Talk:V for Vendetta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citation

in the paragraph where it says that london has the highest concentration of CCTV in the world,(in the section titled, "themes of the book); well, that needs to be cited. i don't want to take it out if its true, but it can't sit in there unverified. --64.142.79.210 06:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is V?

Does anyone know if Queen Zara (the puppet monarch of the UK controlled by the Party) is mentioned in the movie?

I do not believe so. --YoungFreud 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Has anybody figured out who "V" really is?

Is it just me? I think it's quite clear that the original "V" was in fact Valerie, the lesbian who wrote the toilet paper note that moved Evey so profoundly while she was in "prison." The drugs that were administered to the prisoners in the re-education camp seemed to effect their genes, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Valerie's gender had changed in response to the treatments she was receiving (despite what the diary may have said). Perhaps when Valerie became a man, she mourned the loss of her original form and decided that in transforming into V, "Valerie" had essentially died. -JoGirl24.130.109.253 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think that Moore hands us two major, anvil-like clues that support the theory that V is Valerie. 1) Valerie starts with the letter "V," and 2) Evey takes on V's persona at the end, thus proving that there is no way of knowing whether our "V" was the first one or just another protegee, and more importantly that we don't know our V's gender. No wonder Moore is so upset about the film version; the Wachowski brothers didn't get his book at all, and cast V as unambiguously male. -JoGirl24.130.109.253 22:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that Delia's diary specifically states that the treatments had no physical effect on the man in room five. A sex change would have been an unmissable physical effect, surely? Lokicarbis 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The man from room 5 is never really given any identity beyond what's explicitly revealed. Evey says that he can't be her father, and IIRC the story gives enough evidence to support her assertation. As to why he was in the camp, in-story evidence (and Moore's own preferred themes in other works) suggest that he was interred for homosexuality. -Sean Curtin 19:18, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

It could also have been for deformity (we know that his face was "ugly", at least according to the diary, and it would fit in with the Phantom of the Opera theme). Or it could have been for being black--I don't think we ever get a glimpse of his skin, since he wears gloves at all times. It could even have been for all three. Aquillion 01:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

We see his skin in "The Vortex" ( Top right panel, issue 3, page 24 ). It's painted with the same tone used for the other caucasians in the scene ( contrast with the Jamaican Donald Crane on page 23 ). I am not sure if Alan or David personally oversaw the colouring ( I think this issue was black and white in the original "Warrior" publication ), so this may not be "canon". Of course, this is Mr Finch reading Delia's diary, which as others have mentioned, may be a fake. -219.194.176.9 10:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

David Lloyd did indeed oversee the use of colour for the DC Comics edition of VFV. IIRC his preference was for it to be reprinted in b&w, but he understood that the American market isn't (or wasn't then) used to b&w comics, so he agreed to colour it (with assists from Steve Whitaker and Siobhan Dodds). The palettes used in VFV are very subdued greys, greens, blues and browns rather than the more gaudy primary colours associated with US comics, which was Lloyd's fear if he left it to DC's in-house colourists to do.Demos99 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been told the idea was that he was Marvelman but the idea was rapidly scrapped as it was rubbish. No sources but my informant has always been reliable on comic trivia and reckons if you re-read the first few issues with that in mind it makes some sense. Ultimately I assume they thought it was more interesting to leave it unresolved (which probably means no one theory will fit all the information). (Emperor 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC))

He can't be possibly be Evey's father, unless you think that Delia's diary is a fake. Compare the dates in the diary with Evey's biography in issue #2; V was already growing roses at the camp before Evey's father was taken away. Also, Evey's father's face isn't particularly ugly; since Delia's diary claims that the serum did not affect V physically, he must have been ugly all long. -- Toby Bartels 15:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You realize that Moore does explicitly raise the possibility of the diary being a fake, yes? (Not that I think V was Evey's father, though.)DS 21:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The description of Volume 3 reads: "When several attempts to unmask V lead to discovering masks of the faces of many people Evey encountered...". This is not accurate. There are no attempts. Evey only thinks of unveiling the mask. But I'm not quite sure how to describe it in the article. Salty-horse 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think for me one of the larger points of the book is that it is entirely irrelevant who the person behind the mask is. As for V, V is an idea rst20xx 17:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that V is just a man, no reason for him to "be" anyone. My main reason for this is that when Delia asks to see his face he unmasks himself, she remarks that his face is beautiful (perhaps in contrast to her earlier belief) she does treat him as a man, so it can be assumed that he is male, thus not Valerie. It is likley he was gay or deformed, as to why he was in the camp. I do not think the diary is fake, he obviously has a bone to grind with the government and Prothero and company, it seems highly unlikley the diary was faked by V since we know he was in the camp at one point

In response to JoGirl, the V we know cannot be Valerie, because in Delia's diary she refers to the person in room 5 as "The Man in room 5" and repeatedly refers to him as though he were male "he, him, his, etc.". He could not have "mutated" into a girl because even after he destroyed the facility Delia calls him "he". Of course, the above is only true if you believe that Delia's diary is real and not fake, which is entirely a matter of personal speculation (although I think it is unlikely that it's fake). It is also only true if you believe that the man in room 5 is V, which could also be argued, but, in my opinion; the man in room 5 is quite clearly V (he loved to grow the same roses V gave to his victims, 5 = V, etc.). In any case, if the diary is real and the man in room 5 is in fact V, then V is not Valerie. Valerie, when she was living, could have been the original V, but there is no evidence (that isn't purely speculation) to support the fact that there was ever a "V" before the current V.64.112.183.66 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to argue that V is not the man in Room 5, considering that he explicitly tells Prothero that he is. The actual identity of V is ambiguous, furthermore, the fact that his identity is never revealed is an important plot point. The fact that he was the man in Room 5 is not ambiguous.

Prothero: "Room Five? But that was where they kept...where they kept..." Prothero: "Oh, No that was you, wasn't it? You're...You're the man..." Prothero: "You're the man from room five" V: "That's right."

Not only that, but we also know V is not Valerie because V tells Evey that Valerie was the girl in room 4, which would make perfect sense since V also said that he recieved Valerie's letter the same was as Evey recieved it (through the rat hole inbetween rooms 4 and 5) 64.112.183.66 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the argument that V may not be the man in room five says "this assumption is based on the opinions of characters within the book". This is pretty spurious reasoning, considering V is one of the characters who apparently holds that opinion. You might as well argue that Evey's name may not actually be Evey, since it is only characters in the book who refer to her as such.

The Alan Moore anecdote about wanting to make a story about a "transexual terrorist" is surely interesting, and probably deserves a mention, but it's a pretty weak argument in support of the "V is Valerie" theory, especially considering "Evey as V" at the end of the book fits that description.

There have now been two discussions on this page about the "V not being the guy in Room V" issue. (See below at "the disclaimer".) There is a revert war about to break out here-- let's leave it as it is and discuss it before changing it back, please. DCB4W 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten to include the parts of the paragraph in question as an interesting anecdote. 67.8.130.24 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it actually reads better now. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. DCB4W 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there's lots of interesting info on this topic, maybe it should be part of an entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_%28V_for_Vendetta%29 --P-Chan 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot section rewrite

I just did an extensive rewrite on the plot section - I don't think "Plot Outline" was a good description since it's really the whole plot. I respect Piersmasterson's mammoth effort but it was very very long and had a little of an "and then this happens, and then..." style; I've tried to make it a little more encyclopedic, and removed a few names and events that aren't that central. I'm still not entirely convinced that such an extensive summary of the book belongs in an encyclopedia, but I'll let others make that call. ←Hob 03:40, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)

POV commentary?

Removed the following text by User:Denial - this "near-universally certain" stuff, with no attribution, is just an indirect way of adding POV commentary. And the responses of unnamed fans to a single press release about a not-yet-made film aren't really encyclopedia material either. 66.93.135.20 00:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A first press release described V as a "superhero" and has been met with widespread cynism and pessimism by the novel's fans, who seem near-universally certain the movie adaption will purposefully exclude all key elements of the novel.

Anarchist?

Anyone read it? What is meant by "anarchist"? Is V actually anarchist or is he just called that because he fights the state? — Helpful Dave 12:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the end of the story is explicitly anarchist, which is described as "not chaos". It seems a little iffy to link this article to the anarchism page, though, because the character of V never says anything one way or the other about socialism. - Nat Krause 12:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he is an anarchist, he's a socialist. The guy's a rebel, not an Ayn-Randite. Directing readers to a disambiguation page is unhelpful. — Helpful Dave 19:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he's an anarchist, then he advocates the end of government. If that's true, I don't think he would care one way or the other about what type of economic system you prefer (socialism, capitalism, etc.). --tmanndsu08 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as a political philosophy, anarchism is a form of libertarian socialism. At least that's what most anarchists say. There are some "anarcho"-capitalists, but many, including myself, do not consider them to be anarchists, or consider them to be a really obscure and unimportant offshoot. The Ungovernable Force 05:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a no true Scotsman fallacy? V never says word one about socialism; therefore, it does not make sense to assume to link to a page about socialist anarchism. - Nat Krause 13:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that V is so fundamentally opposed to authority that 'private tyrannies' of capitalism would hardley seem a better alternative. The book also contains a fair amount of references to class conflict (the pub scenes, etc) which is the antithesis of the laisezze-faire crowd. Finally, his 'strategy of tension', or propaganda by the deed has historical roots in the anarchist movement, so it would be safe to assume that Moore is playing off of that. It would be fair to say that he is an anarchist, not an objectivist or anti-state capitalist or any other sundry politics. --Guido

I have a copy here... page 258, V says: Since mankind's dawn, a handful of oppressors have accepted the responsibility over out lives that we should have accepted for ourselves. By doing so, they took our power. By doing nothing, we gave it away. We've seen where their way leads, through camps and wars, towards the slaughterhouse. In anarchy, there is another way. With anarchy, from rubble comes life, hope reinstated. They say anarchy's dead, but see... reports of my death were... exaggerated. Tomorrow, Downing Street will be destroyed, the head reduced to ruins, an end to what has gone before. Tonight, you must choose what comes next. Lives of our own, or a return to chains. Choose charefully. And so, adieu. Yeah, V's an anarchist. grendel|khan 14:10, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

During his "dialogue" with the old bailey he also states he prefers anarchy to justice.--172.210.36.101 21:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, although this isn't as clear as the above, the 'V'-in-a-circle symbol that he uses as a "calling card" bears a strong resemblance to the Anarchist 'A'-in-a-circle symbol. I don't think that's a coincidence. Aquillion 16:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Going to the author's original intent of making V's nature as a hero or villain ambiguous (which ties into his role as an anarchist, since freedom fighters are associated with heroes, while anarchists are generally not), I'm having trouble seeing exatly why most people wouldn't place V much closer to the hero side when his enemies are basically English Nazis who killed off all the Jews, blacks, gays, etc. in concentration camps. Indeed, his killings of the Pary members at Larkhill can be seen as justice, since no authority in power will otherwise bring those who kept Larkhill running to justice, given the aforementioned connection with Nazis. V may be an anarchist, but he is a result and a reaction to the tyranny of the Party; being a reactionary has always been the traditional perview of the hero, and in this case is a reaction to a renactment of perhaps the most infamous tyranny in human history. I personally think that it would have been a better tactic for Allen Moore to make the Party more morally ambiguous in nature if he wanted V to be ambiguous, instead of making the Party that can only be considered evil. Objulen May 3, 2006

• WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Discussion of "what Alan Moore should have done" is definitely not appropriate for Wikipedia, even on a Talk page. Let's remember to restrict our comments to only those concerning how to improve the encyclopedia article. -leigh (φθόγγος) 08:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but then again, I don't see how a discussion about the effectiveness of Moore's ambiguity is any less appropriate than a discussion of what type of anarchist V really is (see above). I wasn't really talking about what Moore should have done, as much as discussing his expectations in relation to the way he portrayed characters. Objulen 02:10, 4 May 2006

I think he actually did a pretty good job of showing them as human characters. I wouldn't really look at them and call them evil people, they're only really as bad as the bureaucrats you find at the DMV. Even if what they were doing was effectively terrible. Alan Moore himself on the topic:

I wanted a number of the fascists I portrayed to be real rounded characters. They've got reasons for what they do. They're not necessarily cartoon Nazis. Some of them believe in what they do, some don't believe in it but are doing it any way for practical reasons.

