V. V. V. V. V.

Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

A quote attributed to Dr. John Faust, who made a pact with the devil in order to gain knowledge and power, but sold his soul in the process. This quote and its context applies to both Evey and V in a differing manner. Evey believes she is tricked by V into making a deal that enables him to kill a man. But is V really representative of Mephistopheles here? I, for one, don't think so, since the priest is far more devilish than V. He preaches to the sheep about the evils lurking outside when in reality he is a corrupt hypocrite. He is a pedophile who preys on young girls and even has pedophiliac porn. Do his actions warrant murder, however? Evey doesn't think so, but V is trying to show her the true nature of the minister--the injustice that bestows upon V the power, but not necessarily the right, to conquer it.

Throughout the comic Evey struggles with the morality of killing even those who can be said to deserve death. She does not savor the idea of killing in order to achieve justice/anarchy--she does not want to be the judge of others' souls. Nevertheless, her emotions for her lover override her sense of morality and she attempts to kill his killer in revenge. Does this lapse demonstrate how weak her morals are? I think it only shows that she is human and prone to despair after the perceived abandonment of all of her protectors--her father, V, and her lover. After all, when V offers her the chance to get revenge, she does not take it, even after her transformation in a fake concentration camp.

On another note, I am thankful for Spencer's definition of cognitive estrangement. It's a much simpler way of saying what I've always liked about science fiction--that it thematically comments on human behavior and society with a freedom of context that no other genre has. My favorite science fiction authors, Orson Scott Card and Isaac Asimov, exemplify this concept of cognitive estrangement. Or at least I think so. In any case, I feel that science fiction has been unfairly scorned in the literary community (like graphic novels have been) and that this concept lends it more validity in critics' eyes--not that their opinion really matters.

Dystopia

V for Vendetta is a dystopic novel. I like novels with dystopias in them, for some strange reason. Perhaps it is because dystopia is what I fear will happen to our government. Or perhaps it's because dystopic novels necessarily feature an underdog protagonist that is attempting to somehow subvert an overbearing Big Brother.


In any case, with Moore's graphic novels it always seems like I dislike his endings. I just want the comic to continue because the story is that engaging:P....though I suppose V runs out of prominent targets eventually. Though my reason for disliking the ending this time is more facetious: I want to know who V is! Those first two panels showing the men Evey imagines V to be are rather ambiguous and I can't make out who they are; I'm guessing one of them is her lover. But who is the other? I suppose knowing who V is does detract from his mystique, though....



Anyways, I can't decide whether I like V for Vendetta or Watchmen better, but I will focus on a favorable aspect in the former: the complexity of the antagonists. I love how Moore and Lloyd create "bad guys" that aren't flat characters--you can see into their twisted minds and even sympathize with those who are mistreated themselves. V for Vendetta really raises the question--who really is the "bad guy"?

Take the character of Finch, for example. He is working for the totalitarian government of the Leader as the "Nose" *and he kills V!:-(* However, in order to accomplish this feat, Finch has to get into the mindset of V, and he does this by tracing V's history to its origin: Larkhill, the English version of Auschwitz. With the aid of some LSD, Finch undergoes catharsis and realizes that he must follow his own path separate from the rule of the Leader as the past and current atrocities of the government cannot be condoned. It is ironic that he is ultimately on the same side as V, but condemns the latter for committing murder to achieve the same ends.



The Leader is a more difficult case study to prove for ambiguity. Simply put, he is delusional, psychotic, and sexually repressed. His concept of reality is completely skewed--he deifies a computer named Fate and puts his own little mental drama above the welfare of his precious state. Nevertheless, one (or at least I) cannot hesitate to feel sorry for him as he realizes that his lover has long ago betrayed him for V. I feel sad feeling sad for an antagonist in love with a computer. I guess it's his human treatment of fate that evokes the sympathy, but still.


An antagonist easier to sympathize with is Conrad Heyer, the "Eye" of the government. Although he is the official Peeping Tom for the government and thus a major enabler of the administration(knowledge and lack of privacy= power), he is also cuckolded by his bitch of a wife, Helen. My sympathy for Conrad stems more from antipathy towards her--she is my least favorite character in the novel. She is a scheming, manipulating, power-hungry slut with no respect for herself or anyone else. To her, anyone is a usable tool if it furthers her objectives--gang leaders, beggars, you name it. Anyways, back to Conrad. He does get his vengeance/justice in the end by killing his wife's lover, but does he really have the potential to be the next V? He doesn't have any catharsis like Finch does about the heinousness of the government--he is just too wrapped up in the injustices of his personal life.


Evil or good? Where is the line drawn--the box made--the boundaries overstepped?

