V reflection

I am still not quite sure where to go with this, but I want to discuss V's motivations. I still can't figure out if V favored anarchy, or if he simply felt anarchy allowed him to do as much damage to those who had hurt him as possible. You can kill whoever you want in the land of do as you please. I think it's telling when V offers to avenge Gordon's life despite the fact that this would lend no assistance to his cause. If he were really interested in anarchy I think he would have kept his focus there.

I also continue to wonder just how much control V had over the situation. We bounced around this question a couple of times in class with regards to moral issues, but I wonder if planned out every single thing, knew how people would react and worked to create the "environment" that would cause that reaction, or if there was actually some element of chance or free will. Yes, V just put Evey in the right environment, but if he knew what would happen then he made the decision for her. It's especially telling that he controlled fate--he had the power to manipulate destiny, to predetermine how things would occur. In a sense, this is even greater power than Paul's as he could only see the future, while V writes the future.

V for Vendetta Reflection

Abraham Lincoln, Adam Susan, and V. All did what they believed was necessary. Lincoln became essentially a dictator during the Civil War, suspending habeas corpus. As we pointed out in class, on page 37 Adam Susan did what he thought was the only way, that way being fascism. V killed prominent figures in the Norsefire party, held Evey captive, blew up multiple buildings, and temporarily suspended the state's surveillance all because it was necessary. I don't recall him specifically saying that this was the only way, though during his broadcast he issues an ultimatum that the people have to get their act together or action will be taken against them.

Lincoln is one of our most notable presidents and idolize him because he kept the country together in a time of crisis. The American public doesn't care what he did to ensure unity; only the end result matters. V is not as idolized as Lincoln. In class, we weren't able to come up with an answer whether V was good or bad? His goal to end fascism in England is admirable, no matter what his intentions might be. Machiavelli's "the ends justify the means" rules the exceptional circumstances. However, Adam Susan comes off differently compared to Lincoln and V. Fascism is the means for Adam Susan. But what are his ends? Is it purity? He's pretty much obsessed with purity. We don't see how he rose to power so we don't know what was necessary for him to do. To us, the fascism isn't justifiable. Add to that, Moore makes him look crazy by falling in love with Fate and it's even harder for us to understand him.

Reflection on V for Vendetta

I think the one thing that struck me most in class was the discussion of destruction versus creation. I couldn't help but consider the gender roles in V for Vendetta when we were discussing V's inability or at least lack of attempt at creation. Instead the role of creator was left to Evey. This falls much more into traditional (comfortable?) gender roles than did Avram's creation of Yod. I also find myself wondering how much the dynamics of the book would have changed if Evey had been a male character. Since, as Professor Jackson pointed out, Evey had no role as a love interest in the novel, would it have worked just as well with an "Adam" character? Or would we be left feeling as though a man wouldn't be ready to create a new order after V finished with his destruction? I'm really not sure.

Also, with regard to whether or not V is a "good guy" I would argue that he is not. I'm not even entirely convinced that he is the protagonist of the novel, I found myself feeling far more interested in Evey's character, if only because she was much more three dimensional. I believe someone mentioned that while V is represented as the antithesis of Norsefire, which is decidedly evil, being the antithesis of something evil doesn't automatically make him good. That said, I'm not sure that V is as antithetical to Noresfire as he would like to be. Like Norsefire, it seems as though he has decided that he alone gets to determine who is human enough to be worth saving. For the government, that was people of the 'Nordic race,' and for V it was anyone who hadn't been too contaminated by the government, and even then he may have set those who might be worth saving on a path to destruction, unless they could find a way 'free' themselves after he created mass chaos. Also, in his treatment of Evey, it seemed that he was trying to mold her in his image by subjecting her to the same treatment (minus Batch 5) that he and Valerie had been subjected to. While he may have felt justified in do this, he did to her exactly what the scientists at Larkhill had done to him, which really puts them on the same level in my opinion. I'm sure that those scientists felt just as justified as he did in performing their experiments, and equally sure that V wouldn't have hesitated to kill Evey had she not passed his test. While there is the chance that V's actions produced more positive results than the actions of those in power, I don't believe he occupies the moral high ground in any way.

V for Vendetta

I'm doing both my posts at once so please bear with me.

I found V for Vendetta quite good, and better than the movie like the Professor mentioned. I enjoyed the part where V blew up the Justice statue as well. Just like Philip pointed out, I don’t feel the graphic novel is about anarchy. It was more chaos than anything else to me. I might be bias when I say I like the graphic novel format better. There are just some little details you can’t get with a normal novel that you get in V for Vendetta. I found it quite easy to follow along from the numerous manga I have read before.

On a random note, I was so thinking about Captain Planet when I noticed that V’s epiphany was true fire, Evey’s through water and Mr. Finch through LSD (let’s just call that “heart”).

I can’t remember what page it was one but I remember Mr. Finch saying that the Leader did not heal the wounds from the war. After the Leader was dead, the country went to chaos. Sounds like the Balkans to me. Tito was a fierce dictator and kept everyone in line until he died. Now look at all the wars in the Balkans.