I think that's pretty accurate to how they are in the comics. I would say V's fairly slanted on the hero side, but then I'm an anarchist and perhaps biased. I think he was ambiguous enough to create the effect Moore wanted. I know it took me a while to come around to him. He was rather heartless and cruel in his application of violence, particularly in the earlier comics. Sarge Baldy 08:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The main issue I see with this is that the oragnization was branded as evil right at the begning. Moore, it seems, inadvertantly invoked Godwind's Law, which for many people would remove any sympathy with Susan, especially with the Nazi symbolism, such as the rows of gaurds giving Susan a copy of the Nazi salute. Worse, there's a very real issue in that the racial supremacy doctrines that Susan introduces not only parralel him Hitler, but they also aren't specifically Fascist (the information in the article on Italian Fascism on this site basically shows that anti-semitism was only introduced to Mussolini's Fascism to help win over the Germans). Logically speaking, any sort of "final solution" makes no sense, since it is using up resources to systematically eliminate individuals who can perform economically beneficial tasks (thus removing resources that could be used for other projects on two fronts), particularly given the dire nation of the situation England is presented with.

Now, certain individuals within the fascist Party are well-rounded individuals, but efforts are taken to make certain that they are disassociated with the evil that the Party is associated with in some way. Take Mr. Finch, for example: he's not percieved as a villain, with his comments on the slaughter of Prothero's gaurds showing a regaurd for human life, as well as his stated disdain for the police state tactics employed by the Leader. Even Dr. Anne is presented to us as a repentant, humane individual who regrets something terrible that she did, setting her up as a more human character, as opposed to the standard party members who "did what had to be done", and/or exhibit coniving, self-serving, and manipulative personalities. Almond and Creedy are especially damned; as heads of the secret police, they are dropped into the vat of villains with Susan due to the sheer emotional response to secret police, and their deaths are greeted with cheers.

The conclusion by Joel Silver that V is a freedom fighter in the comic, with all the associated connoations, and not an anarchist (with the same regaurd to connotation), i.e. that he was a hero, and not a villiain, seems to be a valid conclusion due to the way that the Party and V (who is brutal to those who are shown or assumed to deserve punishment, or to nameless gaurds who's uniforms are strikingly similiar to certain Nazi uniforms, and invoke the image of a freedom fighter battling against the minnions of the Evil Empire) are both presented to the reader. Objulen 02:45, 4 May 2006

Well, I actually liked Moore's introduction to Susan. Maybe because he actually put the philosophy of fascism on the table fairly. He didn't attach any judgement to it. He gave Susan's justification for being fascist in a way that didn't demonize it. He spelled out pretty well the appeal behind the philosophy, and I'd think to applaud him for it. I don't know how you mean he was a "freedom fighter and not an anarchist"? Do you mean "freedom fighter and not a terrorist?" Or does Joel Silver simply have no idea what anarchism is. Sarge Baldy 07:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Susan does present his views in a rather objective tone, but the insertion of racial dogma pretty much marks him as a villain to most readers right then and there. Just imagine if Hitler had been walking down an isle reviewing the necessities of his actions -- few people would identify with him. Also, remember that racial dogma is not an inherent part of fascism. As for what I mean by "freedom fighter" vs. "anarchist", I'm refering to the connotations of the terms; 'freedom fighter' has a positive connotation, while anarchist generally has a negative connotation (just like fascist has a negative connotation, even though it can be presented in a neutral light). Objulen 4:12, 4 May 2006.

Breaking in badly, but Susan is a villain because he kills people he doesn't like, and V's a hero because he kills people he doesn't like? Isn't that the thinking Moore was trying to puncture with V For Vendetta, hence his choice of title, Vendetta, and his comments on the moral ambiguity of V and making people think: the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think, and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history. Our celebration of V as a hero for killing these people portrayed so badly is meant to make us ponder morality and how we frame it. Moore is also using a different definition of anarchy to most in this argument, one which perhaps doesn't exist in the US but does in the UK, that of someone overthrowing a government through violent means to create a state of anarchy, meaning a state of lawlesness. Something that people should remember with regards this work is that it was formed at a time when the IRA were blowing up people in the UK. Steve block Talk 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference between Susan and V is that V kills people we don't like, people who are portrayed as deserving to die for crimes commited, and is interwoven with the typically reactionary status of heroes. V fights for anarchy, true, but he fights for anarchy in a regime that is choked on evil laws and a terrible order that goes beyond simple necessity; he is a reaction to and a consequence of the actions of the Party, which makes his actions seem more heroic; he seems natural while the Party is unnatural and corrupt, in a similiar fasion to the Punisher. V did not wake up one day and decide that England needed freedom, that it needed no government. He was created by evil men doing evil things in an evil place. He is faceless, a ghost returned to wreak vengence.

As for V's status as an anarchist, he may call himself one, but given his presentation as hero, he is placed in the catagory of 'freedom fighter', someone who battles an evil regime for liberty and justice. Compare this to someone like the Flag Smasher from the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and other comics, who is filed under the mental catagory of 'anarchist' for attempting to tear down a just and fair government of the people. Both seek the same goal, but as always, the specifics mean that they will be seen in a far different light: V is a champion of liberty, freeing slaves from bondange, while Flag Smasher is a scion of anarchy, with its mental imagry of punks burning homes and buisnesses, destroying what others have worked hard to build.

You say "we" but you mean "you". I don't think it portrays most of the Party as people "deserving to die". Alan Moore himself is opposed to violence and would not see them as "deserving to die". On the contrary, they're mostly just a bunch of naive bureaucrats who genuinely think they're acting in the best interests of England. The ambiguity is as to whether V's clearly heartless acts of violence justify their ends. If you praise violence as a means of solving problems, the ambiguity might have been lost on you. It wasn't lost on me. And for the record, anarchists aren't about chaos. The term "anarchy" does not refer to chaos as anarchists use it. On the contrary, they consider anarchy the only true alternative to chaos and disorder. Sarge Baldy 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Am I alone in thinking that this should be a disambiguation linking to V_for_Vendetta_(movie) and this article (but as V_for_Vendetta_(book) or something else)--Lzygenius 07:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a need for it. IMO, you only begin to need a disambig page when you get three or more different meanings. Motor 07:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a disambig page is needed, but I think a pointer at the top to the movie might be worthwhile, a la Sin City. I'm going to add one. Lord Bodak 13:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Q?

I have not read V for Vendetta, but from the description it sounds like it could have been influenced by Harlan Ellison's "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman". If there is anyone familiar with both who could comment on that? Kasper Gutman 16:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This website quotes Moore on the elements he wanted to incorperate into V for Vendetta:

The list was something as follows: Orwell. Huxley. Thomas Disch. Judge Dredd. Harlan Ellison's "Repent Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman." "Catman" and "Prowler in the City at the Edge of the World" by the same author. Vincent Price's Dr. Phibes and Theatre of Blood. David Bowie. The Shadow. Nightraven. Batman. Farenheit 451. The writings of the New Worlds school of science fiction. Max Ernst's painting "Europe After the Rains." Thomas Pynchon. The atmosphere of British Second World War films. The Prisoner. Robin Hood. Dick Turpin... (270)

So there you have it. Incidently, Wikipedia actually has an entry on "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman. Aquillion 09:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Anarchism books

Although (per above) V is certainly an anarchist, I'm not sure that this belongs in Category:Anarchism books. The problem is that V's speeches aside, it's far from clear that V for Vendetta itself is advocating anarchy, or even portraying it in a positive light. V kills many innocent people throughout, and although he has overthrown the government at the end, it's not really clear whether things have been improved. I'm not sure a book that just has anarchy as a major theme belongs in that category--for instance, The Man Who Was Thursday also focuses heavily on anarchism, but probably wouldn't belong in that category. --Aquillion 01:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually think it does belong there, and have added it back. That category covers anarchist fiction as well as works of theory. With that precedent, this work belongs there. If someone would rather there be an "Anarchist fiction" category, that's fine by me. But as it it is this is an important work of cultural anarchism and should be categorized accordingly. The moral ambiguity of V's character was intentional, in order for readers to think about whether he was right and wrong in his actions. In fact, that was the primary point of the book: "And the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think, and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history." [1] Sarge Baldy 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin

In a Radio 4 interview in 2005 Moore says the idea for the series began as an homage to British Comics of the 50s and 60s which he read growing up such as The Eagle and Lion that often featured characters from British folklore updated as crimefighters or superheroes.

I go along with Hob's shortening of my original synopsis but I don't think the current article reflects the richness of the series, in particular the supporting cast. If anyone agrees perhaps this can be added in a section.Piersmasterson 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you add the section, be bold. It can always be edited and discussed here. Steve block talk 16:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor change

"The five-syllable phrase "Remember, remember, the fifth of November" is also referenced; it is the first line of a nursery rhyme detailing the exploits of Guy Fawkes."

Removed the "five syllable" bit because, well, it's just not five syllables.

It's been added back in -- why?

"Remember, remember, the fifth of November" contains twelve syllables, four of which are usually stressed: re-MEM-ber-re-MEM-ber-the-FIFTH-of-no-VEM-ber

My name has four letters too

Also following the theme of numbers comes Evey, V's protégé whose name has 4 letters.

That sentence seems irrelevant and poorly phrased. How is it interesting or noteworthy that "Evey" has four letters? Also, in what sense does this follow? No "theme of numbers" is ever asserted (we are merely told that there are many references to the number five). Can this be safely deleted, or am I missing something important here? --Thetourist 08:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstood portion. Her name is Evey. E... V... E is the fifth letter in the alphabet, V is the 5th to last. Her name is important, but not for what was originally put forth(being four letters. --Gear

It's written with a "y" throughout the comic. Fightindaman 02:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, it is written with a 'y', but that's only for proper phonetic pronunciation. without the 'y' the name sounds as 'Eve' - as in, adam and eve. the 'y' is necessary in order for the name to be properly pronounced as E-V.

The Land of This-That-And-The-Other

I remember the terms Land of Take-What-You-Want and Land of Do-As-You-Please from some Enid Blyton books, The Magic Faraway Tree series, and I have added this reference in 'related works'. What I'm not sure on is if this is the origin of these phrases (the books were written between 1939 and 1951.)

