What is the price of freedom?
That's a question people have been asking for centuries.
First, lets define our terms. By freedom, i mean the freedom to worship, love, and speak how you want. the freedom to have your own political views. Freedom like that for everyone, no matter what nationality or race. I think everyone should agree that that is freedom.
And by price, i mean the cost of lives and other morals. What do you have to sacrifice in order to 'free' yourself and others? your religious beliefs? your moral ones? your life? someone else's?
In V for Vendetta, people either seem to think that freedom is worthless, or that it is priceless, two very similar sounding extremes.
on one hand, there's the government, who have a saying something like 'strength through unity, unity through faith'. they are a fascist government who control every aspect of peoples lives, from entertainment to news to hospitals. they lock their people up in concentration camps if they rebel or are radicals, or for reasons such as race or religion. The 'leader' is worshipped like a god. there is very little freedom in their regime.
On the other hand, there is V. V is raceless, faceless, and more than a little bit insane (in a dangerous way) and is the very embodiment of radicalism. He listens to music that the government has outlawed, like Motown, and watches movies they've tried to erase from ever existing. but not just that. he also kills and tortures important figures in the government.
of course, he's taking revenge for his own personal reason too, but he is mostly, through bombings and murders, taking down the government.
V stands up for what he believes in. but is it worth all that death? He kills so many people, just for an ideal. this seems terrible to me. but, then again, was there any other way? He is trying to free people from an oppressive and cruel government, so in the long run, i guess he's doing a good thing. But it sure doesn't seem like he's doing a good thing when he's quoting violent Shakespeare and sticking his fingers through people's chests. (well, it doesn't seem morally good, at least, even though it's really cinematic.)
The government does terrible things too. but does that mean that it's okay for V to? of course, he doesn't seem to have any moral scruples (the whole completely insane thing helps). But Evey does, and the readers do too. So, do the ends justify the means? I don't think so. But what if that's the only way to be free?
maybe. i hate to say this, because i don't think violence is ever necessary or okay, (at least not killing) but if i had to choose between some illegal death and very legal concentration camps, i'd choose death. because even though death is terrible, extermination is worse. and freedom is needed.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
V is always for Vendetta
Remember, remember, the fifth of November...
here's a little history for you:
In the early 1600's a small-ish group of catholics (today they might be called extremists) decided to blow up Parliament and King James I, for religious purposes. They came very, very close. they gained access to an undercroft under the house of lords. They brought massive amounts of gunpowder and Guy Fawkes was to guard it until they decided to light it.
Luckily (or unluckily depending on your perspective) the police got an anonymous note telling them all about the plot. (you can see the wiki article here)
the 5th of November became guy fawkes day, where his effigy is burned, and there's loads of lovely fireworks.
The writers of the graphic novel I'm currently reading, V for Vendetta, thought that Guy Fawkes should be worshipped, not burned, and this view is pretty much supported by the book.V for Vendetta takes place in a kind of dystopian future, but the near future, where a nuclear war has dominated most of the world, and Britain has a fascist government.
the book is mostly about a girl called Evey Hammond, and her life after she's saved from being raped and murdered by 'fingermen' (police) by V. V is a terrorist who wears a guy fawkes mask and costume (because at some point in his past he was in a government concentration camp and was disfigured and burned), and has a personal vendetta against the government officials who put him in the concentration camp.
V does things in an interesting way. He seems to have a sort of 'the punishment should fir the crime' rule.
for example, one man, general prothero, who tortured him when he was in the camp, and fed many other humans to the ovens. (V was not burned because he was part of a medical experiment.) Prothero collects dolls, so when V gets to him he pretends that they're back at the concentration camp, and burns all of the dolls, slowly. Eventually Prothero goes mad. He is not always so cruel. For the medical examiner who experimented on them he only injects her with a poison her sleep, waking her up to say goodbye.
But he isn't just taking it out on people for his own anger. He's also decided to bring down the government. But by taking out his vendetta on the people who ruined his life, he's already there.
It's easy to see that the government are the bad guys in this novel. But who is the good guy? V kills loads of people. Innocent people. But so did the government. does that make it OK?
I'm not sure what to think. instead of a basic bad vs. good, this story is an intricate web of angry vs. insanity, fueled by fear and hate.
I'm not sure if I want anyone to win anymore. I'm not sure if I want to see the end of this book. But the thing is, this seems almost painfully possible. more then anything, this makes me think:
politics are messy. and a decision costs lives.
here's a little history for you:
In the early 1600's a small-ish group of catholics (today they might be called extremists) decided to blow up Parliament and King James I, for religious purposes. They came very, very close. they gained access to an undercroft under the house of lords. They brought massive amounts of gunpowder and Guy Fawkes was to guard it until they decided to light it.
Luckily (or unluckily depending on your perspective) the police got an anonymous note telling them all about the plot. (you can see the wiki article here)
the 5th of November became guy fawkes day, where his effigy is burned, and there's loads of lovely fireworks.
The writers of the graphic novel I'm currently reading, V for Vendetta, thought that Guy Fawkes should be worshipped, not burned, and this view is pretty much supported by the book.V for Vendetta takes place in a kind of dystopian future, but the near future, where a nuclear war has dominated most of the world, and Britain has a fascist government.
the book is mostly about a girl called Evey Hammond, and her life after she's saved from being raped and murdered by 'fingermen' (police) by V. V is a terrorist who wears a guy fawkes mask and costume (because at some point in his past he was in a government concentration camp and was disfigured and burned), and has a personal vendetta against the government officials who put him in the concentration camp.
