V for Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous - by Alan Moore(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
V for Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous - by Alan Moore
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689
92 comments
I don't think it's overstating things to say that Moore's influence changed the face of the comic industry forever (no pun intended). The man is a true visionary, pushing the boundary of whatever medium he chooses. I look forward to reading his novels.
Here is another good and recent interview:
http://www.honestpublishing.com/news/honest-alan-moore-inter...
Here is another good and recent interview:
http://www.honestpublishing.com/news/honest-alan-moore-inter...
> I don't think it's overstating things to say that Moore's influence changed the face of the comic industry forever (no pun intended).
What, for the better or worse? The comic industry is in no state to be proud of; they sell at least 100 times less than they used to and their entire audience is 30 year old white men because they have no ability to attract new readers.
That's the American-style comic industry; the Japanese one is doing well.
What, for the better or worse? The comic industry is in no state to be proud of; they sell at least 100 times less than they used to and their entire audience is 30 year old white men because they have no ability to attract new readers.
That's the American-style comic industry; the Japanese one is doing well.
Moore et al. kept the industry relevant for more than they should have. VfV and Watchmen are a few of those works that keep selling 20 years later, while 99% of the US comic production is crap and gets forgotten after six months. The market is what it is because there are too few Moores and Ellises and Gaimans , and too many self-referential comic-fans-turned-writers.
Apologies for the super-late reply. Wasn't notifo'd of your comment for some weird reason.
For the better most definitely, and when Moore could still be considered as part of the comic industry. I don't think this has really been the case for a long time now.
I agree with toyg's comment that the industry is in its current state because they don't have enough Moores and Ellises and Gaimans. I'm also very fond of Garth Ennis' and Glenn Fabry's work. It's interesting to note that all these guys and more are considered part of the 'British Invasion'[1] and without them, the US comic industry would be in far worse shape than it is.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Invasion_(comics)
For the better most definitely, and when Moore could still be considered as part of the comic industry. I don't think this has really been the case for a long time now.
I agree with toyg's comment that the industry is in its current state because they don't have enough Moores and Ellises and Gaimans. I'm also very fond of Garth Ennis' and Glenn Fabry's work. It's interesting to note that all these guys and more are considered part of the 'British Invasion'[1] and without them, the US comic industry would be in far worse shape than it is.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Invasion_(comics)
"Our present financial ethos no longer even resembles conventional capitalism, which at least implies a brutal Darwinian free-for-all, however one-sided and unfair. Instead, we have a situation where the banks seem to be an untouchable monarchy beyond the reach of governmental restraint, much like the profligate court of Charles I."
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
Interestingly, Alan Moore manages to miss the point and be spot-on at the same time.
Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous, the disavowal of identity that accompanies taking up the mask: even though _he himself_ demonstrated the succession of V.
But that's perhaps to be expected; the movie necessarily completed the image of the mask by making it abundantly clear that it is when the _group_ takes up the mask that the mask has power. You cannot punish one if you must punish all.
At the same time, he is clearly in tune with the movement. "Today's response to similar oppressions seems to be one that is intelligent, constantly evolving and considerably more humane."
All in all I read (if I may) V for Valediction from a man who thanks the movement for validating his work, and encourages the next generation just as an intellectual parent ought.
And also like a good intellectual parent, he points to his own heritage... "Some ghosts never go away..."
Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous, the disavowal of identity that accompanies taking up the mask: even though _he himself_ demonstrated the succession of V.
But that's perhaps to be expected; the movie necessarily completed the image of the mask by making it abundantly clear that it is when the _group_ takes up the mask that the mask has power. You cannot punish one if you must punish all.
At the same time, he is clearly in tune with the movement. "Today's response to similar oppressions seems to be one that is intelligent, constantly evolving and considerably more humane."
All in all I read (if I may) V for Valediction from a man who thanks the movement for validating his work, and encourages the next generation just as an intellectual parent ought.
And also like a good intellectual parent, he points to his own heritage... "Some ghosts never go away..."
For what it's worth, he hasn't seen the movie. Any differences in message between his comic and the adaptation have either found him strictly via hearsay or are lost on him entirely.
