I find it difficult to get into a lot of Alan Moore's work- although I've yet to check out Hellblazer and I highly suspect I'll enjoy it- but I like V for Vendetta. It's tough to reread cause it's just so heavy-handed (that and I'm a Fight Club and Bill Hicks fan...I spend way too much time on smashing the system in my head already), but the story is still top-notch.
Edit: first sentence implies I didn't like Watchmen; it is actually my favourite graphic novel ever. Why do I feel pretentious when I type "graphic novel?"
Torso Boy on
0
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
edited March 2008
Because it can, has, and will be used as a means to elevate certain works above "mere comic books"
I used to be like "Woo! The movie is awesome, the comic sucks!" But then on a whim I picked up the full graphic novel (I had only been reading the small portion that came with my DVD) and I fell in love . . . then I read half of Watchmen and fell in love.
Good times.
I picked up the comic after watching the film too. The film was entertaining, the comic was just dull featuring horrible art. The two are only very loosely related however.
man what?
I really liked V for Vendetta. I borrowed it from the library, had it for a month and read it three or four times. I really enjoyed almost every bit of it. I tend to enjoy dystopian stuff. Moore seemed to be saying that you have to find a happy medium between too much order and too much freedom, which I think makes sense. V is the protagonist, but I am not sure if I would call him the hero. I'm not sure if there is a hero. He is destroying the government and leaving anarchy in his wake. He's not creating something better or anything, just removing a bad thing and doing nothing to keep the wound from getting infected. It has been several years since I read it, so it is kind of vague now. Another book I really need to own.
I have not seen the movie. Maybe if I can watch it for free without being a dirty internet pirate, I'll do that. If a friend or someone already bought it, I would watch it I guess.
You can poop on my chest before you infer that V isn't the hero of this book. Not a page went by without me considering V the protagonist. We get his past, his present, and his death; Though that doesn't make a hero, in the context of the book, it makes for the easiest character to relate to and follow.
I guess that has to do with my definition of hero though. I pretty much equate protagonist=hero. Whoops.
Firstly, the art isn't very good. The characters are unclear and boring and some of the action scenes are drawn in silly, ambiguous ways. None of the big moments have any impact. Look back on V getting shot by Finch and tell me that you could tell what happened easily.
Secondly, the characters are boring ciphers. There's nothing interesting about Evey, she doesn't do or say anything interesting, she's not interesting to look at, she doesn't really do anything for the whole book. Even her subplot with her lover took place over what, six panels? It had no impact. Maybe she was deliberately a cipher but honestly I couldn't care less about her.
It was difficult to tell the fascists apart from one another because they were all similarly drably drawn. Aside from the woman whose husband ran the eye, none of the people V killed were particularly interesting. I didn't love or hate them. I didn't care. V was always so utterly in control that there was no tension and the whole affair felt pointless.
V borders on being a mary sue. I question anyone who says he wasn't the hero simply based on the fact that it wasn't explicitly stated in the narrative. He was smarter, stronger, more cultured and better at everything than anyone. At no point in the narrative does he get wrong footed, and his planning abilities border on prescience. It's implied that he planned to get shot in such a way that he would have time to get back to Evey for final dramatic conclusion. Certainly he planned to die in some way by that point, because he has his funeral all planned. He felt like Moore's anarchist fantasy, an anarchist who knows everything and wrong foots those moronic right wingers at every turn. It takes a lot to be unable to elicit empathy when your opponents are fascists.
The only character that was really interesting was Susan, and there still wasn't very much to him. He was the only character who I relaly felt needed some extra development, the rest of the book was populated by one note characters with no depth or interest.
Also making me read a decently sized part of the book sideways is bullshit. And the pages smelled funny.
"Also making me read a decently sized part of the book sideways is bullshit. And the pages smelled funny."
That is the best way to end an intelligent retort. Haha.
You didn't feel anything when V died and Evey took over his role? I loved when she was about to take off his mask and each panel showed a different face.
