V

[Aston]

But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.


Probabley the greatest speech ever come across
If you think otherwise proove it!
Post your speeches

[Emil Miller]

But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.


Probabley the greatest speech ever come across
If you think otherwise proove it!
Post your speeches

Despite the childish alliteration, are you sure you have been drinking milk?

[Dr. Hill]

...It's from V for Vendetta, a fantastic flick, I might add.

[mayneverhave]

Hah, I thought this thread was going to be discussing the Pynchon novel

[Tallon]

Hah, I thought this thread was going to be discussing the Pynchon novel

Me too. In fact you see V reading the novel in the film of V For Vendetta. I've not read the Alan Moore graphic novel though.

[StayGolden]

Hah, I thought this thread was going to be discussing the Pynchon novelI did, as well. The movie isn't too bad, though. ;)

[Mopey Droney]

Hoping for Pynchon. Found the Moore graphic novel a little childish. Didn't bother with a film.

[Dori]

Hoping for Pynchon. Found the Moore graphic novel a little childish. Didn't bother with a film.

Childish? Elaborate, please.

[Mopey Droney]

Keep in mind first that I'm a fan of the comics medium and some of Moore's other work, it's just this one in particular I don't like.

It masquerades as thoughtful when in fact it isn't. The characters are paper-thin cliches: pedophilic priests and conceited announcers. The dialogue is unnatural. Like a puerile kid scribbling poetry on the back of his Philosophy 101 folder, Moore gives us problems and more problems without implied solutions and dresses this up as a fake form of jaded honesty. This last point I may be wrong about, but it seemed to me that V is treated more as a glorious Darwinian hero than the murdering vigilante he is. Is Moore arguing against Darwinian amorality? If he is, what is the implied solution--to ignore it? How? To fight against it--how? The "message" is not coherent. It just seems like another, hip nihilist book that doesn't really say anything. Most of the recommendations I have gotten have nothing to do with what it's actually about but how "badass" it is, and this is extremely disturbing to me. Perhaps I just misread the book and I'm open to your interpretation.

[Quilp]

Oh....I thought it was about that TV miniseries from the 80's with Robert Englund about the aliens and that woman that eats the budgie.

..just me then.....

....Never read V for Vendetta. I had to walk out of the movie though. It looked like a cheap TV movie and found it utterly unwatcheable.

[Dori]

Keep in mind first that I'm a fan of the comics medium and some of Moore's other work, it's just this one in particular I don't like.

It masquerades as thoughtful when in fact it isn't. The characters are paper-thin cliches: pedophilic priests and conceited announcers. The dialogue is unnatural. Like a puerile kid scribbling poetry on the back of his Philosophy 101 folder, Moore gives us problems and more problems without implied solutions and dresses this up as a fake form of jaded honesty. This last point I may be wrong about, but it seemed to me that V is treated more as a glorious Darwinian hero than the murdering vigilante he is. Is Moore arguing against Darwinian amorality? If he is, what is the implied solution--to ignore it? How? To fight against it--how? The "message" is not coherent. It just seems like another, hip nihilist book that doesn't really say anything. Most of the recommendations I have gotten have nothing to do with what it's actually about but how "badass" it is, and this is extremely disturbing to me. Perhaps I just misread the book and I'm open to your interpretation.

Fair enough; perhaps I'm into childish things. :D

I believe, though, that it was purposefully meant to be oped-ended and to not "really say anything." I could be wrong.

[papayahed]

Oh....I thought it was about that TV miniseries from the 80's with Robert Englund about the aliens and that woman that eats the budgie.



I was 50/50 between the 80's miniseries and the novel. V for Vendetta never entered my mind.

[Dori]

But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.


Probabley the greatest speech ever come across
If you think otherwise proove it!
Post your speeches

"Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot."

That's a speech. What you have there is simply his introducing himself. :D

[Hank Stamper]

was the only memorable part of the film... pretty bog standard dystopian stuff that borrows rather heavily from far superior examples of the genre... ie 1984

it was on telly the other night and i watched it on account of natalie portman, who sadly was about as half-baked as the plot

ive never read a 'graphic novel' before... this movie has not inspired me to buck that trend

[JCamilo]

The movie is crap and just resembles the comic book a little. Different themes and reading, adapted to democracy and not anarchy and focusing on action. In the book, V fights, but there is hardly several sequences of actions.



