I don't read comic books of this type all that often. It's true that in my youth I devoured shelf after shelf of the Asian equivalents, but I can tell you that the two are as different as night and day. I came to this graphic novel with its movie, the fellow Alan Moore work Watchmen, and a whole host of literature under my belt, and that's the context that I'll review it in.

The movie cut whole swathes of the story out, and plumped up what was left with a good old fashioned mix of action sequences, a budding romance, and dramatic flourishes in general. I'm not surprised at that, the comic did have some really grotesque story-lines that would have never made it to the big screen. The movie even improved upon the characters in my mind, the ones besides V and Evey at any rate. In the comic, these two were the only ones who really shone, both in characterization and the fact that they contrasted heavily with the sea of white men making up the rest of the cast. The movie retained the single racial aspect, in accordance to the one party, one race policy sweeping the setting, but they sprinkled personality quirks wherever possible. Made it easier to differentiate the characters, as well as the sideline plots they were involved in. Or it might have been that that the skin colors just started blending together, and that I'm better at telling characters apart when I don't have to pick them out of a visual crowd. Hard to say.

What the movie didn't do, though, is give both V and Evey their full due, but especially Evey. Both paper and film retained the pseudo capture, one that is to this day one of the most powerful scenes I have seen in any medium, and is one of the main reasons why V for Vendetta is close to my heart. But after that, only the comic delves deep into what V is, and continues to develop Evey beyond the shivering girl child found at the beginning. Only in the comic does she take charge of her life, and live beyond the shadow of V. And as the only female character to get more than a slew of short pages in the main plot, that counts for a lot.

This comic is no Watchmen. It cannot begin to compare in terms of creativity, characterization, social contextualization, and insight into the human condition. But it is a good start, and has its own unique flavor to it that cannot be found in its more lauded kin. And, of course, who doesn't love menacing rhymes with centuries of historical context, all of which go into the creation of one of the most complex and charismatic figures in the history of graphic novels? I sure do.

n  

Remember, remember the 5th of November.
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.

n

remember remember the 5th of november

Βαθιά πολιτικό, συνδυάζει το μέλλον με το παρελθόν σε μια υπόθεση που θα μπορούσε να διαδραματίζεται στο παρόν, το παρελθόν ή το μέλλον.

Εκπληκτική σύλληψη και υλοποίηση της ιδέας, κάνονας απόλυτα σαφή τα μηνύματα που θέλει να δώσει. Εξαιρετικό και το σκίτσο. Εξαιρετική και η ταινία (πόσους υπέροχους ρόλους έχει παίξει ο Hugo Weaving - Matrix, Lord of the Rings, V for Vendetta...)

Una obra que por desgracia está tan de actualidad hoy como en el momento en que fue publicada.

Ranty review with spoilers everywhere.

There are so many fascinating and important themes in this story, and being a huge fan of "Watchmen" (both versions - graphic novel and movie), I was excited to dig into "V for Vendetta". I read the book (for the first time) during the long drive back from my in-laws' and watched the movie (for the second or third time) almost as soon as I got home... and now I am kind of angry. Because while I enjoyed the book, I liked the movie better and I'm always a bit frustrated when that happens...

First off, I must say that I get really annoyed at people who quote the Guy Fawkes rhyme on their Facebook every November 5th. I seriously doubt that half of them know the history of the Gunpowder plot: I think they just parrot it because they read or watched "V for Vendetta" and it's so subversive and it makes them sound really cool and anti-authoritarian. Let's get a couple of facts straight here: Guy Fawkes wasn't the leader of the plot to begin with - he was the explosives guy; it wasn't about anarchy, it was about religious allegiances (assassinate the Protestant king and install a Catholic ruler on the throne). Guy Fawkes' Night was originally a celebration of the conspiracy's failure, and effigies of Fawkes were thrown in the bonfires... This wasn't an anti-authoritarian holiday until Bostonians started throwing effigies of the King and his ministers on the bonfire in pre-Revolutionary New England. So by all means, let's not forget about the Gunpowder Plot, but let's also remember what it actually was about...

