The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

V for Vendetta (or how I loved something I totally disagreed with) SPOILERS

ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
edited September 2008 in Graphic Violence
After some kind soul on this forum pointed me to the local library as a way to read a TON of graphic novels for free, I ran with it. My most recent completion was V for Vendetta.

vforvendetta.jpg

Now, this was a REALLY good book. Damn good. Complex, rich, and layered, I regard it as the second best book by Alan Moore that I've read (out of three, mind you) behind Watchmen and ahead of The Killing Joke. What I really liked about it was how great it was despite how little I agreed with the actual politics the novel puts forth.

Also, I'd like to put forth that the story is helped by how interchangeable many of the characters are. There's only a handful that are truly drawn to any significant distinction, many many others have little to nothing to distinguish them from each other. Instead, I associated a character as their department: "Oh, that's the Finger" or "I think he's the Nose". Individuals within the government were less than human in that regard. Carrying that point forward, secondary characters only step forward as they break with the status quo. Mrs. Almond being the most notable, followed by Finch himself.

For those who have read it, I'm at a loss as to what reason V had for committing suicide? He obviously had a love of culture, and yet the only reason I can think that he wanted to make the point that he is not a man, but an idea. I guess I can get behind that, especially because the soliloquy Evey delivers and she repeatedly imagines removing the mask from V.

ryuprecht on

Posts

  • ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I too really enjoy the V books. I still find it a shame that the film only focused on the first act and messed up the ending. It had so much going for it.

    Edit: Forgot you put spoilers in the title

    Ziggymon on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ziggymon wrote: »
    I too really enjoy the V books. I still find it a shame that the film only focused on the first act and messed up the ending. It had so much going for it.

    I hated the movie when I first saw it.

    I stuck it in my Netflix queue to watch again now, though I seem to recall they added a batch of wire-fu to the film.

    ryuprecht on
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »

    For those who have read it, I'm at a loss as to what reason V had for committing suicide? He obviously had a love of culture, and yet the only reason I can think that he wanted to make the point that he is not a man, but an idea. I guess I can get behind that, especially because the soliloquy Evey delivers and she repeatedly imagines removing the mask from V.

    i think V genuinely believed that, after his experiences in larkhill, he had only one purpose in life- to revenge himself upon those who did him wrong, and to cause as much damage as possible to their government. i think he really believed what he said to eve towards the end, that he was only a force for destruction, useful only to a point. eventually someone else would need to take over, someone who hadn't been as emotionally broken as he had (again, by his time in larkhill), someone capable of of seeing the other side of "the land of do-as-you-please". after he'd gotten to that point, what else is there for him?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Servo wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »

    For those who have read it, I'm at a loss as to what reason V had for committing suicide? He obviously had a love of culture, and yet the only reason I can think that he wanted to make the point that he is not a man, but an idea. I guess I can get behind that, especially because the soliloquy Evey delivers and she repeatedly imagines removing the mask from V.

    i think V genuinely believed that, after his experiences in larkhill, he had only one purpose in life- to revenge himself upon those who did him wrong, and to cause as much damage as possible to their government. i think he really believed what he said to eve towards the end, that he was only a force for destruction, useful only to a point. eventually someone else would need to take over, someone who hadn't been as emotionally broken as he had (again, by his time in larkhill), someone capable of of seeing the other side of "the land of do-as-you-please". after he'd gotten to that point, what else is there for him?

    I tend to agree. He knew he was kind of a monster, and it was revenge that kept him going so long. He neither wanted to continue afterward nor was he capable of doing so.

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ok and I have to bring this up...
    What I really liked about it was how great it was despite how little I agreed with the actual politics the novel puts forth.

    Could you elaborate on that? Because the basic message is that people should rebel against fascism, or that's how I see it anyway. Do you disagree with the methodology? That the ends justified the means to V?

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I actually liked the movie quite a bit. However, this is one of those situation where you have to separate the two in your mind. The movie is different from the book, and if you can accept that, both are enjoyable for different reasons.

    Lucascraft on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    Ok and I have to bring this up...
    What I really liked about it was how great it was despite how little I agreed with the actual politics the novel puts forth.

    Could you elaborate on that? Because the basic message is that people should rebel against fascism, or that's how I see it anyway. Do you disagree with the methodology? That the ends justified the means to V?

    Not so much the general premise (overthrow tyrannical governments) but the details.

    Off the top of my head:

    - The government was created in no small part by corporations that were afraid of going out of business (message: corporations are bad!)
    - Anarchy is idolized as not just a means, but an end.
    - Justice can be perverted, ergo it is a whore to be discarded.
    - Fascist government is in bed with Catholicism (or a bastardization of it) to help control the people.
    - Anarchy must exist (in the form of V) before a movement of reason and freedom can begin.

    I think V is an interesting but incomplete character, and at times he's very clearly a vehicle for the author's beliefs (not that that is a bad thing in and of itself). But because of that, his insistence in anarchy as the only form of protest is disagreeable to me.

    ryuprecht on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    - Fascist government is in bed with Catholicism (or a bastardization of it) to help control the people.

    That isn't the Catholic church but the COE, which is (or was conceived as) an arm of the Crown. And yeah, in real life it does slightly resemble Catholicism.

    EDIT: what I'm saying is that Moore isn't conspiracy-ranting, the Church of England has historically been a serious force in English governance here in the real world.

    Jacobkosh on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    - Fascist government is in bed with Catholicism (or a bastardization of it) to help control the people.

    That isn't the Catholic church but the COE, which is (or was conceived as) an arm of the Crown. And yeah, in real life it does slightly resemble Catholicism.

    EDIT: what I'm saying is that Moore isn't conspiracy-ranting, the Church of England has historically been a serious force in English governance here in the real world.

    I stand corrected then!

    ryuprecht on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ryuprecht wrote: »

    - The government was created in no small part by corporations that were afraid of going out of business (message: corporations are bad!)
    - Anarchy is idolized as not just a means, but an end.
    - Justice can be perverted, ergo it is a whore to be discarded.
    - Fascist government is in bed with Catholicism (or a bastardization of it) to help control the people.
    - Anarchy must exist (in the form of V) before a movement of reason and freedom can begin.

    I think V is an interesting but incomplete character, and at times he's very clearly a vehicle for the author's beliefs (not that that is a bad thing in and of itself). But because of that, his insistence in anarchy as the only form of protest is disagreeable to me.

    My Thoughts:

    - The government was created in no small part by corporations that were afraid of going out of business (message: corporations are bad!)

    Well, that's tied in with the fascism, but I think you are confusing corporations with corporatism. I'll have to re-read V again to check though.

    - Anarchy is idolized as not just a means, but an end.

    We kind of answered that. That's why V commits suicide. It also is the natural opposite to the fascist government, so from a story standpoint, its a nice fit.

    - Justice can be perverted, ergo it is a whore to be discarded.

    I would disagree that was a message they were trying to convey. The character definitely felt that way, however.

    - Fascist government is in bed with Catholicism (or a bastardization of it) to help control the people.

    jacobkosh already had a very nice point on this one.

    - Anarchy must exist (in the form of V) before a movement of reason and freedom can begin.

    You're not off on this one, I just disagree with you. When a system of government and control has gotten as far out of hand as it had in V's world, you can't just kill the people in charge and then leave it at that. Their subordinates, all people who were trained to behave the same way, would just take over. The entire system needed to be overhauled. The people needed to be reminded what they'd lost, and what power they really had.

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Sign In or Register to comment.