TIL Alan Moore, the author of V for Vendetta, has a negative view of the revolutionary cultures/movements he helped inspire
TIL Alan Moore, the author of V for Vendetta, has a negative view of the revolutionary cultures/movements he helped inspire
You're viewing a single thread.
Alan Moore wrote Rorschach for a fucking reason and it wasn't because "Rorschach was right!"
Moore was clearly aware of people who are sympathetic to great causes but would undermine them and destroy society just to be able to say that they were right.
Rorschach was right in many ways, but he spent his time looking down on everyone and anything else. His hate for the world was visceral and colored his perception. He was happy to destroy the world just so he could prove to himself that the world was beyond redemption.
The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'SAVE US!'...and I'll look down and whisper 'No.'
-Rorschach from Moore's Watchmen
He doesn't support these movements because they're filled to the gills with fucking Rorschachs.
V for Vendetta had a similar message. V was really not all that much better than the people he was fighting. He tortured the fuck out of Evey in order to get her to do his bidding. I'm sure it pissed him off to a huge degree that people started adopting Guy Fawkes masks as an actual symbol of revolution. Moore chose that mask for a reason. That reason is that Guy Fawkes was both fighting oppression and trying to turn England into a theocracy.
The issue with subtle critiques of facists is that facists will enjoy them non ironically.
See Watchmen, V for vendetta, starship troopers, warhammer 40k, on and on.
40k isn't a critique any more, and I'd argue it stopped the moment the Emperor became an actual strongman who is the bestest and smartest and handsomest immortal wizard human to ever live who guards humanity in its sleep uwu step on me daddy~~~~
Compared to the original, first edition version, where everything was at the whims of unreliable narration and it was understood that whatever the Emperor was in 30k, and that is a very big question, he's a corpse on a throne in 40k.
Starship Troopers stopped being a critique the minute the first film ended, and the book never was.
That's why you gotta watch movies like Inglorious Basterds. Make it impossible for them to claim that shit.
It really is unfortunate.
There's also the factor that the movie is very different from the original comic, and the folks who adopted the Guy Fawkes mask as a hacktivist icon mostly just saw the movie.
He still tortures the shit out if Evie in the film
To radicalize her, yeah.
Which makes V just as bad if not worse than the society he's fighting against.
V admits this in the story. That's why he sacrificed himself. He knows he's not fit for the world he's trying to create by taking out the people who are just like him.
How?
How is torture bad...?
How is a man torturing one woman equal to or worse than a fascist regime guilty of ethnic cleansing?
Please do not get involved in revolutionary movements if you cannot understand how violently torturing someone into slavery/submission is morally incorrect.
First of all, I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the text of the film. V did not torture Evey into servitude, he didn't break her spirit, she did not become dependent on or obedient to him. Shortly after, she is free to leave his company, which she does, after thanking him.
Second of all, I'm not sure she would have thanked the Fingermen who were going to rape and murder her for being out after curfew at the beginning of the film.
trying to turn England into a theocracy.
Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.
The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK
There's the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a "secular head of state":
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power.
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don't see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
Which countries did the pope control again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
I get that you are very, very upset that anyone dare criticize Catholicism, but that doesn't excuse you from being ignorant of history.
I'm not ignorant of history. I'm on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I'm sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you're usually railing against when it's your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it's path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming "Catholic" nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won't you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England's anti-Catholic biases as a "need to be a victim".
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I'm not clever, I'm almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I'm not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I'm guess you're ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you're talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with "that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it" vs "a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation". For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
I’m not accusing you of that
You literally accused me of that. Now you're gaslighting.
This is what you said: "Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff."
The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context.
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. "Trust me, bro, the British are wrong" is not how history works.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You've been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that's pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don't know how you interpret "I'm sure you understand the difference" as "you actually believe this". But sure, I'm manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn't a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than "that's what Catholics are like" despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
As the Papacy coronated Kings they had a role to play in the legitimacy of any King. The Papacy has a history of playing favorites in this regard.
Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that people currently living in the UK see the monarch as a religious leader.
I don’t think anyone is promoting an anti-Roman Catholic ideology as much as you have an apparently biased and flawed understanding of Fawkes goals.