I wonder if everyone has that one generally regarded classic comic book that they just can't stand. I'm sort of this way with Maus. I've tried on so many occasions to read that book, and I either end up falling asleep, or just closing it and moving onto something else. It's just so god damned boring.
Well said, tube. Even though V is the protagonist, I am not really seeing an endorsement of his actions or line of thinking. I guess the fascists do kind of look the same. I have not read it in about 2 years, so maybe I am remember it with rose colored glasses.
Firstly, the art isn't very good. The characters are unclear and boring and some of the action scenes are drawn in silly, ambiguous ways. None of the big moments have any impact. Look back on V getting shot by Finch and tell me that you could tell what happened easily.
That may be because the art was originally presented in an oversized magazine format, with no colouring whatsoever (a chiaroscuro effect was intended). When DC took over publication of the story they added watercolours and compressed the original art to fit the dimensions of an American comic book. Notice the big difference in the art after the first book or so? That's the signal for production being moved from Warrior (which had actually collapsed several years before) to DC Comics.
As for clarity, well, the scene you mentioned takes place underground, in the dark. The ambiguity of the art may be supposed to reflect that. Also, it may have been an attempt to avoid making the story resemble a typical superhero book, where beat downs are lengthy and clearly choreographed. Obviously, I can't speak for either Moore or Lloyd.
Secondly, the characters are boring ciphers. There's nothing interesting about Evey, she doesn't do or say anything interesting, she's not interesting to look at, she doesn't really do anything for the whole book. Even her subplot with her lover took place over what, six panels? It had no impact. Maybe she was deliberately a cipher but honestly I couldn't care less about her.
Again, I can only offer my own interpretation for this, but hey, what the Hell: Evey's a metaphor for the subjugation of individual identity that tends to take place in nations where extremists have seized control. Look at North Korea. Look at Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China; individual identity was/is sacrificed - save for that of the local "Leader" - for the Greater Good, the interpretation of which inevitably being complete and total submission to the political party in power.
Leaving aside symbolism for the moment, you could argue that Evey never had the time or freedom to develop her own personality. She spent her childhood in a work home, was rescued from certain rape/death by a charismatic superhuman all too eager to mold her into a mirror of himself, tortured by said superhuman in order to make her more receptive to his psychological manipulation and, with that achieved, assumed V's identity, abandoning her past life. The one period when she was arguably "free" she attached herself to an older man, submitting to him as both a lover and father figure. Having said, she never gave in to V's bloodlust - she, uniquely amongst the book's cast of characters, espouses mercy, refusing to kill (save for one instance of understandable weakness).
It was difficult to tell the fascists apart from one another because they were all similarly drably drawn. Aside from the woman whose husband ran the eye, none of the people V killed were particularly interesting. I didn't love or hate them. I didn't care. V was always so utterly in control that there was no tension and the whole affair felt pointless.
I disagree, I though the fascists were all pretty well fleshed-out. The Leader's naturally developed a God-complex, is unable to relate to other human beings, and solely enjoys the company of his super-computer - indeed, has fallen in love with the unthinking machine (which is as far removed from a fellow human being as can be imagined). All the while reassuring himself that both Norsefire and its principles have been necessary for the country to survive. This is all he dwells upon during his "A Day in the Life" chapter of the book, which is pretty telling.
Almond relieves his stress (and, one presumes, the brutality inherent in his job) by abusing his wife, who loves him regardless; a response not at all uncommon in such relationships.
Doctor Surridge is repentant of her actions in Larkhill, and welcomes death. She has become a woman completely unlike that of the callous, amoral individual who clinically chronicled the awful effects of her experiments in her diary.
The Bishop has turned his religion into a personal fetish, basically gaining an erection on perverting the rituals of his church while relishing the authority bestowed on him by his clerical collar. He's one of the book's unrepentant monsters, but at least his excesses can be analysed and broadly understood.
Harper's an opportunistic thug. Unpleasant, but hardly far removed from real life. The accent's probably the most dubious thing about him (he's supposed to be from Greenock; I myself am the son of a Greenock woman and have lived all my life ten minutes away from the town, so I know what I'm talking about here).