It masquerades as thoughtful when in fact it isn't. The characters are paper-thin cliches: pedophilic priests and conceited announcers.

keep in mind that you do not have deep pyschological characters on Comics like in literature because it is a graphic work, not textual work. A book about a Mask (V is is a mask, not an individual) will have other masks. The important is not if it is a cliche or not, but how the cliches are used. Moore was aiming to certain points of english society, so the characters must be obvious.


The dialogue is unnatural. Like a puerile kid scribbling poetry on the back of his Philosophy 101 folder, Moore gives us problems and more problems without implied solutions and dresses this up as a fake form of jaded honesty.

Obviously Moore got better like in Watchman, but giving solutions is philosophy 101. Leaving it open is good trait.


This last point I may be wrong about, but it seemed to me that V is treated more as a glorious Darwinian hero than the murdering vigilante he is.

Only if it is the reading of Movie, where V became a Batman with english accent fighting for a deeper cause. In the comic book he is a demented individual, cold and even let himself be killed and replaced because of his own lack of immorality. Obviously the movie makers had to change it, because V was a terrorist all the time (just because in his madness he fought against a bad governament, does not change it) and after Osama it would be a question too hard to be asked. Sadly, because that was the best question V can raise.


Is Moore arguing against Darwinian amorality? If he is, what is the implied solution--to ignore it? How? To fight against it--how? The "message" is not coherent. It just seems like another, hip nihilist book that doesn't really say anything.


Moore said it several times, it is a book against Tatcher. At somepoint "they" tought 1984 could be real. So, V is pretty much a punk, nihilist in some extreme. But lack of message, maybe it is too much. Individual Freedom and Anarchy are not lack of messages like in a Sex Pistol music.


Most of the recommendations I have gotten have nothing to do with what it's actually about but how "badass" it is, and this is extremely disturbing to me. Perhaps I just misread the book and I'm open to your interpretation.

The movie killed it. Moore is not an usual comic book writer, the fact there is a masked character with kick *** fighting skills is just a disguise of language. V is not about a superhero, it is not about good vs.evil or a highly inspiring character. Even the art work is not traditional, dark, realistic and the pace is too slow. I would read V as one of the best sons of 1984, but not as literature. It is not (at least not as much as movie is literature), but a comic book, with aesthetic demands, techniques and all that have no relation to literature.

[JBI]

I thought the movie was stupid - just another Orwell rip off with paper-thin characterization and mediocre writing. The bit you quoted attests to it - someone merely went through a dictionary to the Vs, and picked out words that sound half good, but in truth don't imply any real substance, essentially amounting to periphrastic bull****.

As for best speeches, there are great historic figures, from Socrates down, though the one I think sticks best with me, because of its brilliant irony is this:



HIS APPEAL FOR DREYFUS

(Delivered in Paris, February 22d, 1898, at the Zola Trial for Libel)

IN THE Chamber at the sitting of January 22d, M. Méline, the Prime Minister declared, amid the frantic applause of his complaisant majority, that he had confidence in the twelve citizens to whose hands he intrusted the defense of the army. It was of you, gentlemen, that he spoke. And just as General Billot dictated its decision to the court-martial intrusted with the acquittal of Major Esterhazy, by appealing from the tribune for respect for the chose jugée, so likewise M. Méline wished to give you the order to condemn me «out of respect for the army,» which he accuses me of having insulted!

I denounce to the conscience of honest men this pressure brought to bear by the constituted authorities upon the justice of the country. These are abominable political practices which dishonor a free nation. We shall see, gentlemen, whether you will obey.

But it is not true that I am here in your presence by the will of M. Méline. He yielded to the necessity of prosecuting me only in great trouble, in terror of the new step which the advancing truth was about to take. This everybody knew. If I am before you, it is because I wished it. I alone decided that this obscure, this abominable affair, should be brought before your jurisdiction, and it is I alone of my free will who chose you, you, the loftiest, the most direct emanation of French justice, in order that France, at last, may know all, and give her decision. My act had no other object, and my person is of no account. I have sacrificed it in order to place in your hands, not only the honor of the army, but the imperiled honor of the nation.

