Luana Rocha Fear and Manipulation in George

Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Centro de Educação e Humanidades

Instituto de Letras

Luana Rocha

Fear and manipulation in George Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four and Alan Moore’s V for vendetta

Rio de Janeiro 2015

Luana Rocha

Fear and manipulation in George Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four and Alan Moore’s V for vendetta

Dissertação apresentada, como requisito parcial para a obtenção do título de Mestre, ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras, da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Área de concentração: Literaturas de Língua Inglesa.

Orientadora: Profª Dra. Lucia de La Rocque Rodriguez

Rio de Janeiro

2015

CATALOGAÇÃO NA FONTE UERJ/REDE SIRIUS/BIBLIOTECA CEH/B

R672 Rocha, Luana. Fear and manipulation in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta / Luana Rocha. – 2015. 129 f.

Orientadora: Lucia de La Rocque Rodriguez. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Letras.

1. Distopias na literatura – Teses. 2. Medo na literatura – Teses. 3. Orwell, George, 1903-1950 – Crítica e interpretação – Teses. 4. Orwell, George, 1903-1950. 1984 – Teses. 5. Moore, Alan, 1953- - Crítica e interpretação – Teses. 6. Moore, Alan, 1953-. V de vingança – Teses. I. Rodriguez, Lucia de La Rocque. II. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Instituto de Letras. III. Título.

CDU 82-311.9

Autorizo, apenas para fins acadêmicos e científicos, a reprodução total ou parcial desta dissertação desde que citada a fonte.

______Assinatura Data

Luana Rocha

Fear and manipulation in George Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four and Alan Moore’s V for vendetta

Aprovada em 31 de março de 2015.

Banca Examinadora:

______Profª Dra. Lucia de La Rocque Rodriguez (Orientadora) Instituto de Letras – UERJ

______Profª Dra. Maria da Conceição Monteiro Instituto de Letras – UERJ

______Profª Dra. Bárbara Maia das Neves Fundação de Apoio à Escola Técnica do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro 2015

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to the people who still believe in a better future for our society and that

will not give up on the idea of a free world for all.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks to my family: my mom, Silvia, for the constant support throughout this journey. To my brother, João, for all the political and philosophical conversations which helped me see things clearly. To him and Camille, for all the movie nights. To my cousin, Vinicius, for the patience and for making me laugh. To my dad, Arnaldo, and my stepmother, Maria Luiza, for helping me keep calm in a time of madness. To my sisters, Julia and Luiza, for the support and great conversations. To Felipe, for all the laughs and political debates. To Zuleica e Isabela for the fun and friendship at the end of this journey, which made everything easier to bear. Also, many thanks to my friends for not abandoning me during this crazy time: Juliana, Luise, Fernanda, Fernando, Renato, Dani, Fê Alf, Abel, Victor, Erica e Marcos: you’re the greatest! I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart each and every one of my History teachers for helping me think for myself and always search for the meaning of truth. My thanks also goes to all teachers who have helped me grow into who I am today. Without you, I wouldn’t be here. My special thanks goes to Ivair Coelho Lisboa for making me fall in love with Philosophy. Also, for helping me uncover the philosophical beauty in cinematic art, and especially for introducing me to Jorge Luis Borges and H. P. Lovecraft. For all that, I will be eternally grateful. My other special thanks goes to Maria da Conceição Monteiro for bringing Philosophy back into my life – for all the philosophical debates in class, which made me arrive at the conclusion that there is no conclusions in life. And for all the fun I’ve had in those classes, debating whether there is quality in Hollywood films. Also, thanks to Fernanda Lima, for making me fall in love again with the Greeks; and to Eliane Berutti, for all the fun debates and advices. Thanks to my colleagues and friends, Bruno César F. Vieira and Davi Pinho for all the advices, help and support throughout this crazy journey of academic life. And last, but not least, thanks to my advisor, Lucia de La Rocque Rodriguez, for all the patience in the world. Also, for the laughs, the talks, the joyful debates in class, and for always believing in me. Thank you!