Prothero's a gross caricature of the English imperialist (he enjoys recounting his molestation of foreign woman to fellow military men) who's attitudes are pretty well-explained by his paranoia. Really, if he were alive he'd have a celebrated column in the Daily Express (they'd be a perfect match).
The woman you mentioned, Helen Heyer is, in my opinion, one of the less convincing characters. She's a Nazi Lady Macbeth, and seems to be a somewhat unnecessary addition to the plot. Her thread strikes me as filler every time I read the book. Maybe it's just me.
Many of the characters are unpleasant, some are surprisingly decent at the core (Finch being the most obvious example), and a few are monsters. Is that really so unlikely in a story set in a fascist Britain? We've got plenty of unpleasant, prejeudiced people in power in our political and religious and law-enforcement institutions already. I don't think things would get any better if the BNP took over.
Moore managed to give each and every character (the book contains a massive "cast") some semblance of humanity (positive and negative) when he could have simply portrayed the Norsefire government as faceless Nazis headed by an anglicised Hitler who enjoys a cup of tea when he isn't polishing his monocle. I think that alone should be lauded. That you couldn't tell such distinct characters apart suggests that this thread is intended as a wind-up. That makes the above analysis pointless, but it still beats studying.
I think part of how well you receive V for Vendetta also comes down to how familiar with British history and society in general, since that's largely the backdrop for the story.
V borders on being a mary sue. I question anyone who says he wasn't the hero simply based on the fact that it wasn't explicitly stated in the narrative. He was smarter, stronger, more cultured and better at everything than anyone. At no point in the narrative does he get wrong footed, and his planning abilities border on prescience. It's implied that he planned to get shot in such a way that he would have time to get back to Evey for final dramatic conclusion. Certainly he planned to die in some way by that point, because he has his funeral all planned. He felt like Moore's anarchist fantasy, an anarchist who knows everything and wrong foots those moronic right wingers at every turn. It takes a lot to be unable to elicit empathy when your opponents are fascists.
I've already discussed how I feel about the fascists, but again, I have to disagree on the character of V. Examining him, I've come to the conclusion that he's something of a monster. Let's list the facts:
V is a mass murderer.
V espouses an ideology as inflexible as his fascist counterparts, and arguably more destructive; he intends to destroy the civilisation in which he lives, with no regard to its rebuilding. That, he maintains, is not the job of the anarchist.
V is heavily implied to be quite mad.
V took in a teenage girl (whose intelligence and emotional maturity had been stunted at childhood), abandoned her, tortured her until she had been broken down into something more suitably malleable, and remade her in his own dubious image. Whose to say Valerie was even real, maybe her poster was of another actress and he decided her image would make a convincing prop in his little experiment?
V views his fellow human being as little more than pawns and dominoes in his personal Passion Play (some of them deserve to be dehumanised, true, but it doesn't stop his being a hypocritical position).
V, V, V, V, V.
If you think him a Marty Stue then I'd argue you've been suckered by the romanticism he embodies. Hell, it might be more instructive to view him as something more akin to a walking, talking plot device, or a commentary of Britain's dodgy tastes in cultural heroes. For God's sake, he's a one-man Greek Chorus (This Vicious Cabaret) halfway-through the book! He lies outside the rest of the story stylistically, a creature more suited to the Commedia dell'arte than a gritty graphic novel about the rise and fall of a fascist government in Britain.
Here endeth the rebuttal.
An aside: you know the very best scene in V for Vendetta? It's when V is giving his impassioned, patronising, vitriolic diatribe against the common man. For one panel, just one, we see a British family like any other slumped, disinterested, on the couch bathed in the glow of the television. No doubt, the response to V's plea to rise up and restore dignity to the country will be to change channels to Storm Saxon. It's pretty scary, really, that this scene of abject apathy rings truer than the insipid movie adaptation, where the people rise up against their oppressors in (conveniently available) fancy dress.
