V for Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous - by Alan Moore

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16968689

by waitwhat • 14 years ago

298 86 14 years ago

bbc.co.uk

Helianthus2• 14 years ago

Interestingly, Alan Moore manages to miss the point and be spot-on at the same time.

Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous, the disavowal of identity that accompanies taking up the mask: even though _he himself_ demonstrated the succession of V.

But that's perhaps to be expected; the movie necessarily completed the image of the mask by making it abundantly clear that it is when the _group_ takes up the mask that the mask has power. You cannot punish one if you must punish all.

At the same time, he is clearly in tune with the movement. "Today's response to similar oppressions seems to be one that is intelligent, constantly evolving and considerably more humane."

All in all I read (if I may) V for Valediction from a man who thanks the movement for validating his work, and encourages the next generation just as an intellectual parent ought.

And also like a good intellectual parent, he points to his own heritage... "Some ghosts never go away..."

Hemospectrum• 14 years ago

For what it's worth, he hasn't seen the movie. Any differences in message between his comic and the adaptation have either found him strictly via hearsay or are lost on him entirely.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

He hasn't seen the movie, but he did read its script:

    I've read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they're doing with it,
    and I'm not going to be going to see it.

http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060...

jacobolus• 14 years ago

> Nowhere does he seem to cotton to the nature of Anonymous

By “cotton” did you mean “caught on”?

ims• 14 years ago

This is an idiom.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010312

lambda• 14 years ago

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20010312

dsr_• 14 years ago

Colloquial American English expression, used appropriately. "To cotton to" is to understand and possibly enjoy a phenomenon -- it's always a positive connotation.

zheng• 14 years ago

Don't know why you're being down-voted, I've never heard the term either.

anamax• 14 years ago

> You cannot punish one if you must punish all.

That's mindless twaddle.

"if you must punish all" is never true. In fact, you usually don't want to punish all.

And, you can always punish one.

kqr2• 14 years ago

Obligatory quote from the movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655

  There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I 
  suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones,
  and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because 
  while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, 
  words will always retain their power. Words offer the means 
  to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation 
  of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly 
  wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and 
  injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you 
  had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw 
  fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance 
  coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. 
  How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there 
  are those more responsible than others, and they will be 
  held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're 
  looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I
  know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't 
  be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems 
  which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your 
  common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic 
  you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He 
  promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he 
  demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

arethuza2• 14 years ago

As an extremely unpleasant man once said:

"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

He was wrong about just about everything else, but in this one statement I fear he may have told the truth.

Helianthus2• 14 years ago

It is all too easy to pretend that people have no say in the actions of their commonwealth, and much too difficult to believe that patriotism, pacifism, idealism, and conservatism each have something important to say.

I am unimpressed with your cynicism.

dhimes• 14 years ago

For others who are curious and don't recognize this:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/235519.html

ctdonath• 14 years ago

Some may find the comment which precedes this interesting as well:

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Alas, the conflict setting the context for these comments was the last time the US Congress declared war (WWII). Fearful of the political consequences of taking responsibility of such actions, Congress has consented to letting subsequent Presidents (including our current administrator) initiate ill-defined actions. We, the people, no longer have a say in the matter as our elected representatives will not take a stand one way or another; they will chatter at great length, but will not declare a beginning nor end to hostilities.

ETA: emphasis is "declare war". Consent to fund POTUS-initiated actions is missing the point.

saraid2164• 14 years ago

So do something about it. If you don't know what to do, figure out what to do.

neilk• 14 years ago

Alan Moore refuses to have anything to do with the movies, and true to his predictions they seriously butchered the character.In the movie incarnation, very little remains of Alan Moore's V, except his hacker/trickster nature and a certain panache.

The literary V is an anarchist, somewhat disdainful of ordinary people's subservience, and decides to destroy the apparatus of the state whether the people want it or not. The book ends with England in chaos. The book hints that a figure like V is always needed, no matter what kind of government you live under.

The movie V is an outlaw, but he's still more of a liberal reformer. He gets rid of the bad leaders, while leaving the state intact, and then gathers people together to witness a symbolic action. In the movie, it's clear that being V is only necessary when you have a bad government, then you can get on with your normal life.

Nevertheless, Moore believes that truly iconic characters take on a life of their own and become humanity's "gods". And in some ways the V-figure is evolving beyond the media portrayals. Not as prickly and disengaged from humanity as the book, while jettisoning the 9-11 truther nonsense of the movie. Maybe heading for true "trickster god" status; a friend of humanity that destroys structures that constrain natural developments.

Joakal• 14 years ago

V was a product of government abuse from experimentation. After escaping, he decides to destroy the state in a cold calculated manner.

There's no people involved except for the token character, which the author uses for the reader to understand.

bad_user• 14 years ago

Btw, I'm a Romanian and tomorrow I'll also be joining the protest. I'm in the process of co-opting some of my neighbors. Please do so too.

cicloid• 14 years ago

Who has the copyright on the Guy Fawkes masks?

UPDATE: Forget it, the design belongs to Time Warner.

accountoftheday2• 14 years ago

mine has a label inside indicating it was made under license from the movie rights owners.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

Obviously, the moral thing is to make your own. ;-)

Mass-production, however, has some interesting advantages. It's harder to trace it back to its owner, for instance.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

Well, either they have the copyright or a very exclusive license.

    When you're talking about things like "V for Vendetta" or "Watchmen,"
    I don't have a choice. Those were works which DC Comics kind of tricked
    me out of, so they own all that stuff and it's up to them whether the film
    gets made or not.

http://www.mtv.com/shared/movies/interviews/m/moore_alan_060...

Retric• 14 years ago

Did they buy it from the comic?

wingo• 14 years ago

Ah, Alan Moore. I love the man.