Anarchy vs. Justice?

In V for Vendetta, V makes an analogy with justice as his former love and anarchy as his new and improved mistress. But why choose one or the other?

V is a terrorist, but in this case I sympathize with both his means and goals. In a totalitarian state, the only route for change is terrorism--any peaceful demonstrations are just quashed. Moore's totalitarian England is eerily reminiscent of both the Nazis and Orwell's 1984.

Perhaps my sense of morality is skewed to support V, but I think the antagonists he is fighting against are far worse than him and deserve their punishment, so to speak. He is achieving justice, restoring it, through the anarchic act of terrorism.

(Moral) Quandary/ies (Or How/Why I Hate the Ending of Watchmen)

No, I did not become schizophrenic. I am just attempting to convey some of my confusion about the ending of Watchmen, which I discussed with a friend (whose blog you should look at too).

At first glance, I -hated- the ending. I thought the "good" guy was supposed to win in superhero comics, and in this case, "good"= Rorschach and the rest of the reunited superhero team. I know, perhaps it's messed up of me to think that Rorschach is good, considering his twisted sense of justice, but at least he only uses violence on those who can be said to deserve it (like the guy who butchered a six-year-old and fed it to his German sheperds) and at least he didn't commit mass murder. Though that doesn't necessarily excuse his extreme use of violence. I'm confused--I think the character of Rorschach merits his own discussion at another time. I just didn't want him to die--after all, he had been the crime-solving detective vigilante unraveling this whole mystery from the beginning.

But maybe I'm thinking too conventionally.

However, I am annoyed at the way that Laurie, Dr. Manhattan, and Dan all flocked to Veidt's side so quickly. They didn't even pause to consider the moral dilemma I see here. Instead, they seemed to instantly change their minds and agree with him (putting up the weakest of mental defenses), forgetting that he had killed 3 million innocents to achieve his goal. Honestly, only in like the previous chapter (okay, Chapter 9) did Laurie convince Dr. Manhattan of the infinite rareness and worth of human life. And now she's apparently forgotten about that and is quick to be convinced by Veidt about the rightness of his decision: "Jesus, he was right. All we did was fail to stop him saving Earth" (XII-20).

So what exactly am I trying to argue, aside from the fact that they seem to have lost their critical thinking skills quickly? Well, it's already too late to stop the disaster from happening. The only decision left for our superheroes is whether or not to punish Veidt. Now I am not necessarily saying that they follow Rorschach's path and reveal to the whole world what Veidt had done. In the short run, that would be a sure disaster because the Russians would just accuse the Americans of faking everything (which is true, though not the government's fault) and the war would be accelerated. However, not telling the world about Veidt and deciding whether to punish him are not overlapping decisions (they can be mutually exclusive). They could have punished him in some way--perhaps not killing him--to demonstrate that they disapprove of his methods.

Of course, what this comes down to is a judgment about whether the ends were worth the means. Veidt and the other superheroes seem to think so, but I don't. He still killed millions for a peace that -can- be temporary. His solution was a deus ex machina of sorts, not a real solution to stopping the Cold War. Why? Because once his plan is revealed--and it looks like it will be, if that boy working for the New Frontiersman reads Rorschach's journal, as implied on the last page--then the world will probably escalate into conflict again as the Russians become furious at being tricked by the Americans. Of course, there is still the possibility of peace if Veidt's involvement is revealed late enough--perhaps once having experienced peace, the Americans and Russians will have learned to put away their differences and continue to coexist peacefully even if an American engineered the peace.

But I think that's a slim possibility. The moral quandaries posed here are...was Veidt justified to kill millions of people in order to achieve world peace/prevent possibly more disasters as a result of nuclear war? (Kinda analogous to Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb, but in this situation no war has started yet). Should he be punished? Will this artificial peace last? Is it artificial, as I assert? Can Veidt's act be seen as terrorism?

Understanding Comix (Chps. 7-9)

Meh, I couldn't think of a good title for this post...and I like the way Spiegelman spells "comics."

Another shameless plug.

Anyways...the end of Understanding Comics. Personally, I think that Chapter 8: A Word About Color seemed out of place....Chapter 7: The Six Steps applies to comics at a whole, so I think it should be switched with 8. Ordering aside, these chapters were much more useful and interesting than the ones we had to read for the previous assignment.

Chapter 7: The Six Steps

Though I'm not sure I entirely agree with McCloud on everything he says in Chapter 7. He answers the question "Can comics be art?" by creating his own definition of art. A very broad definition that basically encompasses almost everything: "Art...is any human activity which doesn't grow out of either of our species' two basic instincts: survival and reproduction." This definition is way too broad and can be interpreted to include sinister things like killing a six-year-old or other random acts of violence. McCloud illustrates his definition by using cavemen, which reveals his definition's simplistic nature: he only depicts cavemen creating, not destroying. I suppose my view of human nature is much more pessimistic than his.