I'll tell you this: when the revolution comes, I'll probably be happier slumped in front of the computer monitor than on the front lines. And, somehow, I don't think I'll be alone in doing so.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I think V is a lot like Rorschach in Watchmen, in that on the first reading one could be tempted to see them as the hero, just because they're principled and ruthless and die dramatically. Yet both characters are hardly heroic so much as dominating and merciless, and are totally inhuman at times (V much more so than Rorschach, but still). Both may have some admirable qualities, but I would never, ever want to meet anyone or anything like them in real life.
V is a terrorist. There's no question about that. Like all terrorists, he believes he's fighting for freedom.
He kills masses of innocents and at the same time takes pot shots at the government.
I can't help but think I'd be completely in support of V if he didn't kill innocent people along the way.
Red or Alive has pretty much said exactly what I think about "V for Vendetta", and in a much more eloquent fashion than I would have been able to.
The first time I read "V for Vendetta", I thought that V was clearly the hero, the good guy, the person I was rooting for. When I read it the second time, I realized that he's using brainwashing, murder (sometimes on a large scale - I doubt the buildings he blew up were empty), and other deplorable things to achieve his goals (and let's remember that he is not taking the opinions of the masses into account any more than the government was; he has prescribed society a complete removal of government, and he uses any means necessary to apply that prescription. Which is why depicting him as a hero of democracy, as the movie did, doesn't work for me). He is most definitely not the good guy, and he is most definitely not the savior I want (although there is a lot about him that I like and admire, such as his erudition).
I think it might be useful to hear what Moore himself says about Vendetta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
That's a filthy lie and you know it. Alan Moore is the sexiest man in comics!
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
That's a filthy lie and you know it. Alan Moore is the sexiest man in comics!
I'll let the crazy old man who lives down the block know that he's your type.
Delduwath on
0
143999Tellin' yanot askin' ya, not pleadin' with yaRegistered Userregular
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
That's a filthy lie and you know it. Alan Moore is the sexiest man in comics!
These two statements do not contradict one another.
Red or Alive has pretty much said exactly what I think about "V for Vendetta", and in a much more eloquent fashion than I would have been able to.
The first time I read "V for Vendetta", I thought that V was clearly the hero, the good guy, the person I was rooting for. When I read it the second time, I realized that he's using brainwashing, murder (sometimes on a large scale - I doubt the buildings he blew up were empty), and other deplorable things to achieve his goals (and let's remember that he is not taking the opinions of the masses into account any more than the government was; he has prescribed society a complete removal of government, and he uses any means necessary to apply that prescription. Which is why depicting him as a hero of democracy, as the movie did, doesn't work for me). He is most definitely not the good guy, and he is most definitely not the savior I want (although there is a lot about him that I like and admire, such as his erudition).
I think it might be useful to hear what Moore himself says about Vendetta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
Wow. I've never actually seen video of Moore, only pictures. I've never heard his voice, either.
I've heard a clip of Warren Ellis doing an impression of him, explaining a conversation about his newly built magic cave underneath his house, and it was very slow and ridiculous. Like, a word every 10 seconds.
Red or Alive has pretty much said exactly what I think about "V for Vendetta", and in a much more eloquent fashion than I would have been able to.
The first time I read "V for Vendetta", I thought that V was clearly the hero, the good guy, the person I was rooting for. When I read it the second time, I realized that he's using brainwashing, murder (sometimes on a large scale - I doubt the buildings he blew up were empty), and other deplorable things to achieve his goals (and let's remember that he is not taking the opinions of the masses into account any more than the government was; he has prescribed society a complete removal of government, and he uses any means necessary to apply that prescription. Which is why depicting him as a hero of democracy, as the movie did, doesn't work for me). He is most definitely not the good guy, and he is most definitely not the savior I want (although there is a lot about him that I like and admire, such as his erudition).
I think it might be useful to hear what Moore himself says about Vendetta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
Wow. I've never actually seen video of Moore, only pictures. I've never heard his voice, either.
I've heard a clip of Warren Ellis doing an impression of him, explaining a conversation about his newly built magic cave underneath his house, and it was very slow and ridiculous. Like, a word every 10 seconds.
Was that were Moore was telling Ellis that now he smokes 10 joints a day, and only eats one meal a day?