I believe The Magic Faraway Tree is mentioned in the graphic novel. V reads a passage from the book to Evey before going off to kill Delia. --YoungFreud 13:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The disclaimer

I think that violates WP:NPOV and so think it should be removed. I'd also note the article should make no such assumptions. Steve block talk 22:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I agree, but there are some bits worth keeping and sticking in the Themes section.Logan1138 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong, i reread it and it is pure speculation (or going over what is already mentioned)so i removed it.Logan1138 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Disclaimer and Subtext section. It did not add anything to the article that was necessary and it really doesn't clarify anything. Jynx980 07:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So explain to me how a discussion of the identity of the main character is 1) not a neutral point of view, or 2) not relevant to an article about the story? At the very least the article should MENTION that there IS a dispute. I'm going to add some mention of the issue back in tomorrow unless someone comes up with a good argument to the contrary. DCB4W 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose deleting the whole thing was not necessary. The problem I have with it is the transsexual terrorist/Valerie comments. The 'transsexual terrorist' quote is taken out of context. In "Behind the Painted Smile" it refers to a contest submission Moore entered when he was 22 in which "a freakish terrorist in white-faced makeup who traded under the name of "The Doll...". The 'transsexual terrorist' quote seems to refer to the face makeup or the name The Doll as no other information is available referring to transsexual. This makes the case for V being Valerie or a woman much less probable, along with the male physique illustrations, the diminished value of Valerie's letter, and the way Valerie in room 4 supposedly transfered the note to room five. Jynx980 06:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said here. I think it's highly unlikely that V is anyone other than "the man in Cell V," but my point is that the possibility that V was someone else-- most possibly Valerie-- is not ridiculous, and thus a mention that there are other possibilities is quite appropriate. DCB4W 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I cannot argue with a possibility. I am still wary of the transsexual comment. If you think it's essential see if you can put in the back story along with it.

Another thing to consider is that the disclaimer should be put elsewhere in the article. Perhaps between the 'Themes of the Book' and the Plot Section or directly after the plot section where it would also be encased in the Spoiler warning section. Jynx980 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

We should be careful to avoid the sort of comic fan speculation which blights so many comic articles on Wiki. Yes, there was a definate identity for V originally (Dez Skinn states it was Marvelman originally) but beyond what we have no seems like venturing into fan speculation which isn't the place of Wikipedia really.Logan1138 12:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I put much of the section under "Themes," which I agree is the appropriate place for it. I disagree with Logan1138; it's not "fan speculation" so much as it is literary analysis, which is what all of the Themes section is. My own feeling is that V is, in fact, just a guy who ended up in Cell V, but the lack of detail beyond that (V as everyman? or V as one idiosyncratic person?) is in fact one of the themes of the book, and frankly invites this sort of discussion. DCB4W 01:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between discussing what was in the comic and making the sort of speculative leaps (was V Valerie, was Moore dropping hints, etc) in the section as written. It still reads purely as one fans speculation and just doesn't fit with the article.

So rather than just edit it out, lets see if there's a consensus to keep it, if there is, then it needs to be rewritten to make it fit in better.Logan1138 14:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, there isn't a difference between discussing what was in the comic and making "speculative leaps," when the speculative leap is an actual attempt to discern what is in the comic. This particularly true when an author, such as Moore, makes significant aspects of the work deliberately vague, inviting the reader to think about the issue and come to his own conclusion. Feel free to polish the section if you like, but let's try to avoid a revert war, shall we? DCB4W 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit is spot on, thats fine. Logan1138 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll call it a "consensus" then. Someone removed half of it again, so I put it back. For what it's worth, this debate prompted me to re-read the comic, and I'm more convinced than ever that the obvious answer is right: V is the guy who was in Room V, whomever that may have been. There's just enough ambiguity in the issue that I think we need to acknowledge that some other readers could come to other conclusions. DCB4W 00:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Copying comments from the "Who was V" section below that pertain to this discussion:

I find it hard to argue that V is not the man in Room 5, considering that he explicitly tells Prothero that he is. The actual identity of V is ambiguous, furthermore, the fact that his identity is never revealed is an important plot point. The fact that he was the man in Room 5 is not ambiguous.

Prothero: "Room Five? But that was where they kept...where they kept..." Prothero: "Oh, No that was you, wasn't it? You're...You're the man..." Prothero: "You're the man from room five" V: "That's right."

Not only that, but we also know V is not Valerie because V tells Evey that Valerie was the girl in room 4, which would make perfect sense since V also said that he recieved Valerie's letter the same was as Evey recieved it (through the rat hole inbetween rooms 4 and 5) 64.112.183.66 18:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Part of the argument that V may not be the man in room five says "this assumption is based on the opinions of characters within the book". This is pretty spurious reasoning, considering V is one of the characters who apparently holds that opinion. You might as well argue that Evey's name may not actually be Evey, since it is only characters in the book who refer to her as such.

The Alan Moore anecdote about wanting to make a story about a "transexual terrorist" is surely interesting, and probably deserves a mention, but it's a pretty weak argument in support of the "V is Valerie" theory, especially considering "Evey as V" at the end of the book fits that description.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that there's enough ambiguity that we should make clear that the "probably correct" assumption that V was in Room V is implicit in the article. The Dr. describes V's face as "beautiful" in contrast to the hideous visage of the guy in Room V; that could be explained away. V is a notorious liar and probable psychopath; his statements to Prothero or Evey are not completely trustworthy, but probably truthful. The explicit statement of an implicit assumption does no harm to the article; why not leave it in? DCB4W 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because unverifiable and wildly speculative statements are irrelevent. They rely first of all on a extremely questionable interpretation of a single quote *outside* the book. Furthermore - they require the assumption that the observations of multiple characters in the book (including V himself) are either mistaken or deliberately misleading without strong evidence to suggest that is true. Suggesting that Delia's diary might be forged is perhaps plausible (as it is suggested as such by Finch), but even without the diary, there are explicit references in "real-time" panels by people who should know who V is.

Mentioning an idea Moore had and tried to pitch to DC Thompson when he was 22 to push a speculative POV (bear in mind the 'annotations' was actually written for Warrior, not the collected book as Moore had quit DC by the time of the collected edition) isn't whay Wiki is about. The paragraph is still fan speculation and doesn't help the attempts to make this a featured article.Logan1138 07:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What POV does it enshrine again? The point of view that multiple interpretations of the character may exist? The annotations were written about this story (not for the compilation-- picky, but true), and inquiry into the reasons an author made certain statements within and without his text is a form of speculation, but all "literary analysis" is speculation. To the extent that there is a POV, it's that the alternative explanations are probably wrong. Please stop being snide and please stop rearranging things just because you don't like them. You're not the only one capable of either activity. DCB4W 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not being 'snide', i'm stating that there is no dispute outside your own interpretation, and you're pushing a highly speculative POV based upon some basic background Moore gave in an article 20 years ago. The consensus is that your edits are POV and do not really belong in this article. If the consensus says we should have it back then fine, right now its clear this is not the case.Logan1138 07:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Consensus" != "Logan1138." There isn't anything like a consensus here; it's largely been the two of us undoing each other's modifications, with guest appearances by two other people in earlier versions of the section. Take a look at the version I have in now; there is nothing remotely "point of view" about the way it presently reads. (And for what it's worth, the V character development paragraph is far less speculative and interpretive than anything in the "Alan Moore Years" section of the "Miracleman" article. If you're intent on excising all analytical statements from articles on British comics, I suggest you go after the more egregious examples first.) Right now the paragraph here may be summarized: 1) The V character developed from earlier works by Moore; 2) Moore published his comments about this development along with part of the V series; and 3) ambiguity, moral and otherwise, appears to be a feature Moore deliberately incorporated into the character. I literally do not see any reasonable objection to the current version, and I honestly have tried to address your concerns. If you think further edits are appropriate, then by all means make some. Wikipedia is premised on collaboration and refining one another's works, and I welcome any constructive efforts at reaching a consensus. But if you insist on a duel of deletions and insertions, then that can be arranged, at least until I get bored quibbling over a paragraph in an article about a comic book. DCB4W 23:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a consensus though. Your edit really is fan speculation, not analysis or criticism plus V is based upon a huge humber of influences which are detailed in the article already. Wiki is a collaborative process but we should avoid message board style speculation and irrelevant. We should also avoid taking things personally, we've all had sections removed and been annoyed but most of the time there isn't a need for this kind of useless edit war. Your current edit is slightly better as it avoids the "V is Valerie" proposal that is pure speculation (and also doesn't make any sense unless you really start to make things up which are not in the book) but it needs work still. I understand that it is hard not to push a POV here (we've all done it at one point) but if editors are to ever improve articles (comic articles especially suffer from being mainly full of rubbish and badly written) then it sometimes is a painful process.

Myself and other editors have tried to get this and the Marvelman entry up to FA status (we've got Marvelman nearly recognised as a good article after nearly a year), so we do have to adhere to tougher standards. It would be nice to get at least one of Moore's works up to FA standard so please remain to help but do bear this in mind when making edits. Ta. Logan1138 07:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

double name

Evey=E V=Latin for "and V"

et V, or even & V but not e. E is Italian for and not, Latin, e V in Italian would be pronounced "ay voo".

E V could also be interpreted, even incorrectly, as out of V as in E Pluribus Unum

V's daggers

I've yet to find an explanation as to why V used daggers, or why Mr. Moore chose them. My hunch is that it had something to do with the title. The Corsicans were notoriously known for their vendettas, which were usually carried out with stilettos and the likes. Perhaps Moore made his choice in light of this info?--The Individual 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Daggers tend to be associated with the popular image of an anarchist (a shady, violent individual using a dagger in an assassination). This may have had something to do with it. Fightindaman 00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus the Guy Fawkes motif he adopts implies 17th century weaponry. DCB4W 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

V actually prefers the use of his fingers to daggers in the graphic novel, and there's only two known exceptions: the fight with Finch (in which he throws a dagger), and two guards killed at the studio (stabbed). Although it's true he does also carry a number of them concealed under his cloak. Sarge Baldy 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He also kills Almond with a dagger

Obscure edit war

I put in a request for a third opinion. I find myself growing frustrated, and I recognize that frustration tends to make me 1) stubborn, and 2) openly cranky, neither of which is helpful, and I apologize if some of my talk: commentary has come across as excessively ill-tempered. That said, I'd prefer that someone who isn't invested in this discussion come in and take a dispassionate look at ALL the disclaimer/theme edits. If I turn out to be on the wrong side of the consensus, I'll accept it (and may or may not change my mind, depending on how the discussion goes), but at the moment we largely have two or three editors arguing. DCB4W 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the paragraph. Taking an Alan Moore quote completely out of context is hardly justification for including wild speculation in a Wikipedia article about one of his books. 67.8.130.24 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Images from the Comics

I believe this article would do well with actual images from the comics showing it's mood and style. There are plenty of scans online... but if they are not the comic book covers, I am presuming they breach copyright if they are posted here?--P-Chan 08:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I would think that images consisting of single panels would classify as fair use, in the same way that quotes and screencaps can be considered fair use (i.e. because they're used only for demonstration purposes). Actually, I just noticed we do have a fair use tag for that (Template:Comicpanel) so adding some images would be a good idea. Sarge Baldy 09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can dig my old Warrior's out and scan some panels in, but we should have a minimal amount of images (we really only need one) as it's not really needed.Logan1138 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sue Grafton?

Does this have anything to do with Sue Grafton's book series? UndeniablyJordan 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No. That would be an interesting departure for her, but no. Take a look at the article, it's interesting. ←Hob 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe. This thread just brightened my day.  :) --P-Chan 07:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Interesting article, but there are no references. External links are insufficient. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we know what to do to improve it now.Logan1138 07:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for a neutral (Savidan) to pass an eye over the article in order to help us get this to GA status. We need references which is easily done but a neutral will tell us what else we have to do. I'm sure we can do it will be great to get one of Moore's works on the right track to FA status.Logan1138 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly neutral (I consider myself a fan of the comic book and the movie) but I'll see what I can do. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats ok, we need someone who has a fresh eye to give this the once over.Logan1138 18:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I can tell you.