Now for my reflection, It seems the question of why V gets to do as he pleases is a common thread amongst all the reflective posts. I think he is allowed because the citizens were upset with their current situation and were powerless to do anything. Then V came along, blowing up buildings, giving them 3 days of no government surveillance, and giving them a choice of what to do. I had to sit in a chair watching the wall for 2 hours during a polygraph test today and it sure felt better getting out than when I was answering questions. When the interviewer asked me the questions without the equipment attached I was fine, but once everything was hooked up I was a bit scared. Perhaps the citizens felt the same.

I think the bottom line is you see what you want to see in the story. In my book V is neither a good guy nor a bad guy.

What really strikes this as a power graphic novel in my mind, is the idea of this fascist state is not far out there. It happened before in Nazi Germany, whats to say it won't happen again?

V for Vendetta

So, some fairly disjointed thoughts on V for Vendetta: while I enjoyed the story line and some of the commentary in V for Vendetta, I found some of the plot nuances difficult to follow because of the format. This may be entirely due to the fact that I had never read a graphic novel before, but many of the characters, especially the minor ones, looked similar enough that I had a difficult time distinguishing them. That said, I really enjoyed reading this, the movie didn't even come close.

I thought one of the more interesting devices in this book was the use of all of the varied cultural references and the use of music. V quoting Shakespeare (11-12) and the Rolling Stones (54) with equal conviction and I am Legend sitting on V's bookshelf next to Dante (18) made an interesting point about the importance of any culture, not just "high" culture. Also the set up of Book 2 with a song was an interesting way to give an overview. I also really appreciated the Les Miserables reference on 255, especially after seeing the way Finch's obsession with V played out. There are definite parallels to Lean Valjean and Javert, but I didn't think of them until seeing the graphic.

I found pieces of the premise somewhat hard to believe, but that may have been because of the time the novel was written at. While I can accept the idea of Britain becoming a dictatorship, the idea of it being religiously based is pretty hard to believe. Beyond that this book was decidedly a product of the Cold War, which doesn't diminish the value of its commentary, but should be taken into account, and does take away slightly from its verisimilitude.

On the other hand, the idea of a big brother society is still alive and well long after the Cold War. There are already cameras in almost every city in Britain (which look identical to the ones on page 9) which constantly monitor looking for criminal activity. Some even have live operators which inform people when they have been spotted littering or engaging in "anti-social behavior" (check out the BBC's article). I found the concept a bit creepy while I was living there, but almost everyone took them for granted, and seemed completely oblivious to being monitored. While it's probably not a slippery slope, the possibility seems to exist, and keeps this novel very relavant.

V for Vendetta

This being my first time reading the graphic novel, I couldn't help returning back to the movie. When I first saw the movie, I liked it. Even after reading the graphic novel, I still like the movie but not in the same way as before. I'm a strong believer in judging movies-based-on-books separate from the books (i.e. the Harry Potter films).

But while reading V for Vendetta, I was looking for the differences, kind of like those spot the differences cartoons. The overall picture is similar, but there are 10 or however many minor differences. I'm not going to name all of the differences, but one visual difference I saw was Norsefire's slogan. In the graphic novel, it was "Strength through Purity. Purity through Faith", whereas in the movie it was changed to "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith". (See the pictures below)

One different word and the meaning of Norsefire seems to change. Purity demonstrates the fascist nature of Norsefire while the word unity doesn't have quite the same effect. Unity doesn't come off as severe purity. Maybe this is because unity is something we strive for, but not in the sense of exterminating everyone who sticks out. Unity also reminds me of the commune, which leads to a communism/authoritarian vs freedom nature to the film instead of fascism vs. anarchism as Moore and Lloyd intended.

The film tried to slim down this complex graphic novel and in that attempt left out certain details and failed to acknowledge secondary characters. It's not that the film left out everyone, though the wives are missing in the film, but it passed by them so quickly I couldn't catch their names so I never thought they were as important. I think there will be enough ranting about the movie vs. graphic novel in class.

Substinative-V

I really don't know where to start with V. I did not like the graphic novel format, the story was good, as was the dialog, but I could not seem to get into it because of the layout. I do think it could make a good movie though (I have to agree that the V movie already made did not live up to standard). I realize that having a main character is necessary, but I am still disappointed that all of these revolutionary tales seem to pass on this messianic belief in the importance of one extraordinary individual. This is not how real revolutions happen! It takes a movement led not bay a single individual, but by the sand of time and the structure of the current situation conspiring against the oppressive regime.

I also want to offer a comment on what I suspect Andrew will say. I don't beleive this is a story about the glory and greatness of Anarchy. In fact, I don't believe anarchy has much to do with the story at all. Instead, this is about the power of a vengeful person--the lesson to be learned is not that we need to allow anarchy so everyone can be free, but to be careful who we cross, and to choose not to oppress or abuse people if for not other reason than that they will probably get you back.

I also enjoy the various classifications of what is being done (terrorism, revenge, revolution, etc.).

Finally, I like the Sci Fi element in the supercomputer. I think it reveals the vulnerability of anyone who choose to rely on any one person or thing. It was an extraordinarily cynical message not that different from the individualistic statements Heinlein likes to make except, whereas in most Heinlein novels everyone is not really alone (I can think of one, maybe two exceptions), in V everyone is forced completely to rely on no one but themselves, and those who do seek comfort in relying on another (What's his names wife, Leader/the regime on Fate, Eve on Gordon, etc) only wind up regretting it.