So seeing that hasn't really convinced me that V wasn't intended as a hero. I'm sure you can read it that way, but Moore's moral ambiguity went as far as not making the fascists completely evil.
So seeing that hasn't really convinced me that V wasn't intended as a hero. I'm sure you can read it that way, but Moore's moral ambiguity went as far as not making the fascists completely evil.
V is a very charismatic character. He's well-read, he appreciates art and history and poetry and music. He's very capable. He is fighting (at least in his words) for freedom. It's hard not to like him and not to favor him and his beliefs. I think Moore has some bias here, considering that he's an avowed anarchist himself. I'm not surprised that V is so likable. But I didn't know all of this when I read "V for Vendetta" the first two times. I knew almost nothing about Moore. I wasn't thinking about Moore's own political views, and what I took away from the story was: extremes are dangerous. I think that V's idealized extreme is more attractive than Norsefire's extreme, but I think that it can really only happen if human beings are flawless and just and such, because only then could they govern themselves (the state that V is striving for: natural order, not imposed order). But the road to that state is terrifying. Look at the means that V is taking. They are not exactly heroic. Imagine if this was going on in the real world. Imagine if a masked man was blowing up buildings, killing government officials, and demanding a complete overturning of the rest of the government. That does not fit my idea of a hero (although, admittedly, I'm not living under a government that is quite as strict as Norsefire; perhaps my opinion would be quite different if I was).
I guess that here I'm taking the ultra-artsy stance of "the artist's intent is not as important as the reader's interpretation". Moore may have intended V to be a hero, but I don't see him that way.
So seeing that hasn't really convinced me that V wasn't intended as a hero. I'm sure you can read it that way, but Moore's moral ambiguity went as far as not making the fascists completely evil.
V is a very charismatic character. He's well-read, he appreciates art and history and poetry and music. He's very capable. He is fighting (at least in his words) for freedom. It's hard not to like him and not to favor him and his beliefs. I think Moore has some bias here, considering that he's an avowed anarchist himself. I'm not surprised that V is so likable. But I didn't know all of this when I read "V for Vendetta" the first two times. I knew almost nothing about Moore. I wasn't thinking about Moore's own political views, and what I took away from the story was: extremes are dangerous. I think that V's idealized extreme is more attractive than Norsefire's extreme, but I think that it can really only happen if human beings are flawless and just and such, because only then could they govern themselves (the state that V is striving for: natural order, not imposed order). But the road to that state is terrifying. Look at the means that V is taking. They are not exactly heroic. Imagine if this was going on in the real world. Imagine if a masked man was blowing up buildings, killing government officials, and demanding a complete overturning of the rest of the government. That does not fit my idea of a hero (although, admittedly, I'm not living under a government that is quite as strict as Norsefire; perhaps my opinion would be quite different if I was).
I guess that here I'm taking the ultra-artsy stance of "the artist's intent is not as important as the reader's interpretation". Moore may have intended V to be a hero, but I don't see him that way.
Speaking of Anarchy, I like how Moore shows us the "destructive" side of anarchy my not the "constructive" side that Evey will supposedly personify.
Because doing so would probably strain the plausibility of even a comic book.
It is perhaps the most challenging book I ever read........ mainly because the handwriting is godawful. Really, some of the text are barely intelligible but otherwise it's a good read, if a bit too opaque.
Aleph on
0
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Posts
Edit: first sentence implies I didn't like Watchmen; it is actually my favourite graphic novel ever. Why do I feel pretentious when I type "graphic novel?"
man what?
I really liked V for Vendetta. I borrowed it from the library, had it for a month and read it three or four times. I really enjoyed almost every bit of it. I tend to enjoy dystopian stuff. Moore seemed to be saying that you have to find a happy medium between too much order and too much freedom, which I think makes sense. V is the protagonist, but I am not sure if I would call him the hero. I'm not sure if there is a hero. He is destroying the government and leaving anarchy in his wake. He's not creating something better or anything, just removing a bad thing and doing nothing to keep the wound from getting infected. It has been several years since I read it, so it is kind of vague now. Another book I really need to own.