1. The publication history needs to be wikified, in particular the fourth paragraph with the one word sentences.
2. What is the function of listing the chapter titles? If they are kept could they be moved to a right aligned box adjacent to the text that they comprise. Perhaps columns (obviously with disparate widths) could be considred for this?
3. Valerie is another V/5 reference, but the anon who thinks that Valerie is V is clearly just original research, more on this in #8.
4. Plot summary should be more detailed, certainly not less, as somone else has suggested.
5. V is an anarchist. This is apparent in the comics, and it would require a huge degree of interpretation to claim otherwise. As such it belongs in Category: Anarchism books.
6. Need cites for everything but plot, I'm thinking here about the "behind the scenes" info in the Publication History and Related Works section particularly. Is this information from interviews or did some fan site make it up? I would be willing to give some leniancy on themes as long as it is only a compilated of events in the plot rather than an interpretation which takes it one step further. I can be more specific on this if needed, and have some suggestions for that in #8. Converting the external links to <ref></ref> would be a start
7. I don’t know what the disclaimer thing is talking about; sorry, if that’s what you wanted me to comment on. That section appears to have been gone for a while.
8. Themes section. Some themes that should definitely stay (perhaps susectioned): allusions to other works/influences, repetition of the number 5, dystopia (and all the things associated with it: technology, right wing parties, etc.), V not having an identity, and Moore noting taking a stance on anarchy. (That’s five themes, by the way).
9. There's also some setting information in the themes section which should be moved. Perhaps setting as a subsection of plot, before the explanation of the three parts.
10. Related works section should be changed to “adaptations” and works discussed there which are not adaptations should be moved to the allusions/influences section or removed. Adaptations could be divided into Music, theatre, and film.
11. Would it be too much to ask for some quotes for the comic on Wikiquote (note: not quotes from the movie)?

Let me know if you need any more clarification. Feel free to <s> </s> these taks once you complete them or to ignore them entirely. Keep up thie good work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for having the chapter listing is a mystery to me as well. I vote for deletion.

The source of most of the publication history is the book itself-- Moore wrote an essay entitled "Behind the Painted Smile" that was published in Warrior #17 (March 1984), published between Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of Book II, at a time when "V" (actually a patsy) had been shot into little pieces by the authorities, immediately before the introduction of Creedy. When DC repackaged the series into the trade paperback, they reprinted the essay (following the main story and preceding two "interludes" that were also reproduced from "Warrior"; the book was meant to be the complete V for Vendetta). The passage that the other poster said was taken "out of context" was contained in a paragraph that began, "V FOR VENDETTA started out..." and continues to describe "The Doll" and another character in a "Hulk" spinoff. Ultimately Moore and Lloyd began their collaboration by tossing ideas back and forth in which V was variously an ordinary 1930's adventurer, a rebel cop in the near-future dystopia, and ultimately the Guy Fawkes reincarnation that we know and loathe. This is also the essay wherein Moore categorically states that V is not Evey's father.

The "V as Valerie" theory that someone put in this article back before the edit war is a new one on me, and I think an unlikely theory; I just thought it was too interesting to delete, and not implausible enough to warrant excision. However, the fact that the theory exists-- and is apparently held by "many people" -- necessarily merits mention under the NPOV standard, with the appropriate caveat that it is a minority view. Let me be very clear: This isn't my theory. I think it's crap. I also think it's worth mentioning. It doesn't matter that the fan speculation is right; it matters that it exists.

Frankly I wouldn't have engaged in this dispute if that had been the only deletion, but the countervailing position actually seems to be that V's identification as the guy from Room V is incontrovertible, and that any assertion to the contrary is either a violation of NPOV or "Original Research," neither term being used appropriately. Much of the "character development" section that we've been fighting over for the last few days was added by me to address some of Logan's concerns that the disclaimer was too speculative; I tried to address that by adding in substantive content from Moore's own statements about the series. At this point I'm ready to junk it all and just reinsert the disclaimer. Under the interpretation of the Original Research guideline being urged here, we shouldn't have a Themes section at all; even the themes that collect elements of the plot require "original" organizations of relevant facts, as there are few, if any, published works to cite about this comic book. A strict interpretation of the Original Research guideline actually does prohibit that, and please bear in mind that everything I cited or quoted in any of my edits was actually contained in the trade paperback. We need to be consistent then: if we're to purge any analysis from the article, we need to purge all of it.

The one published source that I have become aware of through this debate gives us the statement that "it was apparently intended early on that the character of V in V for Vendetta would be revealed to be Marvelman: there are some early hints of this in V for Vendetta but Moore soon abandoned the idea." See Warrior article, citing two books about the Marvelman/Warrior series. If that writer is correct it highly suggests that either Moore/Lloyd changed the identity of V during publication, or that originally V wasn't the prisoner from Cell V at all, as the description of the Guy in Cell V is flatly incompatible with his being Marvelman. The argument that V's identification is a ruse is actually much more straightforward: with the excision of thought balloons (see "Behind the Painted Mask") we never actually know what V is thinking, only what he says, so we don't know whether or not V is being honest when he tells Prothero, whom he is in the process of driving mad, that he is in fact from Cell V. Finch notes that V tampered with the diary, so the inference that he is the Room V prisoner is based on evidence that he wanted Norsefire to find. It's probably a correct inference, since he gives similar information to people whom he shouldn't expect to compare notes, but deceit is one of his weapons. Along with surprise, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope. Bring out the fluffy cushion!

All that I actually insist is important to mention is that there is a question of V's identity, that everything we know about V's history is derived from V, which as Finch points out in the text of the comic, may or may not be trustworthy. I'm not wedded to any particular theory even being mentioned; I merely think that it's ridiculous to pretend that there isn't a question of V's identity. Not that I think Moore is Shakespeare, but the comparison would be Hamlet's madness: I personally think that Hamlet is plainly feigning madness, but people who theorize that at least part of Hamlet's dementia is real aren't precisely idiots, and I think "not idiot" is the appropriate standard for determining whether an idea deserves mention. Again, there are books about Shakespeare, to whom we could offer citations in a Hamlet's Madness article; Moore has very few published commentaries, none of which have been cited in this article, so that if the Themes discussions don't come from Wikipedia editors, they don't exist at all.

So that's why I think some vestige of the former disclaimer section should stay; bear in mind that all the disclaimer said was that "this article proceeds under the assumption that V was the prisoner in room V, which some people dispute," and I think is a fair statement. I think making that disclaimer is far more NPOV than pretending it's unnecessary, and I think that any reading of the "Original Research" policy that would excise that comment would also reduce the 90% of comic book articles that lack third-party critiques to simple plot summaries. I don't think that's what Wikipedia policy requires, but maybe it's better than having these debates. DCB4W 05:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll only respond to the part of your post that I strongly disagree with. WP:NPOV policy does not compell us to lists points of view that are held even by millions of people. What is important is if they are verifiable, notable, and published in a reputable source. Internet discussion forums do not count. I do agree with you that we should be careful when discussing themes not to drift into the realm of original research, but numerous other articles on Wikipedia have proved that this is possible. The five themes I suggested can all be discussed without venturing into original research. 1) Allusions is relatively straightforward. If V quotes a line from Shakespeare, to point that he is quoting Shakespeare is not original research. 2) Repetition of the number 5 is similar. To list all the instances that V or 5 is repeated in the text is fine as long as we do not speculate as to why it is repeated, etc. 3) Dystopia is mentioned in every single interview or review of V for Vendetta so this is also not a publication of orignal thought. 4) As to the question of V's identity, we should not list fan speculation. We should only include what was said by the creators in their writings (if anything) and what can be seen in the panels without speculation. I ask you to use good faith when evaluating this standard. I think it is obvious to all of us that it is reasonable to say that V was the prisoner from room V and unreasonable to say that V is really Evie. 5) I only mention Moore's not taking a stance on anarchy as a possible theme because others here have suggested that this is derived from his own comments. If this is not the case, then this is not something we should write about. Thank you for tracking down the sources that you did. And, let's hold off on the deletion of the section titles for now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And in turn I'll address the portions of your response that I dispute.

1. "WP:NPOV policy does not compell us to lists points of view that are held even by millions of people." Actually, yes it does. A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. Don't let hyperbole get in the way of your point: a view held by "millions of people" would be deemed "significant" by anyone with a firm grasp of the term "significant;" I take your opposition to the disclaimer to be that you consider non-Cell-V claims to be either insignificant or not substantiated, which is a more tenable claim. However, I do think that it's a claim that's been asserted more than it's been supported.
2. "Internet discussion forums do not count." If this were an article about astrophysics, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, the proposed section has to do with readers' interpretations of a comic book. I tend to think that comments regarding "fan speculation" are fairly snobbish; particularly for direct sales titles like Vertigo, "fans" are the core audeince of comic books, and audience reactions to a published work are important. Unlike reactions to political issues, these reactions are not polled. Internet discussion forums are precisely where one should expect to document that, and since the only claim is that such a discussion exists, citation to a reference to the discussion isn't original research. Would we really be having a different discussion now if Wizard (magazine) had run this article? Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline that can be followed too slavishly, which is presumably why it's a guideline rather than a policy. The only available sources are necessarily the most reliable available sources.
3. "As to the question of V's identity, we should not list fan speculation. We should only include what was said by the creators in their writings (if anything) and what can be seen in the panels without speculation." Technically, then, we can't identify V as the guy from Cell V: we can identify him as the person who claims to be the Cell V prisoner, or the person whom Norsefire thinks was in Cell V. It is almost certainly the right interpretation, but it is still an interpretation.
4. "I ask you to use good faith when evaluating this standard." Guess I'll have to stop what I was doing then. Look, I was the one who asked for a third opinion. I think the third opinion that we received was another mistaken one, but I've accepted the consensus in the article and confined my disputes to the Talk page. I ask you to assume good faith, particularly when I demonstrate it. (I am myself assuming that was just a poor word choice, but just so you know, it didn't go over well.)

DCB4W 00:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

On a completely different topic, I really like the formatting now. DCB4W 03:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the article is going now, it seems to be actually moving toward being one of the best comic articles on Wiki.Logan1138 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the 'fan speculation' comment as i've covered everything else already in detail. Internet message boards are not a reliable source for information, especially when it comes to comics. Theres too many Wiki articles on comics ruined because of wild speculation and serious 'fan' POV. Fans are not a (generally) good source for reliable information or analysis as they can't detatch themselves from the subject matter. As for Wizard, it's not a magazine which even approaches good analysis for comics. The Comics Journal and Comics International are vastly better critical resources and the "V is Valerie" assertion has never arisen in either (which would have turned up in CI as it's Dez Skinn's magazine)and only seems to be something which has appeared since the film was announced (i can't remember seeing any letter suggesting it in Warrior).

We're trying to get this to GA (and hopefully FA) status, we have to be tougher as it won't just be comic fans giving this the once over. Speculation from message boards will get it failed and for good reason. I'm glad you've decided to stay and help improve the article further but lets move on the discussion to improving the article and not go over old ground.Logan1138 07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's actually forcing you to go over the old ground, you know. In any event, this argument isn't about V being Valerie; it's about entertaining alternative interpretations. The only "information" that I think needs to be taken from the web discussions is the fact that such discussions, and their concomitant varying perspectives, exist. That they exist needs to be acknowledged. That's it. End of my point. Full stop. No advocacy for Valerie actually being V (which, again, I think is an implausible interpretation), merely a recognition that people exist who don't think the Cell V origin is correct. (I think it's correct but slightly cheesy. It would have been better had the origin been a misinformation campaign, and V turned out to be the ghost of Graham Chapman or something.) I've never said that the article should "just be" for the "fans," but Moore and Lloyd created V for Vendetta for an audience, and had particular expectations for that audience; indeed any media is targeted at its audience, and a recognition of who the audience was is important in any description of that media. This is especially the case where the author deliberately engages the fans and invites them to react. The Lost article mentions "fan speculation" prominently, and, I think, appropriately so. The show is designed to keep its audience guessing. But so is V for Vendetta. Remember what Moore said about his approach to his protagonist-- he deliberately begged the question, "What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think..." People have thought, very much as Moore intended. I think it's firmly in the spirit of the work to recognize that. The original disclaimer was poorly written and included several comments that could have been polished or deleted. (I didn't write it, so it costs me nothing to admit that, and I'll even concede that my polishing attempts didn't go far enough.) The core point that I think merits inclusion is something along the lines of "This article proceeds from the assumption that the 'Prisoner in Cell V' origin for the V character is correct; some readers dispute that based on their interpretations of the text, and propose other candidates." The consensus being what it is, however, I've confined my edits to general polishing.

