Can we talk about V for Vendetta a bit? What's your read on what he did to Evey, was he undoing and breaking the chains of various totslitarian mechanisms that ruled over her and made her feel powerless and worthless in an attempt to show her the power and beauty of absolute freedom and personal sovreignty, or was he abusing her with his Nieatzschean morality and ethics? I
lean towards the former, though it is clear that V is a bit fricked in the head given all the things that happened to him.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
V for Vendetta is an allegory of the Troubles during the early '80s (a quite violent period). Moore, like many other writers, artists and intellectuals, supported the cause of the independentists, so he imagined this story in which Guy Fawkes destroys the Big Brother. A powerfull story indeed, but for some reason he later regretted it, at least partially; maybe he realized that making a hero of a terrorist was an apology for terrorism in general. This is why when he wrote The Watchmen, he made a character, Rorschach, that is a parody of V; he wanted his readers to know that he doesn't condone violence in any form.
>V for Vendetta is an allegory of the Troubles
Source.
The work speaks for itself.
The work says you're full of shit.
As someone from Belfast, I can tell you your full of shit.
It's an alegory for Thatcherism.
Rorschack was more about Batman and the sort than about V. V is a lot more s pathetic and portrayed in a positive light.
this. sort of.
England was really weird in the 80s. it produced a state of mind that is hard to imagine for most Americans. Anglos don't express feelings, they lash them out at you when they have hit their boiling point and Alan more was very much that way in the 80s creatively. V for vendetta was his best effort towards capturing that moment in time for outsiders.
The story says that what he did to her seemed to work out, so I guess that's that. But in real life it would be an insane and stupid thing to do.
>Thatcher was no woman!!1!
>Thus we have no responsibility for her!!1!
Jay-sus, women deserve Islam.
labor party propaganda
Why not both? Regardless the outcome he imprisoned and tortured another human being without their consent.
But she was free to live at any time and it was all in her head.
Are any of us really free to live at any time?
YES
...and other things I assume V tells himself at night.
He was cruel in his methods, but Evey was ultimately empowered, not traumatized.
Which brings us back to my first post, why not both? He was abusive and liberating.
You know what? Despite everything bad about Norsefire's Britain, I'd still rather live there than in this pozzed OTL. The opening speech alone spoke to me.