Secondly, for all the wannabe anarchists out there, I distrust and dislike the government just as much as any sane person does, but I am oh so glad the book makes a clear distinction between anarchy and chaos: anarchy is living without rulers, chaos is living without rules. I have lost my faith is the sustainability of anarchy as a political theory a long time ago, because I don't believe people are smart enough (or willing to accept the implied level of responsibility) to govern themselves. The fact that we still have to explain that anarchy and chaos are different concepts is enough to make me think that benevolent dictatorship might be the way to go, just to make sure we don't kill each other over canned goods when the first winter rolls over a government-free world.

I respect Alan Moore so much. I love it when art is dangerous, when makes people think, react strongly and ask tough questions. I've always been interested in politics, I believe in the importance of individual freedom of action and speech, and I think this book is a brilliant but ultimately flawed attempt at making a statement against fascism and bigotry.

V identifies as a moral crusader, but we have to remember he is also deeply deranged. He seeks vigilante justice for the wrongs that were done to him: the inhuman experiments he was subjected to, the corruption of justice he has witnessed, the way he sees his fellow human beings treated because of skin color and sexual preferences... But he is using the same means the system he hates so much uses. I'm afraid I can't help but find that very hypocritical... Even when people have the best of intentions, I'm not sure that torturing people and blowing stuff up is OK. When he tortures Evey to open her eyes to the ideological prison she has been living in, he is being just as cruel and manipulative as the fascist system he aims to destroy. I know he's insane, but he is also brilliant, and I can't believe that doublespeak eluded his attention...

The sub-plot of the various lackeys' attempts to stage a coup and take power for themselves felt a bit sloppy and hastily put together, as did V's infiltration of the very seat of Fate.

About the movie: it's visually perfect, in my opinion. It respects the story's origins as a graphic novel, but the character of Evey is better developed (movie-Evey already has the seeds of rebellion in her heart and V simply allows that to bloom; book-Evey is as clueless as they come, and bizarrely over-sexualized), as is inspector Finch's. I loved having a more detailed explanation of the alternate history that led to the political and social situation the story takes place in (the biological weapon plot is definitely more modern an explanation, but it is just as chillingly realistic as a totalitarian government remaining in power through fear-tactics and elaborate propaganda). Stephen Fry's character, Gordon, which barely does anything in the book, was an interesting representation of artists who use satire and humor to subvert the atrocities they witness and wake their fellow citizens up - something I find to be extremely brave and admirable. I was thrilled by V's love of the Count of Monte Cristo: the elaborately plotted revenge and dramatic flair make it a wonderful touch of inspiration for the character.

The book is obviously more morally ambiguous, the fascist government is legally elected (Moore obviously hated Margaret Thatcher), the characters are harder to relate to or even root for - as where the movie makes them more sympathetic and polarized (inasmuch as telling the good guys from the bad guys is very easy). I appreciate what Moore was trying to do, and he did write something quite brilliant, but I removed that last star from my rating because I really enjoyed the Wachowski spin on his story better.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day.

Great political allegory, a Thatcher-era rage about western politics, about neo-liberalism. Certainly not as ambitious, finally, as I read it again, as something like From Hell or Watchmen, but it's more an analogical than any of those other stories; it's more minimal, suggestive, poetic, more evocative of a political condition, and more symbolic. For Moore, it is right restrained. Still I found it rich and powerful, though in a completely different way than any of his other work. It's political allegory, mostly.

"Ideas are bulletproof", pg. 236

This was a decent story. This can be labeled as action, political, and philosophical at the same time. The plot was about a post-war England that has become governed by a dictatorship. The imposed fascist regime Norsefire in the story promoted racial ideology and rhetoric similar to National Socialism. The party also had all the elements of a fascist state: state-sponsored media, single-party rule, surveillance, and of course corruption in all levels. The hero of the story, a dark cloaked and masked man named V, focused on taking down the totalitarian regime. On the personal level he took revenge against individuals from his past. Ironically, on the larger scale he promoted revolutionary ideas and anarchy to overturn the government. As the story progressed he took in and trained a counterpart that eventually became his replacement.

Overall I enjoyed it and found it entertaining. This was my first Alan Moore story and I heard he had a unique storytelling style and this proved it. At times the dialogue was hard to follow and the character interactions were confusing; I had to go back at times to review what I just read because it felt disjointed. I originally read this in 2005 shortly after seeing the movie and I didn't finish it because I lost interest about halfway through. My initial impression still remains that I enjoyed the movie better. Still I would recommend it for fans of the movie and graphic novels. Thanks!