I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me. Eddie Vedder

RESUMO

ROCHA, Luana. Fear and manipulation in George Orwell’s Nineteen eighty-four and Alan Moore’s V for vendetta. 2015. 129 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Literaturas de Língua Inglesa) – Instituto de Letras, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2015.

O objetivo desta dissertação é analisar a questão da política do medo e das várias formas de manipulação da realidade encontradas nas narrativa de 1984 (1949), de George Orwell, assim como na narrativa gráfica de V de Vingança – tanto na sua versão em quadrinhos, de Alan Moore (1982-88), quanto na sua adaptação cinematográfica, escrita pelos Wachowskis (2005). Em particular, tenta demonstrar similaridades nas técnicas usadas, assim como na análise dos personagens, procurando embasar certos questionamentos com a ajuda de filósofos políticos, estudos de psicologia, culturais, e distópicos. Ao final, este trabalho tenta identificar a importância da influência dos autores estudados, assim como outros autores distópicos, na criação e desenvolvimento de uma nova geração social de mentalidade inconformista.

Palavras-chave: Literatura distópica. Política. Distopia. Manipulação. Ilusão. Inconformismo.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation aims to analize the question of the politics of fear and the many forms of manipulation of reality found in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), as well as in Alan Moore’s graphic novel V for Vendetta (1982-88) and its film adaptation written by the Wachowskis (2005). In particular, it tries to show similarities among the used techniques, as well as in the character analysis, trying to support these findings with the help of political philosophers, as well as psychological, cultural and dystopian studies. In the end, this work tries to identify the importance of these authors, as well as other dystopian authors, and their influence on the creation and development of a new generation of nonconformists.

Keywords: Dystopian literature. Politics. Dystopia. Manipulation. Deception. Nonconformity.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 9

1 ‘FOR THE GOOD OF THE MAJORITY’: FEAR AND DECEPTION IN NINETEEN-EIGHTY FOUR ...... 11

1.1 Two Minutes Hate: War is Peace ...... 11 1.2 Big Brother is Watching You: Freedom is Slavery ...... 21 1.3 Reality Control: Ignorance is Strength ...... 36

2 V FOR VOLITION: FEAR AND DECEPTION IN V FOR VENDETTA ...... 49

2.1 The Silent Majorities: Europe After the Reign ...... 49 2.2 The Grand Illusion: Vicious Cabaret ...... 67 2.3 The Shadow Gallery: Land of Do-As-You-Please ...... 87 2.4 The Torturer and the Tortured: Behind the Painted Smile ...... 104

CONCLUSION ...... 118

REFERENCES ...... 125

INTRODUCTION

I have come across the idea for this research after watching the Wachowskis’ filmic adaptation to Alan Moore’s graphic novel V for Vendetta (2006) and pondering about its themes and the relation between them and the political situation of the world at the time, living under George W Bush’s administration of the United States and the threat of a new world war after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After watching the film, I read the graphic novel and realized they were both completely different narratives, each focusing on different flaws in the government, and yet with much in common – with Moore focusing on criticizing Margaret Thatcher’s conservative administration of the United Kingdom. Still in 2006, at the end of the year, I had decided to focus on this narrative as the main idea for a future dissertation. However, I was still unsure mostly because of the fact that the main work was a comic book and its filmic adaptation, even though I believed them to be worthy of analyzing. In any case, I do not intend to discourse on this issue of filmic adaptation or the importance of other types of narratives to Literature. Nonetheless, I would like to mention that, later in 2012, after deciding on my master’s research, Bruno César Ferreira Vieira’s dissertation on The Question of the Doppelgänger in Stevenson and Stan Lee (2007) – where he shows that the narrative in comic books can be valuable for the literary studies – has been an inspiration to continue on this path and not hesitate in considering these works as the basis to my analysis. After deciding on this theme, and knowing that others had chosen similar narratives as the main focus on their master’s dissertations, I was struck by the Edward Snowden/NSA scandal, and the news that George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) had spiked in sales by 6000%, as a consequence. This was the perfect timing for choosing Orwell as my second example to illustrate this dissertation – especially for its direct influence on Alan Moore’s work1. To discuss the issue of the politics of fear and the deception used by governments to control its population – and specially used and abused by the Bush administration – I have chosen Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, the Wachowskis’ filmic adaptation (specifically because of the major changes in Moore’s narrative) and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Even though these works may sometimes be disparate in its political time and situation, both V for