I also feel like he's cheating in a way by using this definition....he's not showing comics is equal to all of the things that are considered art, but just broadening the definition of art so there is no need to compare characteristics. Thankfully, he does do so later on in the chapter with the six steps. He does a very good job of illustrating his exposition of the six steps, basically an overview of the creative process. I was surprised initially that he depicted artists starting from step 6: the surface and moving towards steps 1 and 2 (the idea and the form) instead of the other way around. I guess it's because when writing a paper I always attempt to come up with ideas first...but his example is perhaps more applicable to visual arts, and he is talking about the whole process of growing as an artist rather than one isolated project.

Notable panel: I thought it was neat how the outline of the sabertooth tiger is stalking the man late for his job--illustrating the instinct for survival in a new form (pg. 167).


Chapter 8: A Word About Color

Overall I thought McCloud did a nice job highlighting the different effects various color schemes have on comics, especially the effect of flat colors. I also like how McCloud focuses on the potential of expressive colors to influence comics in the future. Though I'm not sure I entirely understand the "four-color" process.

Notable panel: McCloud depicts the filters different aspects of comics have had to go through: line is filtered by commerce, while color is filtered by both commerce and technology (pg. 187). Stupid business...


Chapter 9: Putting it All Together
A fitting summary that doesn't seem as repetitive as chapters 5 and 6. I like McCloud's emphasis on comics' potential in this chapter and throughout the whole book. Insightful exposition in the beginning about the isolated condition of humanity and the need for art to fill the void of non-communication. Another thing he seems to focus on is the underappreciation of comics.

Notable panels: The contrast between appreciated comics artists and condemned/overlooked ones on pg. 201. The top panels contain a quote by Topffer, a man who paradoxically believes that comics have had more influence on humanity than written literature and also believes that they mainly appeal only to "children and the lower classes." So I guess the implication is that comics is base and it has only had more influence on humanity because most of humanity is base too? The bottom panel contrasts sainted, angelic comics artists with the creations of underappreciated comics artists who are suffering in hell under the whip of demonic creatures representing commerce. Can McCloud be implying that the latter sold out to mass audiences?

Alternative History, Part II (With Some Digressions)

Watchmen, Chapters I-IV, and Understanding Comics, Chapters 5-6
Meh, I don't think Chapters 5 and 6 of Understanding Comics were that great, so I'll talk more about Watchmen's themes and speculate on the characters. As to why Understanding Comics wasn't as good as it usually is, well, I think Chapter 5: Living in Line was mostly a rehash of things we've already learned in previous chapters, like Chapter 3: Blood in the Gutter. Or perhaps rehash isn't the right word, but I just felt extremely jaded reading it, like the conclusions were obvious and McCloud had already applied this method of analysis to previous concepts. Chapter 6 also contained material that McCloud had already mentioned, such as the increasing distance between pictures and words--pictures towards resemblance, words towards meaning. Even the classifications of word and picture combinations seemed trite.



On a completely random side note, one of my close friends, who's also an English major, was remarking on how surprised he was that so many people, including his professor, read Keats' poetry as very sexually involved. I actually made note of that while reading the excerpt from "Ode on a Grecian Urn" in Understanding Comics: the first line, "Thou still unravish'd bride of quietness" had surprising connotations to me (What if the addressee was ravished? Can a urn even be ravished? Why this strange metaphor to a bride?...) I don't remember discussing anything about Keats' sexuality in my British Literature class sophomore year, and neither does my friend, who was in the same class.

Anyways...back to Watchmen. Working off of some of the observations I made in my last post, I've decided that I have overlooked a major overarching theme. That is, I believe that Watchmen is a critique of the Establishment--a critique of overextended, uber-powerful government. There are several indicators of this. I believe in class Patrick mentioned that Nixon was still President because of the success in Vietnam in this alternative universe--if that's the case, then Watergate never occurred and he has managed to establish a stranglehold on the Presidency. Nixon was elected in '68, and in Watchmen it's now 85? He's been in power for more time than FDR was, though FDR would have been equal to him in the number of terms if he hadn't died (he was elected to a fourth term, after all). Anyways, I am not even sure there is conclusive proof that Nixon is President, the only indication of that that you see in the first four chapters is a newspaper with a headline saying that Congress is contemplating a Constitutional Amendment extending Presidential term limits to three terms. But assuming that this is correct, then a President who was supposed to have failed is now firmly entrenched in power.