It appears that I was cherishing a dream in wishing to offer you all the proofs, considering you to be the sole worthy, the sole competent judge. They have begun by depriving you with the left hand of what they seemed to give you with the right. They pretended, indeed, to accept your jurisdiction, but if they had confidence in you to avenge the members of the court-martial, there were still other officers who remained superior even to your jurisdiction. Let who can understand. It is absurdity doubled with hypocrisy, and it shows clearly that they dreaded your good sense, — that they dared not run the risk of letting us tell all and of letting you judge the whole matter. They pretend that they wished to limit the scandal. What do you think of this scandal of my act which consisted in bringing the matter before you, — in wishing the people, incarnate in you, to be the judge? They pretend also that they could not accept a revision in disguise, thus confessing that in reality they have but one fear, that of your sovereign control. The law has in you its complete representation, and it is this chosen law of the people that I have wished for, — this law which, as a good citizen, I hold in profound respect, and not the suspicious procedure by which they hoped to make you a laughingstock.

I am thus excused, gentlemen, for having brought you here from your private affairs without being able to inundate you with the full flood of light of which I dreamed. The light, the whole light, — this was my sole, my passionate desire! And this trial has just proved it. We have had to fight step by step against an extraordinarily obstinate desire for darkness. A battle has been necessary to obtain every atom of truth. Everything has been refused us. Our witnesses have been terrorized in the hope of preventing us from proving our case. And it is on your behalf alone that we have fought, that this proof might be put before you in its entirety, so that you might give your opinion on your consciences without remorse. I am certain, therefore, that you will give us credit for our efforts, and that, I feel sure too that sufficient light has been thrown upon the affair.

You have heard the witnesses; you are about to hear my counsel, who will tell you the true story, the story that maddens everybody and that everybody knows. I am, therefore, at my ease. You have the truth at last, and it will do its work. M. Méline thought to dictate your decision by intrusting to you the honor of the army. And it is in the name of the honor of the army that I too appeal to your justice.

I give M. Méline the most direct contradiction. Never have I insulted the army. I spoke on the contrary of my sympathy, my respect for the nation in arms, for our dear soldiers of France, who would rise at the first menace to defend the soil of France. And it is just as false that I attacked the chiefs, the generals who would lead them to victory. If certain persons at the War Office have compromised the army itself by their acts, is it to insult the whole army to say so? Is it not rather to act as a good citizen to separate it from all that compromises it, to give the alarm, so that the blunders which alone have been the cause of our defeat shall not occur again, and shall not lead us to fresh disaster.

I am not defending myself, moreover. I leave history to judge my act, which was a necessary one; but I affirm that the army is dishonored when gendarmes are allowed to embrace Major Esterhazy after the abominable letters written by him. I af6rm that that valiant army is insulted daily by the bandits who, on the plea of defending it, sully it by their degrading championship, — who trail in the mud all that France still honors as good and great I affirm that those who dishonor that great national army are those who mingle cries of «Vive l'armée» with those of «Á bas les juifs!» and «Vive Esterhazy!» Grand Dieu! the people of Saint Louis, of Bayard, of Condé, and of Hoche, the people which counts a hundred great victories, the people of the great wars of the Republic and the Empire, the people whose power, grace, and generosity have dazzled the world, crying «Vive Esterhazy!» It is a shame the stain of which our efforts on behalf of truth and justice can alone wipe out!

You know the legend which has grown up: Dreyfus was condemned justly and legally by seven infallible officers, whom it is impossible even to suspect of a blunder without insulting the whole army Dreyfus expiates in merited torments his abominable crime, and as he is a Jew, a Jewish syndicate is formed, an international sans patrie syndicate disposing of hundreds of millions, the object of which is to save the traitor at any price, even by the most shameless intrigues. And thereupon this syndicate began to heap crime on crime, buying consciences, precipitating France into a disastrous tumult, resolved on selling her to the enemy, willing even to drive all Europe into a general war rather than renounce its terrible plan.

It is very simple, nay childish, if not imbecile. But it is with this poisoned bread that the unclean press has been nourishing our poor people now for months And it is not surprising if we are witnessing a dangerous crisis; for when folly and lies are thus sown broadcast, you necessarily reap insanity.

Gentlemen, I would not insult you by supposing that you have yourselves been duped by this nursery tale. I know you; I know who you are. You are the heart and the reason of Paris, of my great Paris, where I was born, which I love with an infinite tenderness, which I have been studying and writing of now for forty years. And I know likewise what is now passing in your brains; for, before coming to sit here as defendant, I sat there on the bench where you are now. You represent there the average opinion; you try to illustrate prudence and justice in the mass. Soon I shall be in thought with you in the room where you deliberate, and I am convinced that your effort will be to safeguard your interests as citizens, which are, of course, the interests of the whole nation. You may make a mistake, but you will do so in the thought that while securing your own weal you are securing the weal of all.