I have not seen the movie. Maybe if I can watch it for free without being a dirty internet pirate, I'll do that. If a friend or someone already bought it, I would watch it I guess.
I guess that has to do with my definition of hero though. I pretty much equate protagonist=hero. Whoops.
Really, if that's all you're getting from reading V for Vendetta, I suggest you try reading it again.
Firstly, the art isn't very good. The characters are unclear and boring and some of the action scenes are drawn in silly, ambiguous ways. None of the big moments have any impact. Look back on V getting shot by Finch and tell me that you could tell what happened easily.
Secondly, the characters are boring ciphers. There's nothing interesting about Evey, she doesn't do or say anything interesting, she's not interesting to look at, she doesn't really do anything for the whole book. Even her subplot with her lover took place over what, six panels? It had no impact. Maybe she was deliberately a cipher but honestly I couldn't care less about her.
It was difficult to tell the fascists apart from one another because they were all similarly drably drawn. Aside from the woman whose husband ran the eye, none of the people V killed were particularly interesting. I didn't love or hate them. I didn't care. V was always so utterly in control that there was no tension and the whole affair felt pointless.
V borders on being a mary sue. I question anyone who says he wasn't the hero simply based on the fact that it wasn't explicitly stated in the narrative. He was smarter, stronger, more cultured and better at everything than anyone. At no point in the narrative does he get wrong footed, and his planning abilities border on prescience. It's implied that he planned to get shot in such a way that he would have time to get back to Evey for final dramatic conclusion. Certainly he planned to die in some way by that point, because he has his funeral all planned. He felt like Moore's anarchist fantasy, an anarchist who knows everything and wrong foots those moronic right wingers at every turn. It takes a lot to be unable to elicit empathy when your opponents are fascists.
The only character that was really interesting was Susan, and there still wasn't very much to him. He was the only character who I relaly felt needed some extra development, the rest of the book was populated by one note characters with no depth or interest.
Also making me read a decently sized part of the book sideways is bullshit. And the pages smelled funny.
That is the best way to end an intelligent retort. Haha.
You didn't feel anything when V died and Evey took over his role? I loved when she was about to take off his mask and each panel showed a different face.
That may be because the art was originally presented in an oversized magazine format, with no colouring whatsoever (a chiaroscuro effect was intended). When DC took over publication of the story they added watercolours and compressed the original art to fit the dimensions of an American comic book. Notice the big difference in the art after the first book or so? That's the signal for production being moved from Warrior (which had actually collapsed several years before) to DC Comics.
As for clarity, well, the scene you mentioned takes place underground, in the dark. The ambiguity of the art may be supposed to reflect that. Also, it may have been an attempt to avoid making the story resemble a typical superhero book, where beat downs are lengthy and clearly choreographed. Obviously, I can't speak for either Moore or Lloyd.
Again, I can only offer my own interpretation for this, but hey, what the Hell: Evey's a metaphor for the subjugation of individual identity that tends to take place in nations where extremists have seized control. Look at North Korea. Look at Nazi Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China; individual identity was/is sacrificed - save for that of the local "Leader" - for the Greater Good, the interpretation of which inevitably being complete and total submission to the political party in power.
Leaving aside symbolism for the moment, you could argue that Evey never had the time or freedom to develop her own personality. She spent her childhood in a work home, was rescued from certain rape/death by a charismatic superhuman all too eager to mold her into a mirror of himself, tortured by said superhuman in order to make her more receptive to his psychological manipulation and, with that achieved, assumed V's identity, abandoning her past life. The one period when she was arguably "free" she attached herself to an older man, submitting to him as both a lover and father figure. Having said, she never gave in to V's bloodlust - she, uniquely amongst the book's cast of characters, espouses mercy, refusing to kill (save for one instance of understandable weakness).
I disagree, I though the fascists were all pretty well fleshed-out. The Leader's naturally developed a God-complex, is unable to relate to other human beings, and solely enjoys the company of his super-computer - indeed, has fallen in love with the unthinking machine (which is as far removed from a fellow human being as can be imagined). All the while reassuring himself that both Norsefire and its principles have been necessary for the country to survive. This is all he dwells upon during his "A Day in the Life" chapter of the book, which is pretty telling.