This is a riveting, thought-provoking work. I'm very much taken with both story and artwork; the way Alan Moore and David Lloyd were able to collaborate is beautiful. The idea of using Guy Fawkes as the face for V was pure genius, and Valerie's story, told very effectively as a contraband scribbling on toilet paper, was beyond touching and gave the story impetus.

This is only the second graphic novel I've ever read (besides Fun Home), and I realize only lately that it's a shame to have overlooked an entire population of books, based solely on format!

Rbrs #7/8 (alternate to the usual)

My grasp of anything political is weaker than a limp handshake, so I don't fully understand the message or meaning since this is clearly a fist in the sky against something. I mean, the obvious is there, freedom and individuality and art in all its forms and diversity and privacy and life! vs. a police state. Anarchy is presented as a solution to an extreme political situation; I'd thought anarchy meant no government and chaos, but is described here as being "voluntary order" (195). Is that right? Well, that's better than chaos but would that really work? That assumes something about the anarchists, a passion w/educated self-restraint that I don't think would happen, since there are always those who try to advance self at the cost of others (see, the ending w/Helen Heyer) and differing opinions on any gray-ish area (see capital punishment, abortion, taxes, etc) (gray in the sense that opposing arguments are made). Anarchy is also explained as being a 2-part idea, first destruction to clear the current order and then creation to replace it, hopefully with something better (222), and I guess repeat until it works. Doesn't that sound like the Operative from Serenity? The fascist Central Planets used anarchy as a tool to control their population. Huh.

I think Evey represents the confused citizen and then the creation side of anarchy, wanting to just act and demanding to assist the anarchist (43) but then is shocked at the tactics. Her transformation into creator is...interesting. Okay, this is a weak line of thinking but I was noticing that the differnt parts of the facist state are labeled as body parts, the Eye for cameras, the Nose for investigation, the Mouth for propaganda, the Finger for enforcement, and was there an Ear for listening? Then when V gave Evey the complete tour of the Shadow Gallery, he compared it to the brain. Evey's trials caused harm to her body by starvation, fear, a shaved head, and torture, along with the TP story all leading to a mental fortification, integrity in the face of death of the body. Is that what's required for true understanding and readiness and meaningful action, to make the body's needs less than that of the mind? It's true, the body distracts with its hunger, thirst, cravings, and just overall bulkiness. We spend much of our time working for money to keep the body satisfied, and leisure is spent resting the mind from its efforts in taking care of the body. Is it the only way to make progress politically, to set aside comforts and pleasures in favor of a mental reward in the form of accomplishment? "Ideas are bulletproof" (236). This doesn't seem right, either, because the purpose is to defend things that please both mind and body, I think. Knowledge, romance ("Always, always romance" (218)), music. Maybe the destruction side pits the mind against the body, but then the creation side brings the two together?

The character of V is a mystery, always masked to the end because "whoever you are isn't as big as the idea of you" (250). I...don't like that. This makes heroism seem out of reach for a regular person. Anyway, V is supposedly male, a subject of hormone research that killed everyone else. All the V's in this book, the chapter names, the Roman numeral V, Victoria station. I was wondering...was he Valerie Page? There were panels where V seemed to be mourning her (85, 104). One of the other male patients was described as losing his generative organs and developing additional body parts. Maybe V's treatment resulted in a gender flop? There were pages torn from Delia's diary....

This was slow going for me, since it seemed hard to absorb the words in illustrated panel format. I had too much time to tab pages.

Page 116 - TEH CHILDREN

English review at the bottom

Siempre que leo V for Vendetta entiendo porque Alan Moore no es fan de la película (la cual, por cierto, me gusta mucho). En mi opinión, tiene que ver con cambios en los personajes: V es un personaje seguro de sí mismo y de sus motivaciones, mientras que Evey es alguien joven que apenas comienza a explorar que es lo que quiere y desea para su vida.