I see you at your homes at evening under the lamp; I hear you talk with your friends; I accompany you into your factories and shops. You are all workers — some tradesmen, others manufacturers, some professional men; and your very legitimate anxiety is the deplorable state into which business has fallen. Everywhere the present crisis threatens to become a disaster. The receipts fall off; transactions become more and more difficult. So that the idea which you have brought here, the thought which I read in your countenances, is that there has been enough of this and that it must be ended. You have not gone the length of saying, like many: «What matters it that an innocent man is at the Île du Diable? Is the interest of a single man worth this disturbing a great country?» But you say, nevertheless, that the agitation which we are carrying on, we who hunger for truth and justice, costs too dearly! And if you condemn me, gentlemen, it is that thought which will be at the bottom of your verdict. You desire tranquillity for your homes, you wish for the revival of business, and you may think that by punishing me you will stop a campaign which is injurious to the interests of France.

Well, gentlemen, if that is your idea, you are entirely mistaken. Do me the honor of believing that I am not defending my liberty. By punishing me you would only magnify me. Whoever suffers for truth and justice becomes august and sacred Look at me. Have I the look of a hireling, of a liar, and a traitor? Why should I be playing a part? I have behind me neither political ambition nor sectarian passion. I am a free writer, who has given his life to labor; who to-morrow will go back to the ranks and resume his interrupted task. And how stupid are those who call me an Italian; — me, born of a French mother, brought up by grandparents in the Beauce, peasants of that vigorous soil; me, who lost my father at seven years of age, who never went to Italy till I was fifty-four. And yet I am proud that my father was from Venice, — the resplendent city whose ancient glory sings in all memories And even if I were not French, would not the forty volumes in the French language, which I have sent by millions of copies throughout the world, suffice to make me a Frenchman?

So I do not defend myself. But what a blunder would be yours if you were convinced that by striking me you would reëstablish order in our unfortunate country! Do you not understand now that what the nation is dying of is the darkness in which there is such an obstinate determination to leave her? The blunders of those in authority are being heaped upon those of others, one lie necessitates another, so that the mass is becoming formidable. A judicial blunder was committed, and then to hide it, it has been necessary to commit every day fresh crimes against good sense and equity! The condemnation of an innocent man has involved the acquittal of a guilty man, and now to-day you are asked in turn to condemn me because I have cried out in my anguish on beholding our country embarked on this terrible course. Condemn me, then! But it will be one more error added to the others — a fault the burden of which you will hear in history. And my condemnation, instead of restoring the peace for which you long, and which we all of us desire, will be only a fresh seed of passion and disorder. The cup, I tell you, is full; do not make it run over!

Why do you not judge justly the terrible crisis through which the country is passing? They say that we are the authors of the scandal, that we who are lovers of truth and justice are leading the nation astray and urging it to violence. Surely this is a mockery! To speak only of General Billot, — was he not warned eighteen months ago? Did not Colonel Picquart insist that he should take up the matter of revision, if he did not wish the storm to burst and destroy everything? Did not M. Scheurer-Kestner, with tears in his eyes, beg him to think of France, and save her such a calamity? No! our desire has been to make peace, to allay discontent, and, if the country is now in trouble, the responsibility lies with the power, which, to cover the guilty, and in the furtherance of political ends, has denied everything, hoping to be strong enough to prevent the truth from being revealed. It has manoeuvred in behalf of darkness, and it alone is responsible for the present distraction of the public conscience!

The Dreyfus case, gentlemen, has now become a very small affair. It is lost in view of the formidable questions to which it has given rise. There is no longer a Dreyfus case. The question now is whether France is still the France of the rights of man, the France which gave freedom to the world, and ought to give it justice. Are we still the most noble, the most fraternal, the most generous of nations? Shall we preserve our reputation in Europe for justice and humanity? Are not all the victories that we have won called in question? Open your eyes, and understand that, to be in such confusion, the French soul must have been stirred to its depths in face of a terrible danger. A nation cannot be thus moved without imperiling its moral existence. This is an exceptionally serious hour; the safety of the nation is at stake.