Here's a lovely interview with him, from "Mythmakers and Lawbreakers", a work on anarchist fiction writers:

http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/2009/02/mythmakers-lawbre...

The book:

http://www.birdsbeforethestorm.net/mmlb/

Some of the interviews are better than others, but the Ursula K. Le Guin and Alan Moore ones really stood out for me.

gaelian2• 14 years ago

I don't think it's overstating things to say that Moore's influence changed the face of the comic industry forever (no pun intended). The man is a true visionary, pushing the boundary of whatever medium he chooses. I look forward to reading his novels.

Here is another good and recent interview:

http://www.honestpublishing.com/news/honest-alan-moore-inter...

astrange• 14 years ago

> I don't think it's overstating things to say that Moore's influence changed the face of the comic industry forever (no pun intended).

What, for the better or worse? The comic industry is in no state to be proud of; they sell at least 100 times less than they used to and their entire audience is 30 year old white men because they have no ability to attract new readers.

That's the American-style comic industry; the Japanese one is doing well.

KiwiCoder• 14 years ago

Tangential Alan Moore - Alternative thought for the day at http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9669000/9669590....

paulhauggis8• 14 years ago

Anonymous is a childish sudo-terrorist group that has thrown multiple digital temper-tantrums because they haven't gotten their way.

Even if I support their views, I would never want to be associated with them.

jbooth2• 14 years ago

Best to do nothing then, and be one of those who stood aside.

icebraining3• 14 years ago

Those are hardly the only two options.

paulhauggis8• 14 years ago

I would rather have my own group. That doesn't hide behind a computer screen.

ben0x539• 14 years ago

> I would never want to be associated with them.

That's rather the idea of being anonymous.

gee_totes• 14 years ago

A terrorist group with the power of sudo is a scary thought.

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/149/

paulhauggis8• 14 years ago

Right. Because that's all they do. Let's see:

1) Stole from Symantec and released the code: https://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253

2) stole from pcanywhere and released the code: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2012/02/07/anon...

Funny thing is, Google does the same thing with the GPL (IE: "theft" of code): http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/8991.html and the people here on HN want to crucify them.

It's so easy to hide behind a handle/username online. It takes no balls or courage because you have little to no risk. The mere fact that they do this shows me that they aren't really serious about their views and are most likely anti-social kids (or adults with the maturity of kids).

This is stuff that I would have enjoyed when I was 15.

paulhauggis8• 14 years ago

I also will not follow anyone that silences your opinion merely because they disagree. This isn't the purpose of down voting, but it's obvious to me that the supporters of anonymous feel this way.

slowpoke• 14 years ago

You most likely aren't downvoted because people want to "silence" your opinion, but because your expression of it is aggressive, unfriendly and borders on ad hominem. That's why I myself downvoted you, at least.

It's fine being critical of Anonymous. Just accusing them of being "terrorists" and "having no balls" is neither constructive criticism nor an opinion worth discussing.

redthrowaway2• 14 years ago

For the record, I downvoted you not because I disagree, though I do, but for your tone which was insulting without anything to back it up. Your comment simply didn't add to the discussion.

imjoel• 14 years ago

It's hard for me to align myself with Anonymous because I really don't like how they give support to the ideas I agree with, but, man, it sure does look exciting from where I'm standing.

mindcrime• 14 years ago

The thing I find interesting / amusing about the "Guy Fawkes" masks from the movie, is the extent to which they have been embraced by at least 3 or 4 fairly different, even seemingly opposing, groups. Looking around, I've seen these masks associated with:

1. Radical libertarian / anti-government types

2. Tea Partiers

3. The OWS movement

4. Anonymous

The moral of this story may just be that these groups have more in common that you would suspect at first blush.

tvon• 14 years ago

They're all opposed to how the government currently operates. I think that's something that most of the country agrees upon.

rhizome3• 14 years ago

But let's talk about birth-control.

angersock• 14 years ago

Particularly amusing is that, at least in the case of Anonymous, the anarchistic end state of the graphic novel is fairly closely mirrored.

saraid2164• 14 years ago

I've never seen the Tea Party associated with the Guy Fawkes mask. That seems... silly. Do you have a reference?

And as far as I know, OWS was never associated with the Guy Fawkes mask; that was Anonymous showing up in the flesh.

jacoblyles• 14 years ago

https://www.google.com/search?q=tea+party+guy+fawkes&tbm...

Why does it seem silly to you that the largest and most effective anti-government movement of the modern era would have some sympathizers who adopt the symbol?

heydenberk• 14 years ago

Namely: none of them have taken the time to learn about what a completely detestable theocratic proto-fascist Guy Fawkes was

mattstreet• 14 years ago

Fuck it bothers me to no end how almost no one knows that side of the story. Keep telling it bro.

semisight• 14 years ago

But to their credit, that's not the point. This is touched upon in the novel--that it's the idea of rebellion that Guy Fawkes has become a symbol of, not what he was fighting for but that he was fighting at all.

rdtsc• 14 years ago

I think the word you are searching for is "anti-establishment". I think that one word characterizes all those groups.

tripngroove• 14 years ago

Just saw an awesome documentary on Anonymous at the Slamdance Film Festival (Sundance's indie younger sibling). Interesting and well made. Would recommend it for anyone who is interested in Anonymous/Hacktivism.

http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/

Interrobang• 14 years ago

"Our present financial ethos no longer even resembles conventional capitalism, which at least implies a brutal Darwinian free-for-all, however one-sided and unfair. Instead, we have a situation where the banks seem to be an untouchable monarchy beyond the reach of governmental restraint, much like the profligate court of Charles I."

I couldn't agree more.

V for Vendetta and the Rise of Anonymous - by Alan Moore

Related Stories