With regard to your comments about the relative merits of "Wizard," I'm not sure Wikipedia recognizes rankings of third-party professional sources. "Wizard" would fit any WP standard for inclusion that I can think of. Bear in mind that there is and necessarily always will be a limit to WP's own utility as a "reliable source for information," or a "critical resource," just from the nature of the project. Wikipedia is a hugely beneficial asset as a starting point for research and for basic "quick and dirty" information, but it will never, ever have the final word on anything, in the way that Nupedia would have. (On the other hand Wikipedia still exists, unlike Nupedia.) Let us remember what we're writing, and appreciate it for what it is rather than try to make it into what it is not. I do admire Wikipedia. I wouldn't still be arguing over the direction of an article if I didn't want to make it the best it can be. But it is not and never will be a peer-reviewed source of information, which is the only criterion I'd accept for "reliable." You and I just seem to have different philosophies with respect to WP, which is fine, but we may just need to agree to disagree.

I frankly don't care if the article is ever flagged as a Good Article or Featured Article. I think every article should be good, and it doesn't matter whether it's recognized as being good or not. The whole concept strikes me as being rather self-indulgent. Admittedly, I say the same thing about the Oscars, and they don't seem to be on the verge of cancellation. As best I can tell, the purpose served by the Featured Article tag is having a pool of articles to cycle through on the front page; it's not clear to me why the GA tag needs to exist. DCB4W 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're exactly right. The fact that these theories exist is worthy of inclusion in the article. The origins of these theories are irrelevant; what is relevant is that they are critical interpretations of the book that exist among large groups of people. Pointing that out, especially considering that such discussion is continuing after the TPB has been around for 18 years, is an excellent example of a comic book being treated as literature. Lord Bodak 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Every article should be good, most are not so the GA tag is handy as it shows that it's an article which is seen as good by the community. The FA staus is for the absolute best. If Wiki is ever to lose the tag of being "a mess of unreliable information, lies and speculation" that many critics throw at Wiki then we need these tags to signal those articles where people have worked hard to improve above the mass of articles on Wiki.

Eventually all articles should conform to GA status but in regards to this article i (and others) have invested a vast amount of time on this to make it the best we can. Arguing about what Wiki should be is pointless, we know how it works and its rules, lets stick to making this a GA article now and put this debate to rest.Logan1138 07:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Alternate interpretations"

The only thing that I would like to weigh in on in the above discussion is the inclusion of alternate interpretations (i.e. V being someone other than the prisoner from cell V). Personally, I consider most of these theories on par with the interpretation that Tom Bombadil is Sauron (which ultimatley meritted an external link for that article, but not a discussion in the text, last time I checked). However, the inclusion criteria for such theories is not whether we think that they have merit or not. Show me a review of the movie or comic, a published interview with the authors, or any source other than internet message boards and personal websites. Otherwise, obviously they cannot merit inclusion. The interpretation of the NPOV policy above by DCB4W is just flat wrong. "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all" (emphasis added). I also quote from that policy "cite a prominent representative of the view", i.e. not an internet message board. If you want such views included, my advice is to start looking for a source. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I might agree with you about "tiny-minority views." Your comment was about views held by "millions of people," which made me a little skeptical about the rest of what you had to say. I will note that we're discussing critical analyses of a comic book, which exist only in tiny-minority opinions, such that "prominent representatives" are nonexistent, particularly when one defines the term so as to exclude pretty much anyone who would be likely to publish a critical analysis of a comic book. In any event, I conceded defeat a week ago, so there's really no point in going over it further. DCB4W 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well. I would just like to clarify that if it were true that this view was held by "millions of people" it would be acceptable, but there is no proof of that. I think we can back up what is said in the article now with published sources, and I think we have. The internet is not the source of all knowledge, and people do occasionally publish viewpoints in other sources. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

External links to references

Okay, I've converted the external links into reference format. Hiding talk 14:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous, it's really starting to come together now.Logan1138 17:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere I've got a sketch Lloyd did for me of V for Vendetta, I've just asked at WP:FU if I can upload it and use it in this article. Hiding talk 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would pass. I seem to remember a similar thing popping up on a 2000AD related article where the answer was no.Logan1138 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. That's probably to do with the unpublished nature of the work, I guess. Still, what else needs doing? Hiding talk 08:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Things to do:

• Expand the plot.
• Going over the citations
• Quotes on Wikiquote
• Formatting (do we need the chapter titles for example).

Anyone else have any suggestions?Logan1138 12:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Allusions

I don't know if it is the case in the graphic novel or not, but in the movie there is an allusion to emma goldman (anarchist) when he wants to dance and evey talks about it being the eve of his revolution and he says something along the lines of "if i can't dance, then what's the point of a revolution" which is along the lines of the attributed quote of emma goldman of "If I can't dance, it's not my revolution" which comes from a story in a book she wrote. I think this should be included if this scene happened in the comic as well. KurtFF8 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't

Well being that there are clear anarchist values in V for Vendetta, common sense would dictate that they would know about Emma Goldman and that this scene would most likley be an allusion to the famous attributed quote of hers. KurtFF8 06:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the novel, the name "Emma" is scratched onto the bench in Evey's cell though! TR_Wolf

Warrior issue number : wrong?

Caption says #5, pic clearly shows issue #19. Some mistake? --Oscarthecat 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was, but it's now fixed. Good eye.--P-Chan 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

V points

I think there a few key changes that could really help this article gain a lot strenght.

1. For reasons that I don’t quite understand, there is no section in this article dedicated to the discussing the Anarchist/Fascism themes of the novel. This definetly should be in the themes section or some other section, considering it’s a major backdrop of the comic. (I just noticed that people talk about it a lot here). This was requested quite often in the film article, even though the film removes many of the anarchist references. The home of that discussion should really be here.
2. Remove the titles concerning the chapters. I don’t think the names of all the chapters, add that much value to the article. They look nice and all, but it feels like just listing. The titles have some value in the novel because they connect to the themes, but when they aren’t correlated to the story itself they pretty much lose their meaning. That extra room could be used for something else...
3. Like stating 1 or two lines about each of the characters. That would be helpful, as the comic seems to have a sprawling use of characters. A summary of each of them would help alleviate some of the pressures of talking about everyone in the plot.
4. The overall structure of the article starts off weak, with a lead that is a little skimpy and a Publishing History section that seems a little too textbook. I’m afraid that readers might lose interest if they aren’t hit by something hard early on. We should fix this by strengthening the lead to two solid paragraphs and by moving some of the plot elements into it.
5. This article seems a little too introverted, in that there seems to be a lack of external views or inputs. Hasn’t anyone reviewed it? Been moved by it? Influenced by it? Let’s bring in some analysis, outside opinions, something to give it a more worldly feel. (Wasn’t this a controversial film when it first came out?)

These are simply my 2 cents.

--P-Chan 05:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Some quick press cuttings, may be of some use?

From The Independent (London); Mar 15, 2004; Jeremy Duns; p. 12.13

V FOR VENDETTA Begun in 1982 but not completed until 1988, this is a bleak futuristic thriller about Britain under a fascist dictatorship, featuring a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask stalking the streets. David Lloyd's wonderful chiaroscuro artwork is one of the high points at Charleroi, with 80 original panels on display, as well as several of Moore's typewritten scripts. Moore marks this as a turning-point in his career, and credits Lloyd for encouraging him to write the script without sound effects or thought balloons.

From The Herald (Glasgow); Nov 24, 2001; Words Teddy Jamieson, Photograph Graham Barclay; p. 18

Moore began to work for DC, home of Superman and Batman and by the mid-eighties helped prompt a mini fad for comicbooks in the style mags courtesy of V for Vendetta, his vision of a future Britain (circa 1997) under the jackboot of fascism (this was the Thatcher era after all)

and

V for Vendetta (1988) Moore's response to Thatcherism imagined the establishment of a fascist state in Britain. How, he wondered, could he signal this to his readers? "I know I'll put a security camera on every corner. That will chill their blood. And here we are."

The Independent (London); Dec 9, 2000; Charles Shaar Murray; p. 10

celebrate the return to print of Moore's early left-anarchist masterpiece V For Vendetta

The Times (London); May 29, 2004; Daniel Morden; p. 10

Through comics he has written a gripping dissection of the Jack the Ripper story (From Hell), explored the relationship between art and magic (Promethea) and created a chillingly real fascist Britain (V For Vendetta).

A Lloyd quote of use? News Letter (Belfast); Aug 3, 2005; p. 3

David Lloyd adds: In terms of what happened in London, it is important to try to understand what leads people to terrorism. There should be lots of movies made about terrorism.$

Reviews:

• Graphic novel/Comics:
  • readysteadybook.com
  • sffworld Perhaps not the most reliable source
  • Forbidden Planet
  • UGO.com
  • scifi.com
  • Schnews a Brighton based anarchist free sheet
• Film:
  • BBC
  • Rolling Stone
  • Salon This covers the book in the last two paragraphs
  • Jonathon Ross for the BBC he disregards the book somewhat
  • Queens Gazette mainly the film, but useful last paragraph comparing badly with 1984 and Farehnheit 451

Hope they help. The Journal has looked at the comic, but I don't have those specific issues. Hiding Talk 13:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a mystery to me as to how we should proceed. Is there some comic book god out there, like Ebert for films, whose opinions would be highly valued? I'm right now looking at the Watchman article, and am wondering if V for Vendetta had any sort of an impact, like Watchman did. (Excuse the late reply, I just didn't know how to go about approaching this section). --P-Chan 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I just started a new section called "significance". To anyone who knows the V for Vendetta history, feel free to attack it.--P-Chan 03:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Novelization

I believe that a link to the film novelization is worthwhile here, but it was reverted. Let's discuss. Lord Bodak 21:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If anywhere, it should be belong in the film article, as opposed to here. It's based on the screenplay itself. On the cover of the novel it says:

• "An uncompromising vision of the future from the creators of The Matrix trilogy"
• "A novelization by Steve Moore based on the screenplay written by the Wachowski brothers".

(Note the absense of Alan Moore or even the comic itself.) One compromise would be to write a few lines within the film part in this article, that would link to the novelization article. --P-Chan 21:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the blurb to the film article, as there is no doubt that it belongs there (other films have the same thing). I agree with your recommended compromise for this article, though. Lord Bodak 21:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Third party resolution

I am an average joe with no axe to grind here. I did see a request for third party moderation regarding this article. I am specifically asking what the problem is and what should be done. And hopefully we can come to some kind of agreement. Anyone with further concerns can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Piercetp 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Never heard anything about this myself. Are you sure? Where did you see this? --P-Chan 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Third opinion it was posted:

V for Vendetta page needs a third opinion regarding ambiguities in the V character's identity and, now, historical development outside the text. See Talk:V for Vendetta particularly under "The disclaimer" subsection. 01:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC). I decided I would check out what was going on here.