Almond relieves his stress (and, one presumes, the brutality inherent in his job) by abusing his wife, who loves him regardless; a response not at all uncommon in such relationships.
Doctor Surridge is repentant of her actions in Larkhill, and welcomes death. She has become a woman completely unlike that of the callous, amoral individual who clinically chronicled the awful effects of her experiments in her diary.
The Bishop has turned his religion into a personal fetish, basically gaining an erection on perverting the rituals of his church while relishing the authority bestowed on him by his clerical collar. He's one of the book's unrepentant monsters, but at least his excesses can be analysed and broadly understood.
Harper's an opportunistic thug. Unpleasant, but hardly far removed from real life. The accent's probably the most dubious thing about him (he's supposed to be from Greenock; I myself am the son of a Greenock woman and have lived all my life ten minutes away from the town, so I know what I'm talking about here).
Prothero's a gross caricature of the English imperialist (he enjoys recounting his molestation of foreign woman to fellow military men) who's attitudes are pretty well-explained by his paranoia. Really, if he were alive he'd have a celebrated column in the Daily Express (they'd be a perfect match).
The woman you mentioned, Helen Heyer is, in my opinion, one of the less convincing characters. She's a Nazi Lady Macbeth, and seems to be a somewhat unnecessary addition to the plot. Her thread strikes me as filler every time I read the book. Maybe it's just me.
Many of the characters are unpleasant, some are surprisingly decent at the core (Finch being the most obvious example), and a few are monsters. Is that really so unlikely in a story set in a fascist Britain? We've got plenty of unpleasant, prejeudiced people in power in our political and religious and law-enforcement institutions already. I don't think things would get any better if the BNP took over.
Moore managed to give each and every character (the book contains a massive "cast") some semblance of humanity (positive and negative) when he could have simply portrayed the Norsefire government as faceless Nazis headed by an anglicised Hitler who enjoys a cup of tea when he isn't polishing his monocle. I think that alone should be lauded. That you couldn't tell such distinct characters apart suggests that this thread is intended as a wind-up. That makes the above analysis pointless, but it still beats studying.
Post needs more lime.
I think part of how well you receive V for Vendetta also comes down to how familiar with British history and society in general, since that's largely the backdrop for the story.
I've already discussed how I feel about the fascists, but again, I have to disagree on the character of V. Examining him, I've come to the conclusion that he's something of a monster. Let's list the facts:
V is a mass murderer.
V espouses an ideology as inflexible as his fascist counterparts, and arguably more destructive; he intends to destroy the civilisation in which he lives, with no regard to its rebuilding. That, he maintains, is not the job of the anarchist.
V is heavily implied to be quite mad.
V took in a teenage girl (whose intelligence and emotional maturity had been stunted at childhood), abandoned her, tortured her until she had been broken down into something more suitably malleable, and remade her in his own dubious image. Whose to say Valerie was even real, maybe her poster was of another actress and he decided her image would make a convincing prop in his little experiment?
V views his fellow human being as little more than pawns and dominoes in his personal Passion Play (some of them deserve to be dehumanised, true, but it doesn't stop his being a hypocritical position).
V, V, V, V, V.
If you think him a Marty Stue then I'd argue you've been suckered by the romanticism he embodies. Hell, it might be more instructive to view him as something more akin to a walking, talking plot device, or a commentary of Britain's dodgy tastes in cultural heroes. For God's sake, he's a one-man Greek Chorus (This Vicious Cabaret) halfway-through the book! He lies outside the rest of the story stylistically, a creature more suited to the Commedia dell'arte than a gritty graphic novel about the rise and fall of a fascist government in Britain.
Here endeth the rebuttal.