When you have understood that, gentlemen, you will feel that but one remedy is possible, — to tell the truth, to do justice. Anything that keeps back the light, anything that adds darkness to darkness, will only prolong and aggravate the crisis. The duty of good citizens, of all who feel it to be imperatively necessary to put an end to this matter, is to demand broad daylight. There are already many who think so. The men of literature, philosophy, and science are rising in the name of intelligence and reason. And I do not speak of the foreigner, of the shudder that has run through all Europe. Yet the foreigner is not necessarily the enemy. Let us not speak of the nations that may be our opponents to-morrow. But great Russia, our ally; little and generous Holland; all the sympathetic nations of the north; those countries of the French language, Switzerland and Belgium, — why are their hearts so heavy, so overflowing with sympathetic suffering? Do you dream, then, of an isolated France? Do you prefer, when you pass the frontier, not to meet the smile of approval for your historic reputation for equity and humanity?

Alas! gentlemen, like so many others, you expect the thunderbolt to descend from heaven in proof of the innocence of Dreyfus. Truth does not come thus. It requires research and knowledge. We know well where the truth is, or where it might be found. But we dream of that only in the recesses of our souls, and we feel patriotic anguish lest we expose ourselves to the danger of having this proof some day cast in our face after having involved the honor of the army in a falsehood. I wish also to declare positively that, though, in the official notice of our list of witnesses, we included certain ambassadors, we had decided in advance not to call them. Our boldness has provoked smiles. But I do not think that there was any real smiling in our foreign office, for there they must have understood! We intended to say to those who know the whole truth that we also know it. This truth is gossiped about at the embassies; to-morrow it will be known to all, and, if it is now impossible for us to seek it where it is concealed by official red tape, the Government which is not ignorant, — the Government which is convinced as we are, — of the innocence of Dreyfus, will be able, whenever it likes and without risk, to find witnesses who will demonstrate everything.

Dreyfus is innocent. I swear it! I stake my life on it — my honor! At this solemn moment, in the presence of this tribunal which is the representative of human justice, before you, gentle. men, who are the very incarnation of the country, before the whole of France, before the whole world, I swear that Dreyfus is innocent. By my forty years of work, by the authority that this toil may have given me, I swear that Dreyfus is innocent. By all I have now, by the name I have made for myself, by my works which have helped for the expansion of French literature, I swear that Dreyfus is innocent. May all that melt away, may my works perish if Dreyfus be not innocent! He is innocent. All seems against me — the two Chambers, the civil authority, the most widely-circulated journals, the public opinion which they have poisoned. And I have for me only an ideal of truth and justice. But I am quite calm; I shall conquer. I was determined that my country should not remain the victim of lies and injustice. I may be condemned here. The day will come when France will thank me for having helped to save her honor.

[kiz_paws]

Well, I'm with Dori. I loved this movie and thought Natalie Portman did a great job in her role as Evie. :)

[Dori]

I thought the movie was stupid - just another Orwell rip off with paper-thin characterization and mediocre writing. The bit you quoted attests to it - someone merely went through a dictionary to the Vs, and picked out words that sound half good, but in truth don't imply any real substance, essentially amounting to periphrastic bull****.

Well, it sounded good. :lol:

[Virgil]

Hah, I thought this thread was going to be discussing the Pynchon novel


Me too. In fact you see V reading the novel in the film of V For Vendetta. I've not read the Alan Moore graphic novel though.


I did, as well. The movie isn't too bad, though. ;)


Hoping for Pynchon. Found the Moore graphic novel a little childish. Didn't bother with a film.

Make that me too. :lol: Boy were we wrong.

[Snowqueen]

...It's from V for Vendetta, a fantastic flick, I might add.

Yes a "fantastic flick" indeed.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Alan Moore is a genius. I haven't read the graphic novel, but thought the movie was quite good.

[Mopey Droney]

JCamillo - I can't respond to when you bring up the movie as I haven't seen it.

keep in mind that you do not have deep pyschological characters on Comics like in literature because it is a graphic work, not textual work.This is simply not the case. Comics does not presuppose thin characters. The medium of comics is neutral to the subject matter. If you don't think comics can have deep psychological characters all it shows is that you have been reading bad comics. Try Chris Ware, R Crumb, and Charles Schultz. The fact that Alan Moore's characters in V are paper-thin have nothing to do with the fact that he's working in a comics medium and everything to do with the fact that maybe, perhaps, he is incapable of creating well-rounded characters.