He hasn't seen the movie, but he did read its script:
I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it,
and I'm not going to be going to see it.
> Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous
By “cotton” did you mean “caught on”?
By “cotton” did you mean “caught on”?
Colloquial American English expression, used appropriately. "To cotton to" is to understand and possibly enjoy a phenomenon -- it's always a positive connotation.
This is an idiom.
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010312
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010312
Don't know why you're being down-voted, I've never heard the term either.
> You cannot punish one if you must punish all.
That's mindless twaddle.
"if you must punish all" is never true. In fact, you usually don't want to punish all.
And, you can always punish one.
That's mindless twaddle.
"if you must punish all" is never true. In fact, you usually don't want to punish all.
And, you can always punish one.
Obligatory quote from the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655
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.Alan Moore refuses to have anything to do with the movies, and true to his predictions they seriously butchered the character.In the movie incarnation, very little remains of Alan Moore's V, except his hacker/trickster nature and a certain panache.
The literary V is an anarchist, somewhat disdainful of ordinary people's subservience, and decides to destroy the apparatus of the state whether the people want it or not. The book ends with England in chaos. The book hints that a figure like V is always needed, no matter what kind of government you live under.
The movie V is an outlaw, but he's still more of a liberal reformer. He gets rid of the bad leaders, while leaving the state intact, and then gathers people together to witness a symbolic action. In the movie, it's clear that being V is only necessary when you have a bad government, then you can get on with your normal life.
Nevertheless, Moore believes that truly iconic characters take on a life of their own and become humanity's "gods". And in some ways the V-figure is evolving beyond the media portrayals. Not as prickly and disengaged from humanity as the book, while jettisoning the 9-11 truther nonsense of the movie. Maybe heading for true "trickster god" status; a friend of humanity that destroys structures that constrain natural developments.
The literary V is an anarchist, somewhat disdainful of ordinary people's subservience, and decides to destroy the apparatus of the state whether the people want it or not. The book ends with England in chaos. The book hints that a figure like V is always needed, no matter what kind of government you live under.
The movie V is an outlaw, but he's still more of a liberal reformer. He gets rid of the bad leaders, while leaving the state intact, and then gathers people together to witness a symbolic action. In the movie, it's clear that being V is only necessary when you have a bad government, then you can get on with your normal life.
Nevertheless, Moore believes that truly iconic characters take on a life of their own and become humanity's "gods". And in some ways the V-figure is evolving beyond the media portrayals. Not as prickly and disengaged from humanity as the book, while jettisoning the 9-11 truther nonsense of the movie. Maybe heading for true "trickster god" status; a friend of humanity that destroys structures that constrain natural developments.
V was a product of government abuse from experimentation. After escaping, he decides to destroy the state in a cold calculated manner.
There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.
There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.
As an extremely unpleasant man once said:
"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
He was wrong about just about everything else, but in this one statement I fear he may have told the truth.
"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
He was wrong about just about everything else, but in this one statement I fear he may have told the truth.
Some may find the comment which precedes this interesting as well:
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Alas, the conflict setting the context for these comments was the last time the US Congress declared war (WWII). Fearful of the political consequences of taking responsibility of such actions, Congress has consented to letting subsequent Presidents (including our current administrator) initiate ill-defined actions. We, the people, no longer have a say in the matter as our elected representatives will not take a stand one way or another; they will chatter at great length, but will not declare a beginning nor end to hostilities.
ETA: emphasis is "declare war". Consent to fund POTUS-initiated actions is missing the point.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Alas, the conflict setting the context for these comments was the last time the US Congress declared war (WWII). Fearful of the political consequences of taking responsibility of such actions, Congress has consented to letting subsequent Presidents (including our current administrator) initiate ill-defined actions. We, the people, no longer have a say in the matter as our elected representatives will not take a stand one way or another; they will chatter at great length, but will not declare a beginning nor end to hostilities.
ETA: emphasis is "declare war". Consent to fund POTUS-initiated actions is missing the point.
Except the military action in Iraq was authorized by Congress by H.J. Res. 114, March 3, 2003. Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power.
>Congress also controls the funding though they have been slack to use that power.