Basically I am just trying to help out and find what is going on here. You seem to have edited this article quite a bit. Are there any disputes here? Piercetp 02:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by the date, (March 31st), it must be the section in the archive under "The disclaimer". I had no idea that 3rd party arbitration was requested, as it was before my time in terms of my participation. In any case, I think it's all good now.  :) Your vigilance is appreciated though! --P-Chan 02:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good work on the article. Piercetp 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Section "Adaptations" Film, Citation #9

Hello, I am a newly registered wiki user so please forgive if this is not the right place to ask this question. However, I am concerned about the citation in the Adaptations section of this article under Film. Citation 9 is a quote from Alan Moore taken from another website article by Megan Basham. The website is Townhall. com and it is an extremely right-wing conservative article as well as website.

I would like to know where the original source for this quote comes from because I feel that it very likely misrepresents or skews Mr. Moore's own words. It was clearly placed in the article cited with a political agenda. I feel it is irresponsible to reproduce it here without the original quote source.

Thanks, Renjem

• Moore's quoted from an MTV interview, [2], and it's pretty much in context as used in the article, Moore objects to them using his story to make a film attacking Bush; Moore's point is that his story was very much about England. Hiding talk 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Modified the film section to include details as to why Moore did not support the film (the old quotes from the Independent did not go into the reasons why). I also cited the original MTV interview about Moore, which places the second quote into the proper context that it was intended for.--P-Chan 22:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Renjem on this issue. The way that Alan Moore was quoted by Townhall.com was not an accurate portrayal of Moore's original argument. The quote has appeared on several Conservative talk shows and articles in a manner that seems to portray Alan Moore as a conservative. I have not researched Alan Moore extensively, but I believe that this is not accurate. While he did denounce the film as having a liberal slant... he did so, not because he was conservative, but rather because he was an Anarchist. He believes that V for Vendetta is a story about Anarchy and about Britain; and that if the filmmakers wanted to protest America, they should have done what Moore himself had done and not be cowards. I believe the quote can be placed into a more neutral and accurate context by:

1. pairing the quote with a citation from the original MTV interview that Hiding has provided
2. and by lengthening the quote and providing enough context to accurately represent Alan Moore.

--P-Chan 22:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Bloody good job you made of it too. Well done. Hiding The wikipedian meme 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks dude! --P-Chan 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion. I'm thinking that two things are missing here. First is that Moore denounced the film before he knew anything about it. The quote is interesting and all, but it's his overarching rejection of Hollywood that prompted his disgust, not the actual movie.

Second, David Lloyd's positive reaction to the movie is completely omitted. He is co-author, and his opinion is also worthy. I'm going to edit the article to include this, but I also wanted to bring it up here, since this article has an active group working on it. :)

-AngelaHarms 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Houses of Parliament and the Old Bailey

Just a note to anyone reading this before editing the main page. This article is about the V for Vendetta comic book. In the book, V blows up the Houses of Parliament first and the Old Bailey later. Please don't change the article to say he blows up the Bailey first just because that's what happens in the film. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Numerology

In terms of numerological meanings the number 5 is the symbol for an individual with a highly progressive mindset, with the attitude and skills to make the world a better place. The key word for this person’s Life Path is freedom. In the pursuit of freedom, he is naturally versatile, adventurous, and advanced in your thinking. You are one of those people who is always striving to find answers to the many questions that life poses. 5 is the number most often associated with the productive use of freedom. A person who associates with the number 5 is perhaps the most compassionate of people as the 5 is surely the most freedom-loving and compassionate Life Path. His love of freedom extends to humanity at large, and concern for his fellow man, his freedom and his welfare, may be foremost in your mind. He is a good communicator, and you know how to motivate people around him.This may be his strongest and most valuable trait. Because of this skill, and the individuals amazing wit, he is a truly natural born salesman. This ability to sell and motivate extends to any sort of physical product all the way through to whatever ideas or concepts you may embrace. The individual who associates himself with the number 5 abhors routine and boring work, and you are not very good at staying with everyday tasks that must be finished on time. On the average, the number 5 personality is rather happy-go-lucky; living for today, and not worrying too much about tomorrow. It is also important for him to find a job that provides thought-provoking tasks rather than routine and redundant responsibilities. He does best dealing with people, but the important thing is that you have the flexibility to express yourself at all times. he an innate ability to think through complex matters and analyze them quickly, but then be off to something new. A love of adventure may dominate the life of someone associated with the number 5.. This may take the form of mental or physical manifestation, but in either case, you thrill to the chance for exploration and blazing new trails. Surely he belongs to a group considered the most worldly and traveled. Clearly he is not one to pass up a good venture. He has quite a lot of the risk-taker in your makeup. If he isn’t putting his money at stake, you are surely open to a wide variety of risks in his everyday life. Taking the conservative approach is just not in his nature. In romance, the number 5 suggests that the individual hates to be tied down and restricted. This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unfaithful or promiscuous, but it does mean that a good partner for him needs to understand his nature. A relationship based on jealousy and having tight reigns is not going to work at all for him. A partner who understands his need to be free and trusted will find him trustworthy, even if he isn’t constantly available and totally dutiful. It is important for him to mix with people of a like mind, and to try to avoid those that are too serious and demanding. An individual living on the negative side of the Life Path 5 is apt to be multitalented, but suffering from some lack of direction, and there is confusion surrounding his ambition. Restless, discontent, and impulsive, he may bounce from one job to the next without accomplishing much at all. A negative Life Path 5 can become very irresponsible in tasks and decisions concerning the home and business life. The total pursuit of sensation and adventure can result in his becoming self-indulgent and totally unaware of the feelings of those around him.

• Someone might want to look at boiling all that down for inclusion in the Number 5 section. It doesn't really belong in the Significance section, to my mind. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 01:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• The five thing is far more likely to be a reference to the law of fives, as in Illuminatus! especially as V quotes ideas about Verwirrung and Ordnung taken from that book anyway. --KharBevNor 17:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I've gone through and added quotes to wikiquote's article on V for Vendetta. However, people keep on adding quotes from the movie. So far, I've just been removing them as they come in. Is there any other way to keep them out?

Also, I'm thinking that the monologues should be organized into a seperate section so they don't stick out elsewhere. Any thoughts on this? Simply Curious 03:30, 1 November 2006

Is there a reason that information complying with WP:V (referenced, verifiable information) should not be included in the article (such as quotes from the movie) ? Terryeo 21:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the quotes are being mixed in with ones from the comics, making it impossible to tell where they're from. Simply Curious 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add that the movie has its own article. --Simply Curious 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Something funny

A politician in Taiwan called Li Ao recently disrupted a national defense committee meeting by spraying tear gas while wearing the Guy Fawkes mask from V for Vendetta. Pics Shawnc 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I saw that on the news... Puddles26 17:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Racist Characterization

Please people, if you're going to say a topic is racist, make sure you have a cited source. Wikipedia is no place for original research, all statements must be cited, especially those of possible controversy. This article was in a list of maintenance tasks simply for the use of one word racist in an uncited fashion. See wp:v and wp:npov. Great article otherwise. Alan.ca 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the move?

Sorry, why was the article about the comic moved?

Surely it should still be here and then it says at the top "for the film, click here". Because the film is a derrivative work of the comic. rst20xx 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm going to move it back. It's a standard on Wikipedia to give the original work the page. We don't disambiguate Sin City, or The Lord of the Rings, or Eragon, or anything else I can think of. The film is an offshoot of the comics, and so should be organized accordingly. Owen 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor characters need merging.

I was considering nominating articles like Valerie Page for deletion, but I figured I should suggest that they be merged into a character list first. If no action is taken for awhile though, I may still nominate it on a later date.--SeizureDog 11:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to eliminate "vandalism" from first paragraph

There is a random and juvenile sentence edited into the introductory paragraph of this article, which I accessed for research purposes. I'm not familiar with how to edit Wikipedia articles yet and don't have time to figure it out right now. Maybe someone else can fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.9.39.242 (talk • contribs).

I took a look at the paragraph, but I didn’t notice any juvenile sentences. You can remove it yourself by clicking the edit this page button at the top of the article’s page, or you can point out the exact sentence so that I can remove it. Thanks. —LOL 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit of a stretch

"Evey's name is composed of "E" (the fifth letter of the alphabet), "V" (5 in Roman numerals, and the fifth letter from the end of the alphabet), and "Y" (25th letter of the alphabet, or 5 squared)."

Does anyone think this is going a bit too far? Someone should watch the movie, recording every fifth word, and see what message appears.

This is about the book, not the movie. The two are quite different. (71.192.34.220 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Why does this show up?

This text continues to show up and it does not appear in the edit page or under any area able to be edited.

• "The person

V is a person I know haha she likes to kill people. Not sure why but what the hell we either  
call her V, Killiers or the spawn of satanmand/or chick that likes wrestling

Hello in jons strange voice She said if i don't make this longer she'll kill me

People that V has sacrificed

I'm pretty sure that shouldn't be there so if someone can take care of it, that'd be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.81.122.207 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

OK, well that's kinda freaky...especially if it's true...but yeah, take it out. I would myself if I wasn't new here and I knew how to take out stuff that doesn't show up in the editor. x] --♥<color=fuchsia>HOLLiSTERiSLOVE</color> 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

V is an idea now?

I know it's delightfully dramatic and all, but V is not an idea, he's a character and that's it. It's silly encyclopaedic prose, and us such, the sentence fragment, "More an idea than a character. . ." should be removed. Cheers. Liempt 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

V for Vendetta Template

I'm removing this template from all its articles:

Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:V for Vendetta

Template:V for Vendetta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned points

Points taken from the article and placed here, until we can find a place for them.

• (Closed-circuit television had not yet become common in the UK at the time Moore wrote the series. Today, London has the world's highest concentration of C.C.T.V.)

I will add to this. The following passage is someone's personal upinion, rambling original research, and as far as I ken it is irrelevant to the article:

[It is worth noting that the telegraph and Morse code were not invented until after Beethoven's death and well after composition of Symphony #5 hence any connection between Beethoven's theme and the letter V is serendipitous but entirely coincidental. "Unless the developers of Morse Code liked Beethoven." A curious idea. The guiding principle of morse code design was efficiency assigning shorter codes to more frequently used letters (the two most frequent "e" and "t" are dot and dash). Even if the developers did have such an idea, why would "V" be chosen for the fifth symphony motiv rather than "F" for fate "knocking at Beethoven's door" or perhaps "D" for destiny? These are the ideas most commonly associated with the fifth symphony. It is most improbable that these designers anticipated WWII, radio, and the propaganda value of "Victory" combined with Beethoven's music, let alone this graphic novel, as reasons to assign the ...- to the letter "V".]

The square brackets were part of the original passage; I did not add them. 71.204.204.249 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone change this...

It appears that someone was having a little fun changing the plot to their liking and while this is slightly comical, it belongs on uncyclopedia.org, not on here. This is one of my favorite movies of all time and it is an abomination to see the page so sabotaged. Someone please change the plot back or correct it or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.85 (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To quote V, "there is no coincidence, there is only the illusion of coincidence".

This article is about the graphic novel, not about the film. The plots are not identical. Please sign your posts. 71.204.204.249 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference

Can whoever wrote this article ask the author Lloyd whether the character Lewis Prothero is based on a real person. I suspect that the name may be taken from John Profumo, a disgraced British politician.