The important is not if it is a cliche or not, but how the cliches are used. Moore was aiming to certain points of english society, so the characters must be obvious.It is important if there are cliches or not. The comics of Chris Ware target American society, but the characters are deep and uncliched and the comics are therefore much more powerful.

Obviously Moore got better like in Watchman, but giving solutions is philosophy 101. Leaving it open is good trait. Would you then say that Alan Moore is more philosophically advanced than Immanuel Kant, because Moore leaves it open while Kant proposes solutions?

but a comic book, with aesthetic demands, techniques and all that have no relation to literature.The medium of comics is not an excuse for poor storytelling. It is a narrative form, and in all forms of narrative we can expect well-rounded characters, be they in film, drama, comics or literature.

[Dr. Hill]

Yes a "fantastic flick" indeed.

...I apologize?

[JCamilo]

JCamillo - I can't respond to when you bring up the movie as I haven't seen it.

Please do not watch it, it is crap and does not deserve anyones attention. Not having to talk about it is actually quite handy.


This is simply not the case. Comics does not presuppose thin characters. The medium of comics is neutral to the subject matter. If you don't think comics can have deep psychological characters all it shows is that you have been reading bad comics. Try Chris Ware, R Crumb, and Charles Schultz. The fact that Alan Moore's characters in V are paper-thin have nothing to do with the fact that he's working in a comics medium and everything to do with the fact that maybe, perhaps, he is incapable of creating well-rounded characters.

There are rarities like Schultz or Maus or a few others, I agree. It is not the majority however. The source of Comics narratives are not the reflexive literature, but rather and simple Narratives, which have a tendency to use a characters by their action and not inner reflection. Just like the difference between Robert Louis Stevenson and Virginia Woolf. And both were good narrators, so I am only claiming that is not necessary to have deeply psychological characters to present a good narrative.


It is important if there are cliches or not. The comics of Chris Ware target American society, but the characters are deep and uncliched and the comics are therefore much more powerful.

Using cliches or not does not show anything about the quality of the narrative. Henry James for example filled his stories with cliches, the same with Jorge Luis Borges. In comics, Calvin's (From Bill Watterson) parents, teachers, classmates are walking cliches. Or Batman and Superman are cliches and we have good comics with them. I agree that a misused cliche damages the narrative, but the use of them is not a sin.



Would you then say that Alan Moore is more philosophically advanced than Immanuel Kant, because Moore leaves it open while Kant proposes solutions?

Nope, of course not. I was just using your own analogy. Comics are not philosophy, 101 or Wittengstain. But having to show a closure and demanding a solution is Narrative 101 (all stories must have begining, middle, and end) non-sense. Leaving open to interpretation is a trademark of great writers, so leaving open can not be a narrative problem (by the way, no rules: there is good narratives with the definition).


The medium of comics is not an excuse for poor storytelling. It is a narrative form, and in all forms of narrative we can expect well-rounded characters, be they in film, drama, comics or literature.

I see no difference between V and King Artur or Bewoulf or Indiana Jones. The character must only be appropriate for the text and V seems appropriate for a anarchist comic. (I agree that Moore ideas are overall simple minded about politics and V is masked crusade meets 1984 comic and Moore did better later, but it is far from such terrible storytelling).

[Silas Thorne]

I never saw V, but I enjoyed 'Equilibrium'.

Who want to challenge me to some gun-fu? I have been practising.

[Mopey Droney]

There are rarities like Schultz or Maus or a few others, I agree. It is not the majority however. The source of Comics narratives are not the reflexive literature, but rather and simple Narratives, which have a tendency to use a characters by their action and not inner reflection. Just like the difference between Robert Louis Stevenson and Virginia Woolf. And both were good narrators, so I am only claiming that is not necessary to have deeply psychological characters to present a good narrative.This is a good point that I was not able to discern from your previous point, and I am glad you have made this sensible clarification.