V does things in an interesting way. He seems to have a sort of 'the punishment should fir the crime' rule.
for example, one man, general prothero, who tortured him when he was in the camp, and fed many other humans to the ovens. (V was not burned because he was part of a medical experiment.) Prothero collects dolls, so when V gets to him he pretends that they're back at the concentration camp, and burns all of the dolls, slowly. Eventually Prothero goes mad. He is not always so cruel. For the medical examiner who experimented on them he only injects her with a poison her sleep, waking her up to say goodbye.
But he isn't just taking it out on people for his own anger. He's also decided to bring down the government. But by taking out his vendetta on the people who ruined his life, he's already there.
It's easy to see that the government are the bad guys in this novel. But who is the good guy? V kills loads of people. Innocent people. But so did the government. does that make it OK?
I'm not sure what to think. instead of a basic bad vs. good, this story is an intricate web of angry vs. insanity, fueled by fear and hate.
I'm not sure if I want anyone to win anymore. I'm not sure if I want to see the end of this book. But the thing is, this seems almost painfully possible. more then anything, this makes me think:
politics are messy. and a decision costs lives.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
just one catch
it's just one of those things, either you hate it, or you love it. and most people hate it.
Catch 22, i mean.
Here's a bit of history: in 1961 Joseph Heller published Catch 22, amid reviews so wounded and disapproving that it seemed as if critics felt that the author had written the book to spite the world personally. not to repeat myself, but people really, really, seriously hate this book. and, in a way, i can sympathize. the book is utterly repetitive with no proper sense of time. it makes very little sense. there is no clear climax.
And yet I've spent the last week or so rereading it. why? because this book really makes me think. it questions sanity, and insanity in everyday circumstances. in this book, all of the characters have been called crazy by someone at some time. but the really crazy thing is the system. catch 22 is set during world war two, in an American army base in a small island off Italy. the title refers to a rule which says that the only way to get out of flying dangerous missions is to plead insanity, but only the insane will fly the dangerous missions. so therefore if you try and get out of flying the mission you are only being sane, which is exactly what you can't be if you want to get out of flying. this is only one example of how the system makes no sense.
In it's cynical, bitter, rotten center, i think that this book is about war. about how war makes no sense. this is emphasized because it starts out in the hospital of the squadron. it says that there is a much higher casualty rate outside the hospital then in, and about the nurses were irritated because they make people better just to have them go and die.
Heller writes with sarcasm and comedy, but really this is a strangely complete portrait of war. As the main character, Yossarian, asks repeatedly and simply "why are they trying to kill me?" At first this seems ridiculous, because of course hitler and Mussolini and all of the people bombing and shooting and poisining him don't have him personally in mind. but does that make it any better? he is still in danger, and people are still trying to kill him. 'it's nothing personal' is not a good enough excuse to make murder acceptable. nothing is. So why is it so different in war, when the soldiers are killing what to them is an abstract, non-personal force, instead of real people?
when at first this book seems like a muddled mass of madness and chaos, making less sense then alice in wonderland as an interprative dance, it shapes itself into a few big ideas about life and the lack thereof, and The Horror Of It All.
One question especially lingers in my mind. why is it so much easier to want to kill someone you can't see? Why does anonnimity make slaughter seem morally sound?
Catch 22, i mean.
Here's a bit of history: in 1961 Joseph Heller published Catch 22, amid reviews so wounded and disapproving that it seemed as if critics felt that the author had written the book to spite the world personally. not to repeat myself, but people really, really, seriously hate this book. and, in a way, i can sympathize. the book is utterly repetitive with no proper sense of time. it makes very little sense. there is no clear climax.
And yet I've spent the last week or so rereading it. why? because this book really makes me think. it questions sanity, and insanity in everyday circumstances. in this book, all of the characters have been called crazy by someone at some time. but the really crazy thing is the system. catch 22 is set during world war two, in an American army base in a small island off Italy. the title refers to a rule which says that the only way to get out of flying dangerous missions is to plead insanity, but only the insane will fly the dangerous missions. so therefore if you try and get out of flying the mission you are only being sane, which is exactly what you can't be if you want to get out of flying. this is only one example of how the system makes no sense.
In it's cynical, bitter, rotten center, i think that this book is about war. about how war makes no sense. this is emphasized because it starts out in the hospital of the squadron. it says that there is a much higher casualty rate outside the hospital then in, and about the nurses were irritated because they make people better just to have them go and die.
Heller writes with sarcasm and comedy, but really this is a strangely complete portrait of war. As the main character, Yossarian, asks repeatedly and simply "why are they trying to kill me?" At first this seems ridiculous, because of course hitler and Mussolini and all of the people bombing and shooting and poisining him don't have him personally in mind. but does that make it any better? he is still in danger, and people are still trying to kill him. 'it's nothing personal' is not a good enough excuse to make murder acceptable. nothing is. So why is it so different in war, when the soldiers are killing what to them is an abstract, non-personal force, instead of real people?
when at first this book seems like a muddled mass of madness and chaos, making less sense then alice in wonderland as an interprative dance, it shapes itself into a few big ideas about life and the lack thereof, and The Horror Of It All.
One question especially lingers in my mind. why is it so much easier to want to kill someone you can't see? Why does anonnimity make slaughter seem morally sound?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)