I think that brings us full circle: "...and denounce the pacifists [or legislators who might defund unpopular military actions] for lack of patriotism [being 'weak on defense'] and exposing the country to danger."
I think that brings us full circle: "...and denounce the pacifists [or legislators who might defund unpopular military actions] for lack of patriotism [being 'weak on defense'] and exposing the country to danger."
[deleted]
For others who are curious and don't recognize this:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html
So do something about it. If you don't know what to do, figure out what to do.
The problem is, how do you tell whether you're brainwashed or not?
It is all too easy to pretend that people have no say in the actions of their commonwealth, and much too difficult to believe that patriotism, pacifism, idealism, and conservatism each have something important to say.
I am unimpressed with your cynicism.
I am unimpressed with your cynicism.
The quote is fine as long as you don't take as an absolute statement of the only way things can be. It is a fact that the outlined strategy is almost always effective.
Thanks, that's what I meant by including it this discussion.
Personally, I would hope we could raise the general level of skepticism and equip ourselves with a Sagan-like "Baloney Detection Kit" so that everyone is aware of this technique for motivating populations towards conflict and that this hopefully makes us all more immune to it.
Personally, I would hope we could raise the general level of skepticism and equip ourselves with a Sagan-like "Baloney Detection Kit" so that everyone is aware of this technique for motivating populations towards conflict and that this hopefully makes us all more immune to it.
As a liberal, I'd like to thank you for invoking conservatism in defense of fascism. It's very satisfying for me.
As someone who doesn't pick a party but rather considers each issue without the taint of party lines, I think labels are hilarious... and stupid.
"liberal" and "conservative" are not party lines - they are methods of thought.
Fascists generally aren't liberal, and vice versa.
Fascists generally aren't liberal, and vice versa.
@saraid216 - I was in no way trying to paint myself as in individualistic personality phenomenon. Not really sure what you're trying to contribute.
@Karunamon - Sure, but dropping into groupthink in any setting is a dangerous thing to do. The earth is flat, etc.
@Karunamon - Sure, but dropping into groupthink in any setting is a dangerous thing to do. The earth is flat, etc.
You are a very special and unique snowflake. Just like every other snowflake.
Btw, I'm a Romanian and tomorrow I'll also be joining the protest. I'm in the process of co-opting some of my neighbors. Please do so too.
Who has the copyright on the Guy Fawkes masks?
UPDATE: Forget it, the design belongs to Time Warner.
UPDATE: Forget it, the design belongs to Time Warner.
Well, either they have the copyright or a very exclusive license.
When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen,"
I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked
me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film
gets made or not.
mine has a label inside indicating it was made under license from the movie rights owners.
Obviously, the moral thing is to make your own. ;-)
Mass-production, however, has some interesting advantages. It's harder to trace it back to its owner, for instance.
Mass-production, however, has some interesting advantages. It's harder to trace it back to its owner, for instance.
quite the opposite. it makes it rather easy to cross-reference amazon orders of said mask with politically active online accounts via isp records to identify suitable candidates for future re-education internment camps on the topic of IP and state rights. could be done using the ironically libertarian-funded Palantir, i suppose.
I'm as tinfoily as the next guy, but I don't think buying a mask on amazon is going to land you in a reeducation camp. Wearing a mask hardly makes one a Ted Kaczynski.
The point is if you DO turn out to be a Ted Kaczynski, having these kinds of purchase records on file make it easier to find you.
Did they buy it from the comic?
Tangential Alan Moore - Alternative thought for the day at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9669000/9669590....
Anonymous is a childish sudo-terrorist group that has thrown multiple digital temper-tantrums because they haven't gotten their way.
Even if I support their views, I would never want to be associated with them.
Even if I support their views, I would never want to be associated with them.
A terrorist group with the power of sudo is a scary thought.
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/149/
Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/149/
Right. Because that's all they do. Let's see:
1) Stole from Symantec and released the code: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253
2) stole from pcanywhere and released the code: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2012/02/07/anon...
Funny thing is, Google does the same thing with the GPL (IE: "theft" of code): http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html and the people here on HN want to crucify them.
It's so easy to hide behind a handle/username online. It takes no balls or courage because you have little to no risk. The mere fact that they do this shows me that they aren't really serious about their views and are most likely anti-social kids (or adults with the maturity of kids).