Using cliches or not does not show anything about the quality of the narrative. Henry James for example filled his stories with cliches, the same with Jorge Luis Borges. In comics, Calvin's (From Bill Watterson) parents, teachers, classmates are walking cliches. Or Batman and Superman are cliches and we have good comics with them. I agree that a misused cliche damages the narrative, but the use of them is not a sin. I have gotten away from my initial point. There is a difference between using cliches to make a point vs. writing something you think is subversive that turns out to be a cliche. I don't think the bad old priest was meant to be a cliche by Moore, it was meant to be an indictment, but instead just fell flat and had no originality and thus became a cliche. I don't feel there is much maturity in Moore's vision, and everything around it is just a spectacle to distract from the fact that he actually has nothing interesting to say, resulting in an entire work that seems very cliched and useless as a work of art, at least to me.

But having to show a closure and demanding a solution is Narrative 101 (all stories must have begining, middle, and end) non-sense. Leaving open to interpretation is a trademark of great writers, so leaving open can not be a narrative problem (by the way, no rules: there is good narratives with the definition).This is true, and I would say that no conclusion is better than a bad conclusion, but I would also say that a good conclusion, one that isn't sentimental, one that makes a good point, and one that shows maturity, is better than being open-ended. Sometimes open-endedness is good, and sometimes it is merely a copout for a narrator who can't resolve the mess he has made. "Crap, how do I end this? I can't figure it out. Oh wait, what if I just say that life is open-ended, and therefore my story will be open-ended as well, and thus my story reflects real life!" It's an easy way out. Just like not all things that wrap up nicely are good, it follows that not all things that are left "open" are good. And I feel that in V the open-endedness doesn't add to the quality.

[JCamilo]

This is a good point that I was not able to discern from your previous point, and I am glad you have made this sensible clarification.

Yeah, I know I am confusing and writing too fast in those forums, leaving some open sentences and all...
Moore is a super-hero comic writer, want him or not, adding literary references or not. He is not like Neil Gaiman, who is not a super-hero writer at all.


I have gotten away from my initial point. There is a difference between using cliches to make a point vs. writing something you think is subversive that turns out to be a cliche. I don't think the bad old priest was meant to be a cliche by Moore, it was meant to be an indictment, but instead just fell flat and had no originality and thus became a cliche. I don't feel there is much maturity in Moore's vision, and everything around it is just a spectacle to distract from the fact that he actually has nothing interesting to say, resulting in an entire work that seems very cliched and useless as a work of art, at least to me.

Ok, that is what I first meant, because I got the impression you are judging the vallue by the use of cliches or not. As the vallue as art, I see vallue in rebelion as I see artistic vallue in the punk. I do not think it is a masterwork (It is a great comic, if we only consider the vallue for comics only, but that is silly) and I see a step Moore was giving fowards to renew the notion of masked super-hero. But I think there is where we will have to wait time to tell us who is right because I think we consider our positions to be solid enough to stand on.
This of course does not means we cann't discuss the work techniques, importance, etc as it is not always related to say if the work is good or not.


This is true, and I would say that no conclusion is better than a bad conclusion, but I would also say that a good conclusion, one that isn't sentimental, one that makes a good point, and one that shows maturity, is better than being open-ended.

I think it depends. Kafka was a mater of inconclusive stories and he owns nothing as narrator to anyone. Tchekhov defended as his method the lack of conclusion since his intention was not just to tell a simple story but to provoke reflections. The lack of ending adds magic to 1001 nights, since it cause the impression of infinite. I would say: only add a conclusion when it is necessary. If not, it can be avoided, for good.



Sometimes open-endedness is good, and sometimes it is merely a copout for a narrator who can't resolve the mess he has made. "Crap, how do I end this? I can't figure it out. Oh wait, what if I just say that life is open-ended, and therefore my story will be open-ended as well, and thus my story reflects real life!" It's an easy way out. Just like not all things that wrap up nicely are good, it follows that not all things that are left "open" are good.

Yeah, not all. The ending (or lack of it) must be part of the whole. Romeo and Juliet without the ending would make no sense. And, of course, life is without end and continues, but if Shakespeare added more to that book, it would be a huge mistake. A good example coming from Comics that no end was necessary was the Sandman series (altough I think overall Gaiman have troubles to finish his most "epic" stories), the lack of ending there was well placed.


And I feel that in V the open-endedness doesn't add to the quality.

I would suggest that a book that all the time defends the vallue of individualism, a moral conclusion from the author would just invalidade the whole story, since it would be a form of influence and power over the individual reader. I think it is suited with the spirit of the story (you may think or not the story was good, it is a different point) and make me recall another dystopian story, also with an open ending, Brave New World (altough, of course, they do not refer to the same theme)