Please do read about the Gunpowder Plot because you clearly don't know about it if you think this is some anti-Catholicism thing.
Also, I am talking about Moore's point, not whether or not you believe the point is based in fact.
But your need to be a victim when you aren't even a factor here is relevant.
anti-catholicism baked in
Thats called a brain, my dude. They're normally included in the package.
There’s like a dozen in this very thread lmao
Moore hates idol worship. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d personally fist fight anyone that idolized him.
This is slander, he'd clearly cast a tantric curse on them.
Slander is spoken, in print it's libel
Rorschach was very conservative and anti sex, much like the maga base. The attractive thing about that is that there's a clear right and wrong.
Later on he'd rather be killed than to admit ozymandias being right. His diary field the hateful marginal right-wing maga-crowd that had their anger taken away by the world peace that had materialized.
Ozymandias was wrong.
He wanted power over a world scared of an "outside" threat that didn't exist. As soon as anyone with any knowledge was able to debunk the 'attack', regardless of how, it would get even worse. The difference was only how far in the future. Rorschach didn't die because Ozy was right. He died because he couldn't be complicit in a world where evil got to win.
Ozymandias wanted to believe a heroic ideal as much as Rorschach - one that's just as self-deluded. He wanted to believe that there was an end to "history". He wanted to decide when the future began. But he forgot just one fact that Rorschach at least was cognizant of:
Nothing ever ends, Adrian.
None of those characters were right.
None of those characters were right.
that's the magic of it, to me.
Totally agree with this. It's part of why I dislike that DC writers sometimes import traits from the Watchmen into their Charlton counterparts. Obviously, if you scratch the surface of Rorschach, you find the Question staring back. If you look at Silk Spectre the right way, you see Black Canary. Nite Owl 1 & 2 are the Blue Beetle (I'm glad that Moore never got to adapt Jaime).
I want most of my superheroes to be clean and honest. I want to know that when I read a story, the Question follows leads responsibly (even if they do sometimes involve aglets) - whether that's Vic or Renee under the no-face. I want to know that Dinah Lance comes from a loving family, has a man she loves and trusts, and is dedicated to being a hero and a mentor to those who aren't in the same place. And so it goes for all of them. I want those characters to be heroes and in the right - or at least, in the realm of responsibility.
aglets
Their true purpose is sinister...
well put
Didn't say Ozymandias was right, I said Rorschach chose to die rather than submit to Ozymandias. And, like Ozymandias, he had already put into play his trump card, but he couldn't tell him that, so he decided to take it to his grave.
Both are cases of misplaced heroïsm. Neither are sure what the future will bring.
The way you said "rather die than admit ozy was right" was stated quite matter of fact-ly
You're right, it's a small difference. Rorschach couldn't admit that there was a point, there was a path to harmony. Like oz he'd put his plan into working before too.
He couldn't admit to oz being right, because he morally was disagreeing with the method. But in fact he disagreed because it made himself unviable. He counts in humanity to find conflict to disturb peace.
So ultimately Rorschach is right.
He also basically tortured Moloch for no reason. No matter how many times Moloch told him he didn't have the information. He just repeatedly beat the shit out of a dying old man for information the old man didn't have.
A dying old man yes, but no less an evil bastard for it. The problem is that Rorschach was deluded by Ozymandias. The evidence he had about the death of a friend pointed to Moloch. He pursued the lead. And like any human, he got angry because someone he'd respected had been murdered and thought he had a lead on the murderer. And the murderer was someone who'd killed in the past.
"Any human" would not repeatedly beat the shit out of a guy who kept insisting he had no information.
Also, The Comedian was not his friend. In any way.
What part of rorschach's views are revolutionary? Rorschach is a chud. Maybe his views are extreme but not revolutionary. False equivalence be wilin
I'll take Rorschach at this point I'm not gonna lie. Something, anything has to give, and the road we're on rn is much worse.
Edit: lol the only replies to this are from people I had to block previously due to trolling/ignorance etc. Figures.
Will you?
All sounds pretty MAGA to me.
We did get Rorschach. It's r/Conspiracy.