V es casi un super humano; extremadamente rápido, tanto física como mentalmente, una habilidad de pelea impresionante y, principalmente, una capacidad de reflexión lo ha llevado a reconocer la importancia del libre albedrío encarnado en la Anarquía. Es importante entender que V es uno de los protagonistas que mejor ha reflejado al autor, Moore se ha pronunciado constantemente en contra del fascismo y del uso de los medios de comunicación para el engaño y distracción de las masas, así como a la enajenación de los pueblos en pos de construir una sociedad mejor y más justa; V materializa esas creencias. Es decir, en V tenemos a un personaje que nunca duda de lo que está haciendo, sus dudas no radican en sus ideales sino en los símbolos que le permitirán lograr sus ideales. Pero, aun con todo esto, V sigue siendo humano, puede ser lastimado, puede sentir y puede equivocarse. Es decir, es un humano extremadamente dotado, pero, en general, sin entrar en el terreno de lo irreal. Pero al mismo tiempo, V es todos, V puede ser cualquier…siempre que estes dispuesto a pelear por aquello en lo que cree y en no dejar corromper sus ideales, a la vez que decide tomar el riesgo, y dar hasta lo último por proteger su libertad.



Por otra parte, Evey es una adolescente que está buscando sobrevivir. Huérfana para el momento en que comienza esta historia, es una chica de 16 años que ve las dificultades de sobrevivir sola en el mundo (y no sólo en el mundo de la historia, sino en nuestro mundo, porque las cosas por las que ha pasado son, tristemente, historias tque suceden diariamente), en cierto modo, Evey es el lector, porque es alguien que ve lo que está mal pero no lucha contra ello, más bien busca adaptarse para solo continuar, conformándose con la felicidad. Es el personaje que evoluciona, que nos muestra cómo cambia el pueblo londinense.

Eric Finch es tal vez uno de los personajes más peculiares del cómic, porque es alguien que no está comprometido con el fascismo, pero que tampoco muestra un deseo por cambiar el sistema. De hecho, es un personaje que se mete en su propia venganza durante el cómic y su final nos muestra como no siempre las personas cambian, no siempre están dispuestas a luchar, a veces solo están dudosa, a veces aún están valorando que hacer. Personalmente, no es un personaje que me fascine dado que siento que queda muy desdibujado al no mostrar una posición clara respecto al conflicto, pero si muestra lo que es no estar conforme sin esta enajenado.



Adam Susan es el antagonista principal y es opuesto a V. Susan acepta amar el fascismo y considerar los derechos humanos y las libertades individuales como lujos que un país no debe permitirse, siendo una persona cuyo único amor es el poder. He ahí el porqué, cuando las cosas se ponen difíciles, se siento traicionado y se predice su caída, siendo esta justa y dolorosa para los involucrados, Si bien no aparece tan constantemente, se entiende el odio que despierta, la envidia y como los miembros del partido encarnan lo que él es (porque, de hecho, conocemos a varios miembros que muestra codicia, envidia, orgullo y otros “valores”). Es despreciable y asqueroso en muchos sentidos.



Pero la mayor crítica aquí es al pueblo, se critica a aquellos a quienes han dejado ascender al fascismo, aquellos que han olvidado su responsabilidad civil. Aquellos que han dejado que todos los que son diferentes sean el enemigo y alguien para exterminar…aun cuando no te hayan dañado.

Para mí, esta historia es simplemente excepcional, llena de matices, desesperanza y realismos. El final abierto calza perfecto con lo que la historia nos ha mostrado, porque un mundo así no acaba en un día, una hora o con solo una acción, implica involucrarse y ser parte de forma continua.

¿El mayor problema? El dibujo de Lloyd no permite tener toda la claridad posible de la imagen, aunque bien podríamos considerarlo una decisión artística para mostrar lo deteriorado de este lugar.




____________________________________________

n  English reviewn


Whenever I read V for Vendetta, I understand why Alan Moore is not a fan of the movie (which, by the way, I like a lot). In my opinion, it has to do with changes in the characters: V is a character who is confident and certain of his motivations, while Evey is a young person who is just beginning to explore what she wants and desires for her life.