An aside: you know the very best scene in V for Vendetta? It's when V is giving his impassioned, patronising, vitriolic diatribe against the common man. For one panel, just one, we see a British family like any other slumped, disinterested, on the couch bathed in the glow of the television. No doubt, the response to V's plea to rise up and restore dignity to the country will be to change channels to Storm Saxon. It's pretty scary, really, that this scene of abject apathy rings truer than the insipid movie adaptation, where the people rise up against their oppressors in (conveniently available) fancy dress.
I'll tell you this: when the revolution comes, I'll probably be happier slumped in front of the computer monitor than on the front lines. And, somehow, I don't think I'll be alone in doing so.
I actually have to buy it, as I borrowed it from a friend when I first read it.
Agreed wholeheartedly. I think V is a lot like Rorschach in Watchmen, in that on the first reading one could be tempted to see them as the hero, just because they're principled and ruthless and die dramatically. Yet both characters are hardly heroic so much as dominating and merciless, and are totally inhuman at times (V much more so than Rorschach, but still). Both may have some admirable qualities, but I would never, ever want to meet anyone or anything like them in real life.
He kills masses of innocents and at the same time takes pot shots at the government.
I can't help but think I'd be completely in support of V if he didn't kill innocent people along the way.
The first time I read "V for Vendetta", I thought that V was clearly the hero, the good guy, the person I was rooting for. When I read it the second time, I realized that he's using brainwashing, murder (sometimes on a large scale - I doubt the buildings he blew up were empty), and other deplorable things to achieve his goals (and let's remember that he is not taking the opinions of the masses into account any more than the government was; he has prescribed society a complete removal of government, and he uses any means necessary to apply that prescription. Which is why depicting him as a hero of democracy, as the movie did, doesn't work for me). He is most definitely not the good guy, and he is most definitely not the savior I want (although there is a lot about him that I like and admire, such as his erudition).
I think it might be useful to hear what Moore himself says about Vendetta: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0
(Warning: Alan Moore looks like the crazy old man who lives down the block. If you've never before seen what he looks like, just be forewarned when clicking that link.)
That's a filthy lie and you know it. Alan Moore is the sexiest man in comics!
I'll let the crazy old man who lives down the block know that he's your type.
These two statements do not contradict one another.
Wow. I've never actually seen video of Moore, only pictures. I've never heard his voice, either.
I've heard a clip of Warren Ellis doing an impression of him, explaining a conversation about his newly built magic cave underneath his house, and it was very slow and ridiculous. Like, a word every 10 seconds.
V is a very charismatic character. He's well-read, he appreciates art and history and poetry and music. He's very capable. He is fighting (at least in his words) for freedom. It's hard not to like him and not to favor him and his beliefs. I think Moore has some bias here, considering that he's an avowed anarchist himself. I'm not surprised that V is so likable. But I didn't know all of this when I read "V for Vendetta" the first two times. I knew almost nothing about Moore. I wasn't thinking about Moore's own political views, and what I took away from the story was: extremes are dangerous. I think that V's idealized extreme is more attractive than Norsefire's extreme, but I think that it can really only happen if human beings are flawless and just and such, because only then could they govern themselves (the state that V is striving for: natural order, not imposed order). But the road to that state is terrifying. Look at the means that V is taking. They are not exactly heroic. Imagine if this was going on in the real world. Imagine if a masked man was blowing up buildings, killing government officials, and demanding a complete overturning of the rest of the government. That does not fit my idea of a hero (although, admittedly, I'm not living under a government that is quite as strict as Norsefire; perhaps my opinion would be quite different if I was).
I guess that here I'm taking the ultra-artsy stance of "the artist's intent is not as important as the reader's interpretation". Moore may have intended V to be a hero, but I don't see him that way.
What do you like tube?
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
I want to see what that does to you.
Speaking of Anarchy, I like how Moore shows us the "destructive" side of anarchy my not the "constructive" side that Evey will supposedly personify.
Because doing so would probably strain the plausibility of even a comic book.
Go look at the front page of this forum and see if you can tell what I like.
Watchmen is indeed quite awesome.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
Heh, I can only imagine what someone who hated the art for V For Vendetta would think of From Hell's.
How is it?
Hey August, was that a reference to the John DeFoe games?