I kind of see him as an unbalanced Buddhist master who lost touch with humanity instead of integrating both aspects at the same time.
Reassuring. So that was just my deduction sense misfiring, not recognising that you might well have discovered Fripp's magikc since your first reading of Ponerology.
I fully agree that the other side of the spiritual medal is the ability to be "down with" everybody else, the "least of us". That of course is absent from Dr. Manhattan's little monologue and I'm just not familiar enough with the character to know whether he lacks it generally. I just thought that as a standalone response, it was beautifully uplifting. I especially liked how he was lovingly playing with his conversation partner's frustration and gently leading her to see her situation differently.
Yeah, that scene shows him demonstrating a bit of his old humanity. Up until that point he's a bit clueless.