V is almost superhuman; extremely quick, both physically and mentally, with impressive fighting skills and, most importantly, a capacity for reflection that has led him to recognize the importance of free will embodied in Anarchy. It is important to understand that V is one of the protagonists who best reflects the author. Moore has consistently spoken out against fascism and the use of media to deceive and distract the masses, as well as the alienation of peoples in pursuit of building a better and more just society; V materializes these beliefs. That is to say, in V we have a character who never doubts what he is doing. His doubts do not lie in his ideals but in the symbols that will allow him to achieve those ideals. But, even with all this, V is still human, he can be hurt, he can feel, and he can make mistakes. In other words, he is an extremely gifted human, but, generally, without crossing into the realm of the unreal. But at the same time, V is everyone; V can be anyone… as long as you are willing to fight for what you believe in and not let your ideals be corrupted, while deciding to take the risk and give everything to protect your freedom.



On the other hand, Evey is a teenager who is trying to survive. Orphaned by the time this story begins, she is a 16-year-old girl who faces the difficulties of surviving alone in the world (and not just in the story's world, but in our world, because the things she has gone through are, sadly, stories that happen daily). In a way, Evey is the reader because she is someone who sees what is wrong but doesn't fight against it; rather, she seeks to adapt just to continue, settling for happiness. She is the character who evolves, who preset us how the London populace changes.
Eric Finch is perhaps one of the most peculiar characters in the comic because he is someone who is not committed to fascism, but who also doesn’t show a desire to change the system. In fact, he is a character who gets caught up in his own revenge during the comic, and his ending shows us how people do not always change, they are not always willing to fight; sometimes they are just uncertain, sometimes they are still weighing what to do. Personally, he is not a character that fascinates me because I feel he remains very undefined by not showing a clear position regarding the conflict, but he does illustrate what it is to be dissatisfied without being alienated.



Adam Susan is the main antagonist and is the opposite of V. Susan embraces loving fascism and considers human rights and individual freedoms as luxuries that a country cannot afford, being a person whose only love is power. This is why, when things get tough, he feels betrayed, and his downfall is predicted, being just and painful for those involved. Although he does not appear constantly, the hatred he provokes is understood, as is the envy and how party members embody what he is (because, in fact, we meet several members who show greed, envy, pride, and other “values”). He is despicable and disgusting in many ways.



But the biggest criticism here is aimed at the people, criticizing those who have allowed fascism to rise, those who have forgotten their civic responsibility. Those who have let everyone who is different become the enemy, someone to exterminate… even when they haven't harmed you.
For me, this story is simply exceptional, full of nuances, despair, and realism. The open ending fits perfectly with what the story has shown us, because a world like this does not end in a day, an hour, or with just one action; it requires ongoing involvement and continuous participation.
The biggest problem? Lloyd's artwork does not allow for the utmost clarity of the image, although we could well consider it an artistic decision to show the deterioration of this place.

“With science, ideas can germinate within a bed of theory, form, and practice that assists their growth… but we, as gardeners, must beware. For some seeds are the seeds of ruin… and the most iridescent blooms are often the most dangerous.”

This was only my second graphic novel ever. I had no clue they could pack such a punch! What a unique reading experience. Each illustration panel was like a story puzzle piece to the next, which presented a dream-like cadence. Loaded with artistry and imagination, you are whisked away into a world of fantasy. And I must say, I wasn’t expecting such a high level of literacy. Color me ignorant. Engaging and immersive, I can’t wait to get my hands on more! Listen Goodreads, if anyone out there has good graphic novel/comic book recs, shout it out.

“Remember, remember, the 5th of November…”

Eh.

Okay. There's political writing, and then there's political comics (Watchmen, also by Moore). Pure political writing, essays or editorials or what have you, doesn't have to leave everyone satisfied. It can leave some angry or displeased or challenged, so long as it makes its point.

POLITICAL COMICS HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT.

