Talk:V for Vendetta/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 Kraus e 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 Kraus e 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'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.

~~The publication history needs to be wikified, in particular the fourth paragraph with the one word sentences.~~
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?
~~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.~~
Plot summary should be more detailed, certainly not less, as somone else has suggested.
~~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.~~
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
~~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.~~
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).
~~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.~~
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.
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"[2] -- 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.

"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.
"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.
"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.
"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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/_/f/Talk%7EV_for_Vendetta_Archive_1_b54c.html"

Category: Talk archives