Sign your posts. This isn't the place for that kind of request, Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively by an untold number of people, and a little thinking would have answered the question for you. On what basis do you assume that one is based on the other? The fact that their names begin in "P" and end in "O"? The name isn't made up; it's fairly common. A Google search produces 558,000 results for "prothero"; none of the results in the first two pages have anything to do with V for Vendetta. The novel's Prothero isn't a politician, he's a broadcaster and a former concentration camp commandant. Profumo was a lifelong civil servant whose father was also a politician. Prothero is driven irrevocably insane by a drug overdose; Profumo lost his office in a sex scandal in the 1960s but started a new career in charitable fundraising. Prothero relished in his government's manipulation of the people; Profumo had a distinguished career in the public interest and many now feel that he was unfairly set up by his rivals. Jump in here anytime you see a connection forming. Oh, and Lloyd was the illustrator, not the author. 71.204.204.249 11:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The FLAG Would Make A Good Desktop Background...

If memory serves me correctly (and for such an appropriate flag, I can't think why it wouldn't). Didn't there use to be a decent flag on this article? I was a cross between the Union Jack, the American Flag and the Flag of the Third Reich (it had a swastika seamlessly embedded within it). I just felt that the flag should be included in the article. Whoever made it spent considerable amounts of laudable time and effort on it.

--Nukemason 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The flag in question only appears in the movie, never in the comic, so it doesn't really belong here. And it's only in one brief scene in the movie, so while it is well done, it probably doesn't merit inclusion in the movie article either. --Le Scoopertemp [tk] 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a pannel showing the Government's flag in the comic, but in the comics, the flag used is simply an N on a coloured background (the pannel's in black and white, so I don't know what colour). I just thought someone might find that interesting ;) Thε Halo ^Θ 01:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the flag used by "norsefire" in the film is actually a modified flag of York. Black with a red cross with two horizontal lines at the top? The American/Union Jack/Swastika flag made an appearance in a mans hidden cellar but has no bearing on the films plot or the article. I'm sure you could find it in google though. Bloody Sacha 8/31/2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.156.140 (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's in the film, not the novel. The Norsefire flag might be relevant to the Norsefire article, but the jack appearing briefly and without comment in Deitrich's secret room was a political parody, not an actual national or party flag. Unless someone starts an article on the contents of Deitrich's forbidden collection from the film, it has no place here. 71.204.204.249 12:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The letter V in V's mask

The fact that V's mask has shapes which when looked at correctly appear to be V's, is coincidental, and unimportant. I will remove this section from the article unless reasons or citations that support keeping it are presented by the end of this month (Feb. 29th).Taboo Tongue (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warrior19.jpg

Image:Warrior19.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gunpowder Plot

This article would be more accurate if it just said: this plot IS the gunpowder plot, instead of just explaining coincidences. 172.165.195.80 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Number 5 Theme

Some of the examples mentioned in the section on V/5 are a bit irrelevant in my opinion. (e.g. "V's hand and feet each have five fingers and toes respectively"; "Hugo WeaVing played V in the film"; "Ctrl-V is the 'paste' function on PC computers") Also, putting this information in the form of a numbered list seems kind of pointless when more than one point is listed under each number (unless this is supposed to be another clever instance of the number 5). Does anyone else agree with me? Stebbins 06:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)\

I agree. I removed the irrelevant examples; hope that improved the article. --Releeshan 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that some of the irrelevant V/5 points might be a form of subtle vandalism. (This is something that has happened on V for Vendetta (film) article as well.) Just a thought, and something to be aware of.--P-Chan 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the illuminatus quote should be removed because Beethoven did not live to see the invention of Morse Code. -fremen

I think this point should be removed: "The publisher is Vertigo-which begins with a V." Seeing as how it was first published in Warrior, then DC, and I really doubt Moore/LLoyd decided to publish it on Vertigo just because the name starts with a V. Davidovic 03:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance the entire "Number 5 and letter V" section could be reduced to "The letter 'V' (and the number '5') are recurring themes throughout the comic"? The section seems to be a magnet for original research, pet theories and trivia. I've just tidied up some of the grammar, but it's still fairly dire. Also, the cite for the "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" is nonsense - I followed the link and the referenced website makes no mention of The Illuminatus! Trilogy.  This flag once was red  10:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Number 5 and letter V

If there are no objections, I'm thinking we should revert this entire section back to how it was when the article was a good article nominee. Any objections? (I don't plan to do this immediately, but do shout soon).

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 04:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps look at incorporating parts of it into the article - for example "Background" should be "Publication history." I didn't like the way the plot in the previous version include a list of the 'chapters'.

I think the main problem is that the themes has expanded but referencing is poor, leaving it open to accusations of original research. For example:

In issue #8, the phase between fascism and anarchy is called Verwirrung, a German word meaning "confusion", but used here as reference to The Illuminatus! Trilogy (Book One of the trilogy is so titled). It also may be a direct reference to Discordian philosophy in general, as many other aspects of the series (chaos, the creative arts, anarchism, and the obsession with the number "5") draw similar parallels.

In a previous version I actually provide a quote from the Illuminatus Trilogy and a link to an annotations site (not the current site but the original one) which discussed the parallels (V also fits into the law of fives and 23 Enigma as the Victory V is two fingers up and 3 down, as are the devil's horns).

The version of the article you suggest reverting back to doesn't have a better sourced section and doesn't really seem to bring the article much closer to a GA. As far as I'm concerned nether version meets the B-class criteria for the Comics Project and it might be worth addressing the problems by working on this article but including any useful material from the older version (or removing any extraneous material that has been added). However, I may have missed the reason why the previous version is any great improvement over this one. (Emperor (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

My thinking was that the current format is prone to ever increasing additions (uncited, as you note) and subtle vandalism, and that prose-format might be more readable.

You're quite right, though - the section does need to be be far better referenced.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes lists are not only discouraged where prose is better, but they do indeed lower the bar making it easier for someone to jam one more factoid on the end (making them "dangerous" in such contexts. I'd support getting rid of the list - I'd heartily support the addition of references too ;) (Emperor (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Spoiler Alert?

Could someone please add a spoiler alert before the plot section, as it pretty much gives away the entire book? Thanks.

It'd be quite a crap plot section if it didn't... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.129 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a lead comma in the genre field in the comic box?

Why is there a lead comma in the genre field in the comic box? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know! It looks to me like it's an issue with the infobox - I left a message at the infoxbox's talk page asking for help.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

...and it's fixed. The solution is to use "first" instead of "y" for the first genre. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work! Jason Quinn (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I wish I could claim the credit, but to be honest all I did was ask for help! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Evey as a reference to "IV"?

I'm not quite sure about this as I'm not a native speaker of English, but when watching the film again a few days ago I thought that the name "Evey" is actually a reference to the roman numeral "IV". Could this be by intention and worth mentioning? Just wondering.

--Sloper (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is mentioned in the film you could possibly mention it in the article about the film: V for Vendetta (film). This article is (mostly) about the original comic, though. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 08:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It was actually not mentioned as such in the film. Only the acoustic ambiguity was evident to me when actually hearing the name spoken. Maybe I'm just wrong here, I'll leave for the community to decide.

--Sloper (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Communist

In the movie he is a socialist, not an anarchist.

Firstly, this article is about the comic, not the movie. Secondly, how do you figure? That's an awfully bald and undefended statement. Thirdly, communism and socialism aren't the same thing -- it would be possible to be an anarchist and a communist (if your commune genuinely springs from voluntary association and does not persecute those who secede), but not a *socialist* (believes in social obligation enforced by central authority) and an anarchist. 68.215.183.56 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Anarchists are indeed Socialist. Maybe you should brush up on your knowledge of political ideologies. Visit: www.revleft.com. Do some research.

You are not that intelligent. Socialists ARE FOR BIG GOVERNMENT. Communists want NO GOVERNMENT. Communist state is an oxymoron. It's an anarchic utopia. SOCIALISM is all about government. Do some basic reading.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.13 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Socialism is about society; historically Anarchists have considered themselves Socialist - they used the Red Flag, for example, and campaigned on similar issues (many people associate May Day and the 40-hour week with Socialists, however it was Anarchists died at Haymarket, for example). Communists believe ultimately in no government; however where they differ from Anarchists is that they believe in a transitory state of government before communism is achieved. Marxists, for example, believe in a short-lived "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as a precursor to communism. All states led by Communist parties have had governments, for example (Marxism being the dominant philosophy in 20th Century Communism).

All of this is completely off-topic for this article, anyway. If you want to debate whether Anarchism is Communism is Socialism you'd be better off finding somewhere off-wiki. Either way, please comment on content, not editors.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to say that I am an Anarchist and a Socialist. Most of us are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.68.20 (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DAB: "communion [wafer]" -> "Eucharist [wafer]"

I've disambiguated a few things (e.g. "David Lloyd" -> David Lloyd (comic artist)). One thing got me a wee bit, though - the text was "... communion wafer ..."; post-DABing (and with appropriate piping) it now reads "... [[Eucharist|communion]] wafer ...". I'm wondering if it would be better to do it like this: "... [[Sacramental bread|communion wafer]] ...". Thoughts? TFOWR^propaganda 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much

Too much summary, not enough analysis. Spoilers should be outlawed o nthis site, its an encyclopedia not a fan site

• I see no problem leaving the summary up, as knowing the plot of such a complicated story is necessary for analysis. Instead, I think the analysis should be added alongside of the summary already written.

   *You said it yourself: "this is an encyclopædia not a fan site". Fan sites usually mark when a spoiler is coming and encyclopedias state things as they really are  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.222.97 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 

V and Anarchy

V's simple symbol of a V within a circle bears a great deal of similarity to the anarchy symbol, and both tend to be drawn sloppily. The V for Vendetta symbol already had complete anarchy before V came about after the nuclear war; he knew this. Arguably Evey's job after V quits is to prevent another imperialistic nation from arising from this mess.

• That V symbol was similar to Anarchy does NOT imply that V was indeed an Anarchist, in fact I would like to ask this aumtion to be reconsidered, what do we have as proof to say that he claimed for Anarchy in specific? (User: Tauiris@public_computer)

• The fact he says so in the comic, perhaps? Chapter 5, page 5. gz³³ (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unmentioned Themes

A number of the more important themes of the book are left out; namely those of terrorism and vigilantism. A large part of the book is questioning the morality of V's actions and the conclusion leaves the effectiveness of V's terrorism ambiguous, in that the cycle appears to repeat itself rather than ending fascism, though an opposite conclusion could be drawn. I would appear upon finishing the book that these are among the most important points of the story, and the real message Moore was attempting to get across. There should definitely be something added about this, I feel. Unfortunately, I currently lack the time to read the book and/or find legitimate sources to add this section. (71.192.34.220 21:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

There are also potent poetic and mythological themes in the book, one of which ia the love triangle. A woman with two lovers is recurring image, both literally e.g.Helen,Conrad and Ally, and symbolically e.g. V's speech to the statue of justice, in which V plays the part of a scorned lover and complains that Lady Justice has found a new lover who is cruel and sadistic. Adam Susan's reaction to the news that his beloved Fate has been hacked by V is again that of a scorned lover. Earlier Susan had said that although he was a virgin, Fate was his lover. This resonates with Celtic and other mythologies in which the land/nation is portrayed as a goddess and rulers as her lovers. Robert Graves explored these mythological themes in some detail in "The White Goddess".

The November 5th celebrations in England, while ostensibly about a Catholic terrorist, actually resemble a symbolic human sacrifice, and the date is close to the Celtic festival of Samhain.