A political comic must not only make a clear political point, but it must ALSO be interesting in a way that is peculiar to comics: it must have a gratifying narrative, it must be artistically sound, and it must have the same kind of emotional influence that a regular old novel or movie would have, because comics are, primarily, STORIES.
V for Vendetta is a glut of political writing stuffed into an attractive skin of art and garnished over with the platitudiest delivery I have ever had the misfortune to be exposed to outside a 50s superhero comic. My god. It's got the same blind and senseless energy of delivery that any Superman-hurling-a-car comic would have. This stems, I think, primarily from the fact that it's an anarchist comic, and making anarchism into a coherent and attractive viewpoint is nearly impossible, given that anarchism is probably the illest-conceived of any extant ideology.
However, because it's ANARCHISM, because the writing is coherent and cleverer than most graphic novels', because it's all draped over with mystery, because it's a well-designed book, tone and layout-wise, and because the art is fantastic, the essential failure of the book-- the fact that it lacks anything behind its shell of hyperenergetic blathering-- gets a pass.
Seriously. The book tries so hard to be political and symbolic it crushes itself. Premise-wise, the story doesn't make a lot of sense-- we hear that England was living in a government vacuum for several years, and that London was straight-across flooded, and that every other landmass on the planet has been nuked, AND that a nuclear winter has occurred, but for some reason they're still living in a fully-mechanized modern consumer society. All right. Sure. Also, it appears that the only remaining political ideologies in the universe are Fascism and Socialism/Communism, with Anarchism resting on its own crazy-ass axis out who the hell knows where. All right, again. Beginning to sound more and more like Revolutionary Spain/every third world country ever. Sure. Got that. 'First and freest Republic in the world loses all sense of its political heritage and persecutes the hell out of its inhabitants' is the ONLY trend in British apocalyptic fiction, but this is the worst I've ever seen it done.
I don't know. What is Moore posing here as the only options for political ideology? He paints a world in which one can ONLY be EITHER a ethnocentric homophobic racist fascist or an 'anarchist'. All right. What does he mean by this? Returning to a state of nature? Gradual and spontaneous shift to democracy? End of the modern mechanized world? Spontaneous national adoption of a sort of leaderless socialist state? Hmm. Moore handles his material childishly. For me, the political-apocalypse stories that WORK show the protagonists yearning after a state of leave-me-alone-let's-all-be-friends sort of political neutralism-- a state of 'let's have universal human rights and that's all please' joy. A utopia of 'being a normal person'. Children of Men is like this. Even Watchmen is less heavy on the socialism and focuses more on the 'let's stop being persecutors and start being nice to everyone else again' mentality. Readers can therefore identify with the protagonists-- they aren't radicals. They're just normal people trying to be normal again. But in V for Vendetta, the only way peace can be achieved is if every individual person is a politically-radical crowd member willing to use mob violence.
Not inspirational.
I don't care what you think about the degree to which individuals must be political to preserve their rights. This book makes no coherent political point and the messages it DOES articulate are comprised solely of platitudes. It fails to rpesent any realistic view of any political spectrum whatsoever. Instead of focusing on human rights/the dignity of man/the right to be free, it sours the whole batch by presenting some shallowly-conceived idea of anarchism as the solution to all modern political crises. The fact is that this book reads like a poorly-contrived piece of anti-Thatcher propaganda.

Which is essentially what it is.

EDIT: I've read some other reviews of this book on goodreads and I've decided I have to make one point.

You CANNOT like this book becuase 'V is an amazing character.' V IS ALMOST NOT A CHARACTER. Moore specifically has him talk about how who he is is not important. V is a big bundle of soggy political ideology stuffed up into a man-suit with a funny mask on the front. The whole backstory bit exists to give the situation-- the SITUATION, not the character-- plausibility. The fact that the backstory even exists sours Moore's ideological point, which is unfortunate, since the point was shallow enough to begin with. V is suppsoed to be an 'everyman', and is supposed to represent the potential in all of us to make a difference. But how did he get like this? First of all, he's insane, mildly or seriously, but slightly insane at some level, at any rate. Secondly, he's got SUPER POWERS of combat/the mind that he was given in a crazy SCIENCE-FICTION HORMONE EXPERIMENT. All right. So the potential to make a difference is there in all of us, but we need a hero to tell us this is so, and that hero himself needs to be a super-human person in some way before he can take up the job? I don't think so.
There's some extreme cognitive dissonance in this story. Moore can't decide whether to espouse the power of the people as a body or the power of the individual-- an individual who, in some ways, is nearly as charismatic as a 20th-century dictator, yet who is, in other ways, utterly flat and irrelevant.
V is not a character. V is an idea, and a cloudy one at that.

Audible dramatization of one of my favorite film narrated by simon vance also a favorite no need to review it fully for it follows the movie exactly!