This is stuff that I would have enjoyed when I was 15.
1) Stole from Symantec and released the code: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253
2) stole from pcanywhere and released the code: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2012/02/07/anon...
Funny thing is, Google does the same thing with the GPL (IE: "theft" of code): http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html and the people here on HN want to crucify them.
It's so easy to hide behind a handle/username online. It takes no balls or courage because you have little to no risk. The mere fact that they do this shows me that they aren't really serious about their views and are most likely anti-social kids (or adults with the maturity of kids).
This is stuff that I would have enjoyed when I was 15.
Relax, he was just poking fun at your error in using 'sudo' (the linux super-user command) instead of 'pseudo' (the prefix meaning counterfeit).
Not sure if this is a response to the joke or not, though...
Not sure if this is a response to the joke or not, though...
You think that was an error? come on, it's HN!
I ... think it might have been intentional. Notice the xkcd comic.
[deleted]
I don't know what Fox News told you old geezers, but anonymous is not a group. Governments can act in the name of anonymous, and I'm sure they do (surprise!). You're missing the point, but that won't stop you from spewing your condescending garbage.
right. It's not a group. Also, way to generalize!
If a government attacked people they didn't agree with without a trial (Even under the name "Anonymous"), I don't think I would agree with them either.
Anyone using the name "Anonymous" to attack another that they don't agree with is wrong.
I don't like the people the people at the wall street protests so I'm going to steal all their credit card info or fake a police report that they are child molesters. But don't worry, it's all under the name Anonymous...so it's okay!!!!!!!
If a government attacked people they didn't agree with without a trial (Even under the name "Anonymous"), I don't think I would agree with them either.
Anyone using the name "Anonymous" to attack another that they don't agree with is wrong.
I don't like the people the people at the wall street protests so I'm going to steal all their credit card info or fake a police report that they are child molesters. But don't worry, it's all under the name Anonymous...so it's okay!!!!!!!
those examples are from the same theft
> I would never want to be associated with them.
That's rather the idea of being anonymous.
That's rather the idea of being anonymous.
I also will not follow anyone that silences your opinion merely because they disagree. This isn't the purpose of down voting, but it's obvious to me that the supporters of anonymous feel this way.
You most likely aren't downvoted because people want to "silence" your opinion, but because your expression of it is aggressive, unfriendly and borders on ad hominem. That's why I myself downvoted you, at least.
It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing.
It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing.
"It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing."
It's called an opinion. Garbage is spewed about the US government weekly on HN and nobody calles it "ad hominem" (which you also can't just throw around).
I provided proof. Here is another example:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/anonymous-hack...
They sound like terrorists, act like terrorists, so I'm going to call them what they are. I don't care if you disagree.
It's called an opinion. Garbage is spewed about the US government weekly on HN and nobody calles it "ad hominem" (which you also can't just throw around).
I provided proof. Here is another example:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/anonymous-hack...
They sound like terrorists, act like terrorists, so I'm going to call them what they are. I don't care if you disagree.
For Anonymous to be "terrorists", don't they have to successfully scare someone? Or, you know, kill people? Stealing code and DDoSing websites, boy, I sure am quaking in my boots.
For the record, I downvoted you not because I disagree, though I do, but for your tone which was insulting without anything to back it up. Your comment simply didn't add to the discussion.
I provided two articles. I provided another one further down. I think the difference is that you don't agree that those are terrorist acts, not that I didn't provide proof.
Christ, I'm so glad nobody here on HN is running a country.
Christ, I'm so glad nobody here on HN is running a country.
I disagree that they're terrorist acts, but I seriously just downvoted you because of your tone. It was uncivil.
[deleted]
Best to do nothing then, and be one of those who stood aside.
Those are hardly the only two options.
I would rather have my own group. That doesn't hide behind a computer screen.
It's hard for me to align myself with Anonymous because I really don't like how they give support to the ideas I agree with, but, man, it sure does look exciting from where I'm standing.