And why is he firmly entrenched? Well, the US seems to be stuck in a never-ending Cold War because Dr. Manhattan makes the Soviets more desperate due to their humiliations. The key here is Dr. Manhattan. Who wants to challenge the Establishment when the government has a weapon like Dr. Manhattan? I believe that this is also a cause of the police riots, in which the very good question of "Who Watches the Watchmen?" is sprayed on a wall. In this case, no one. No one oversees the government's use of endorsed superheroes like Dr. Manhattan and the Comedian before he was murdered. Sure, the Keene Act was passed, which outlawed other vigilantes which had been seen as suppressors of the common people, but that's just the government consolidating control over the remaining superheroes. Now there isn't anyone left to challenge the government's authority since other vigilantes have been outlawed and the public is seemingly content with the Keene Act, except, I suppose for Rorschach.

Now I'll digress to contemplate the naming of the characters. Rorschach, whose mask reflects this, is named after a psychological inkblot test used to assess personality characteristics of patients. Of course, there are problems with assessment when each person's interpretation of the inkblots is wholly subjective. I wonder why Rorschach is named Rorschach...He is the only one of the vigilantes who refuses to follow the Keene Act. His subjective interpretation of the need for him to keep on fighting crime could be related to the inkblot test. Or perhaps it's just indicative of underlying psychological problems? Eh...I don't think I know enough about him at this point to make any conclusive guesses.

Ozymandias is another character whose name I noted. His name is a reference to a poem by Percy Shelley, a Romantic poet. Having analyzed this poem in British Literature, I remember that it was supposed to be a warning that even the reigns of great kings will eventually end (a warning against the hubris of the king's etched words on the pedestal, proclaiming his greatness while all that is left of his empire is ruins). Ozymandias is one of the vigilantes who has cashed out on his reputation and is reputed to be the "World's Smartest Man." I guess his reputation or intelligence won't save him from whatever calamity is coming. Or has he already fallen, a mere footnote in history because of the arrival of the monopolizing Dr. Manhattan?

Alternative History

Having never read Watchmen or any of Moore's other graphic novels, I must say that I am very impressed. The story is especially gripping and the themes are momentous. However, I don't think that the visuals are as engaging as in Blankets...what I mean is that I tend to get caught up in the text instead of focusing on the visuals. Though I do admire his use of framing...but I'll elaborate more on the visual aspect in another post.

Right now I want to discuss theme. It's fascinating to see an alternative world where the Russians are much more aggressive and the Cold War is still ongoing. However, the biggest conundrum posed is the existence of Dr. Manhattan--what would happen to our world if a God-like figure walked among mortals? There are positives, such as the accelerated advance of technology, but should Dr. Manhattan really be relied upon to the extent that he is in Watchmen to preserve world peace? I believe that the essay Professor Glass presented is very convincing...and his premises create a new, more dangerous scenario for mankind. In the real Cold War, MAD (or mutually assured destruction) was a deterrent to nuclear conflict between the Soviets and the US. Nevertheless, the depiction of the Soviets in Watchmen as increasingly desperate with one humiliation (such as Vietnam, which the US won in this alternative universe)after another due to the US's strategic advantage of Dr. Manhattan is, I believe, an unfair one. It assumes that they lack rationality and are just bloodthirsty for revenge at great cost to themselves. Even when things got very close to a nuclear conflict in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the consideration of MAD was strong enough to deter it.

Another disturbing aspect is the vigilantes' political stances. They seem, as a whole, very conservative and pro-government. Especially telling was the list of "crimes" the new group of Crimebusters was supposed to fight, which included campus unrest. Now that does not seem to be that big of a priority to me, and perhaps it illustrated the increasing obsolescence of the vigilantes, especially with the arrival of Dr. Manhattan. Another scene indicating the vigilantes' disrespect for civil liberties is the memory Dan (the new Nite Owl) has of him and The Comedian during the police strike riots. After The Comedian throws some crowd-dispersing gas, the Nite Owl asks reflectively, "Who are we protecting them from?" The Comedian's answer of themselves is decidedly conservative and I believe inaccurate--the answer implied is the vigilantes themselves.

The use of the word vigilante is interesting, since to me it also holds negative connotations of citizens who took things into their own hands during WWI and forcibly discriminated against German Americans, Italian Americans, and even Reds. Vigilantism was even more prevalent during the Red Scare, and it was subtly endorsed by the Wilson Administration. The lessons learned from that abuse of civil liberties were carried over to FDR's Administration, which forbade vigilantism. I wonder why Moore seems to use that term more often-"costumed vigilante" rather than Superhero, which to me has a much more positive connotation.