In "This vicious Cabaret" V sings: "There's a policeman with an honest soul, who knows whose head is on the pole". The severed head of Guy Fawkes was displayed on a pole outside tower hill as food for the ravens. In the Mabinogion the severed singing head of Bran , (whose name means "raven") was taken to tower hill. This links Guy Fawkes to a sacrificial scapegoat tradition and the Celtic cult of the severed head. In his address to the nation, V presents himself as a Promethean figure. Later V sacrifices himself, while declaring his immortality, telling Finch "There's no flesh and blood behind this mask, only ideas. Ideas are bulletproof"Pignut (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Article's been tagged for needing sourcing for over a year. Please feel free to re-incorporate this material, with proper sourcing. Doniago (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Music

===Music=== David J of the band Bauhaus and Love and Rockets, who has collaborated with Moore on other projects, recorded a version of V's song "This Vicious Cabaret" and other music inspired by the book, which appeared on an EP titled V for Vendetta. According to David, Moore proposed the idea for him to compose music for a set of lyrics that would serve as the prologue to part II of the novel. Within an hour of receiving the lyrics, David had composed the music for the song. Pop Will Eat Itself also included several references to V for Vendetta on their 1989 album This is the Day...This is the Hour...This is This! - the song "Can U Dig It?" includes the lyric "we dig V for Vendetta" and the chorus finishes with the line "Alan Moore knows the score". Another track, "The Fuses Have Been Lit", includes references to "the voice of Fate" and "The Land of Do-As-You-Please". The progressive metal band Shadow Gallery took its name from V's hideout, as admitted in their website's FAQ. Progressive Brit-pop band Jocasta wrote the song "The Land of Do-As-You-Please" on their 1997 album release, No Coincidence, released by Epic/VP music. Referenced throughout the song is V's address to the British population, and the book he reads to Evey. The Spanish metal/hip-hop band Def Con Dos has a song titled "V de Vendetta" included in their 1991 album Tercer Asalto. Taking Dawn, a metal band based in Las Vegas, wrote a song called "V" or "V for Vendetta" and used to use an adaptation of a V for Vendetta movie-poster as an alternate logo. The song appears on the Special Edition of their debut CD, Time To Burn (2010). The Trepanators, a former punk band based in Raleigh, North Carolina, had a song called "V", whose lyrics mostly consisted of the nursery rhyme repeated throughout the story and film ("Remember, remember, the fifth of November..."). British rock band Vicious Cabaret took its name from V's song "This Vicious Cabaret"

cultural impact

The entry on the cultural impact needs to be extended. It mentions Anonymous and a couple of incidents of protests where the mask of V was used. This practice has become quite widespread, the mask of V is now seen in many protests around the world. One very notable example is the protests of the Spanish Revolution which started on the 15th of May 2011 with a mass demonstration. The mask of V was visible in many of the demonstrations around Spain, and one particular image became iconic; a photo of a V-masked protester holding a cardboard sign which reads (in English): "Nobody expects the #spanishrevolution." (possibly a reference to a Monty Python sketch: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."). This particular image has become quite an icon in the protest movement, and the V mask has become a staple of the protesters in the Spanish Revolution or the 15th of May movement seen in demonstrations as well as at the protest camps held in town centres across Spain.

http://boingboing.net/2011/05/17/nobody-expects-the-s.html http://www.redpepper.org.uk/nobody-expects-the-spanish-revolution/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/19/977371/-No-One-Expects-the-Spanish-Revolution

Sphere2012 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You should have a go at it! You've got the links (and probabably remember others that you came across), and a summary that works with them— you're good to go! Once you've whipped it into a paragraph, I authentically don't know whether its proper and precise place should be here in V_for_Vendetta#Cultural_impact or off in Gunpowder Plot in popular culture#Internet culture. My thin opinion is: here rather than there.
But if someone objects, they might delete it from that one place, which feels like your writing being mulched— but that's probably just your cue to move it elsewhere. (I don't think I've ever seen an editor say "this belongs elsewhere, so I'll move it- cut from here, paste into way over there". I'm guessing that it's because them throwing your paragraph into the other entry might look like they just wrote it right out of the blue; or they figure it's your biz, not theirs, to figure out a better place (altho they might give a hint). Like I say, that's not "this is crap and belongs nowhere", it's "he should put it elsewhere, he'll find where".) Putting aside the issue of the possibility of what seems like Somebody being dismissive of your hard work, I greatly encourage you to do a little writing, to fill what me and you both feel as a as a Notable gap. Your pal, —Sean M. Burke (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Stockholm syndrome

Shouldn't something be said about how Evey's imprisonment by V and subsiquent identification with him more like the Stockholm syndrome than anything else?

• Well, sure. Though the tone of the film hints strongly that V is The Good, it should definitely be mentioned that Stockholm syndrome is a plausible rebuttal. Liu Bei 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If it were a real event, well maybe. But this is literature! Discussion on SS would add little value, methinks. But, in the spirit of shutting this idea down, Evey clearly identified with V as her hero long before her captivity -- more so in the comic than the movie.

He wanted her not to fear death. As if most torture victims at times wouldn't welcome it.    :-/
Civic Cat (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Weird stuff

What's with Timothy Leary and V for Vendetta?? The comments about V for Vendetta and Timothy Leary in the section on Anarchy Vs Fascism... is the third time I've heard the two connected somehow. The Wachowski Bros make Portman learn about Timothy Leary in order for her to play her role in the film. And V for Vendetta was one of the last books Timothy Leary read before he died. [3]

Weird stuff. This can't be a coincidence. Anyone know the link?--P-Chan 07:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Go read anything about or by Leary. In fact, his wikipedia entry itself should give pretty good reasons for the link, if you're familiar at all with the comic. There's the whole LSD episode, for starters. His quote "tune in, turn on, and drop out" (I think I 'em in the right order) is pretty anarchistic in that it urges you to develop what talents you have, pay attention to the world, and accept no social authority for the sake of social authority. There's a really interesting picture on Leary's 1972 arrest. The look on his face is exhilarated, triumphant, and free -- a wonderfully dissonant picture, but besides the photo itself, it's the face of someone who has faced their fear and is now laughing at it. I'm by no means a Leary admirer myself, but hey, you wanted to know the link. 208.61.125.61 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean this?

Civic Cat (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

David J

Somewhere there should be mention of David J and his EP which was designed as a soundtrack to the graphic novel. In particular the song "This Vicious Cabaret". -- Beardo (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Finch's Experience at Larkhill

Under the "Plot" section, it currently says "Finch travels to the abandoned site of Larkhill, where he takes LSD. His hallucinations show him his past life, where he was the lover of a black woman who was sent to the concentration camps for her race."

Reading my copy (page 212), I don't see any evidence for this claim; Finch is simply remembering all of the victims of the concentration camps. He addresses a plurality of people, and we even see dozens of them.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.83.248 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A little bit of Batman, Zorro, Darkman, and Noh

Civic Cat (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

maybe but the essay by Alan Moore that's also in the book (Behind the Painted Smile - ) says the mask was based on then current (when they started working on the strip - think somewhere there's an interview/feature that mentions the masks being common but quickly disappearing from newsagents etc. before the original run finished) Guy Fawkes masks sold for kids/use on the guys made for Guy Fawkes Night (traditional name for Bonfire Night) - used to be a (British) tradition of children making guys as well as the ones burnt on the bonfires and asking passers-by for a "penny for the guy".

Relevant quotes from Behind the Painted Smile (originally Warrior Magazine #17 1983, reprinted in the trade paperback.

Alan Moore quoting a letter from David Lloyd (page 272 in my copy - Vertigo edition US import bought new @2002) "...I was thinking why don't we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those paper mâché masks, in a cape and conical hat? He'd look really bizarre and it would give Guy Fawkes the image he's deserved all these years. We shouldn't burn the chap every Nov. 5th but celebrate his attempt to blow up Parliament!"

109.224.137.121 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Colour vs. Color

There is nothing wrong with using the spelling 'colour,' however it does make me question the target audience. A change to color should be considered if a majority of the readers of this article use the American/ sometimes-Canadian spelling. This goes for all of the alternate spellings in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.159.157 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

V's Abilities

First, the current description of V's 'powers' is taken from the film: apart from the thing about fingers (which not only seems to have been dropped after chapter 3 (V is clearly shown using daggers in his attacks on Bishop Lillimans residence and Jordan tower) we have Delia Surridges account that there is 'nothing wrong with him', ie. his body hasn't changed. Therefore, it seems safer to assume that V's strength in the first attack is either an internal inconsistency within the novel, or has some other explanation (V may have undergone intense physical training, or it might have been a gadget similiar to his exploding hand. Indeed, the exploding hand and the smokescreen may indicate that when V was concieved his arsenal was to be more advanced, possibly incorporating artificial limbs, as he seems to completely abandon such devices as the novel progresses, moving on to far more simple weapons (mainly knives and a suicide bomb). Remember that it was originally written as a serial and that early episodes couldn't be revised as ideas were changed. Moore also says of his character concept 'the central character could be some sort of escapee, psychologically altered by his stay in a Government Concentration Camp.' ('Behind the Painted Smile' article in the back of the current Vertigo edition of V For Vendetta, emphasis mine). Delia Surridge describes his condition as a form of schizophrenia, and also mentions that he regards people like insects, indicating that he may be some form of sociopath. His mental condition (which, remember, was revealed to Finch only when he took LSD) seems to be a sort of mixture of schizophrenia and autism (note his strange obsessions, such as the number five and Guy Fawkes), combined with a vast intelligence. V also seems to think about things in an entirely different way to most people, seeing the big picture rather than individual events and drawing connections between things in abstract ways that allow him to orchestrate his plots without attracting peoples attention (ie. his escape from Larkhill using fertiliser and grease solvent). As for his memory, it should be noted that V does refer to his childhood in his speech to to the statue of Justice, however, since the whole speech is melodramatic and metaphorical, this probably doesn't mean anything. If no one has any objections to what I'm saying, I will edit the article with a much trimmed down version of this. Remember this is an article about the graphic novel, NOT the film. --KharBevNor 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There was much discussion on the real identity of V when Warrior was still going, and one of the possibles was actually Marvel Man [renamed because of a Marvel Comics lawsuit to Miracle Man]. From what I remember of the graphic novel, he was very intelligent [duping the Larkhill staff into letting him have fertiliser, etc and then making Napalm]and hideously scarred [though the doctor calls him beautiful, I think].

193.243.227.1 (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Delia Surridge doesn't describe him as schizophrenic, she says he has a strange sort of magnetism that some categories of schizophrenic also have. Personal magnetism, not the ability to affect metal, that's a different comic. Ability-wise, he's spent the few years before the book starts building his base, teaching himself chemistry and the other skills he needs, and training himself physically. He's just very good at what he does, but an ordinary human. 188.29.164.78 (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on V for Vendetta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080912195057/http://news.infoshop.org:80/article.php?story=2007alan-moore-interview to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=2007alan-moore-interview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dates of Publication?

September 1988 - May 1988 does not make sense to me. Would someone in the know confirm/correct? Sejohnson1016 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Vampire Hunter D

I Want Trose. Trose: An Agreement Between Foes Enemies And Rivals Not To Be Fighting Any Longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.100.129 (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Any page watchers have reliable, secondary sources for the unsourced text? Otherwise the next step is removing it czar 22:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on V for Vendetta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DbYRzFVw?url=http://www.myegyptmag.com/articles/4023/ to http://www.myegyptmag.com/articles/4023/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

See also

I wonder if a "see also" section is warranted. Any of these titles or heroes?

• A Clockwork Orange
• Nineteen Eighty-Four
• Batman
• Zorro
• Lone Ranger
• Watchmen
• Sin City

... 2601:647:CB02:5034:6838:9C53:3ADE:CB73 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"The Salt Flats" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Salt Flats. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 2pou (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)