The thing I find interesting / amusing about the "Guy Fawkes" masks from the movie, is the extent to which they have been embraced by at least 3 or 4 fairly different, even seemingly opposing, groups. Looking around, I've seen these masks associated with:
1. Radical libertarian / anti-government types
2. Tea Partiers
3. The OWS movement
4. Anonymous
The moral of this story may just be that these groups have more in common that you would suspect at first blush.
1. Radical libertarian / anti-government types
2. Tea Partiers
3. The OWS movement
4. Anonymous
The moral of this story may just be that these groups have more in common that you would suspect at first blush.
I've never seen the Tea Party associated with the Guy Fawkes mask. That seems... silly. Do you have a reference?
And as far as I know, OWS was never associated with the Guy Fawkes mask; that was Anonymous showing up in the flesh.
And as far as I know, OWS was never associated with the Guy Fawkes mask; that was Anonymous showing up in the flesh.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+guy+fawkes&tbm...
Why does it seem silly to you that the largest and most effective anti-government movement of the modern era would have some sympathizers who adopt the symbol?
Why does it seem silly to you that the largest and most effective anti-government movement of the modern era would have some sympathizers who adopt the symbol?
Most of those pictures seem to be OWS related. Some of them are clearly Tea Party, though.
And to answer your question, because the Tea Party seemed to be all about being American and Fawkes was not only British but also Catholic. I guess pop culture helps.
And to answer your question, because the Tea Party seemed to be all about being American and Fawkes was not only British but also Catholic. I guess pop culture helps.
I always picture the Tea Party folks more akin to the Michelin Man, from a physique standpoint.
They're all opposed to how the government currently operates. I think that's something that most of the country agrees upon.
But let's talk about birth-control.
Was this an attempt to illustrate "important issues" rather than promoting iconoclasm, or an attempt to say that wedge issues are what drives modern government and thus we shouldn't be paying attention to the man behind the curtain, but discussing the preselected moral issue dujour to keep us distracted and shoulders to the grindwheel rather than looking at the bigger picture?
The latter doesn't much look worth of downvoting to me, in fact I'd go almost so far as to say it's amongst the most vexing problems of humanity at the moment.
The latter doesn't much look worth of downvoting to me, in fact I'd go almost so far as to say it's amongst the most vexing problems of humanity at the moment.
Thanks for actually replying.
Yes, my point (such as it was) is that wedge issues distract from the real "supra-partisan" issues that affect citizens across party lines, like the immunity of bankers from prosecution, how much of a drain military expenditures are on the economy (and therefor quality of life) in the US, the TSA, US foreign policy as a stifle on travel opportunities, and so on.
Oh, but let's talk about some religious people laying a turd of morality on the front page of every newspaper. Birth-control in church insurance? Such a pressing issue!
Yes, my point (such as it was) is that wedge issues distract from the real "supra-partisan" issues that affect citizens across party lines, like the immunity of bankers from prosecution, how much of a drain military expenditures are on the economy (and therefor quality of life) in the US, the TSA, US foreign policy as a stifle on travel opportunities, and so on.
Oh, but let's talk about some religious people laying a turd of morality on the front page of every newspaper. Birth-control in church insurance? Such a pressing issue!
Namely: none of them have taken the time to learn about what a completely detestable theocratic proto-fascist Guy Fawkes was
But to their credit, that's not the point. This is touched upon in the novel--that it's the idea of rebellion that Guy Fawkes has become a symbol of, not what he was fighting for but that he was fighting at all.
Fuck it bothers me to no end how almost no one knows that side of the story. Keep telling it bro.
I think the word you are searching for is "anti-establishment". I think that one word characterizes all those groups.
Particularly amusing is that, at least in the case of Anonymous, the anarchistic end state of the graphic novel is fairly closely mirrored.
Just saw an awesome documentary on Anonymous at the Slamdance Film Festival (Sundance's indie younger sibling). Interesting and well made. Would recommend it for anyone who is interested in Anonymous/Hacktivism.
http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/
http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/
[deleted]
Here's a lovely interview with him, from "Mythmakers and Lawbreakers", a work on anarchist fiction writers:
http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/2009/02/mythmakers-lawbre...
The book:
http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/mmlb/
Some of the interviews are better than others, but the Ursula K. Le Guin and Alan Moore ones really stood out for me.