1 Alan Moore explicitly mentions this in his essay Behind the Painted Smile, published in the collector’s set edition of V for Vendetta (2012, p. 274)

Vendetta and Nineteen Eighty-Four are important dystopias with astounding similarities in relation to these political techniques. Based on that, this dissertation is divided in two chapters. In the first one, I focus on George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, where I analyze the issue of deception, fear and the relativity of truth through the lens of philosophy studies and political science, using the works of Michel Foucault, Paul Virilio, Jean Baudrillard, Friedrich Nietzsche. In addition, I use theorists like M Keith Booker and Tom Moylan to analyze the dystopian issues in the story. I use these authors and their theories to analyze the main characters and some of the situations in the narrative, trying to compare them to the techniques used nowadays in politics. On the second and last chapter, the focus shifts to Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, and its cinematographic version, written by the Wachowskis, which, as mentioned before, presents many important changes in relation to its source. To do that, I also use philosophical studies, political science, and dystopian studies. However, I am aided by mythological studies to focus on the great use of symbolism in this specific narrative, as well as by psychology and social psychology studies – specially Stanley Milgram’s experiment – to focus on the psychological issue behind governmental mind control. I am aided by the theories of Carl Jung, Walter Benjamin, James R Keller, Douglas Kellner, Camila Alves Martin’s dissertation on Eve and Lillith, as well as Foucault, Virilio and Nietzsche. In the last part of this chapter, I specifically analyze the symbol of V’s mask and what it represents both in the narrative and beyond it, aided by Jung’s psychological theory of the archetypes, together with the historical information provided by James H. Johnson on the use and significance of masks. In addition to this, I use comics theorist Scott McCloud to comment on the nature of facial expressions in comics, as well as philosophers George Santayana’s and Nietzsche’s words to understand the power behind the symbol of the mask.

1 ‘FOR THE GOOD OF THE MAJORITY’: FEAR AND DECEPTION IN NINETEEN-EIGHTY FOUR

Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth, The tree of knowledge is not that of life. Lord Byron

1.1 Two Minutes Hate: War is Peace

Since the National Security Agency (NSA) Scandal brought forth by Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four has been thoroughly remembered throughout the world. It is true that his dystopian vision of a recent future has always been in the minds of modern society, even if only as a warning of what might happen if we are not careful enough. The frightening ideas and paradoxical slogans of that work have also become part of the common sense dialect, such as newspeak, doublethink, Big Brother, etc. Yet, Orwell’s predictions have never come so close to our ‘reality’ as they are now. In light of the accusations of espionage by the NSA of many other countries, it is not hard to wonder about other aspects of Orwell’s narrative which have been incorporated into our ‘reality’ for a while, but which only now are receiving the proper attention. One of those aspects is the strategy of fear and deception. In Nineteen Eighty Four, in Oceania, society is ruled by a single Party, IngSoc, whose leader is Big Brother. The Party is divided into a series of ministries, each dedicated to a specific task: the Ministry of Truth, which is where Winston Smith and Julia work, “concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts;” the Ministry of Peace concerned itself with war; the Ministry of Love maintained law and order; and the Ministry of Plenty was responsible for economic affairs” (ORWELL, 1961, p.4). These ministries, as it is shown in the narrative, working under the law of doublethink, are concerned with the exact opposite of what their names suggest. The most obvious example is the Ministry of Love, which is where the tortures occur. According to Winston, even the building itself inspires fear,

The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometer of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 4, 5)

Another example is the Ministry of Truth, where Winston works as an editor of past news and of new editions of the newspeak dictionary, and where Julia works as a creator of fiction for the proles, in the Fiction Department. In reality, their work consists in creating lies to feed and control the masses. On this matter, Michel Foucault (1977) has already delved in his Discipline and Punish, where he states that to rid its ranks of the ‘responsibility’ of punishing another, Justice has ‘redeemed’ itself by transferring this job to another facility, i.e. The Ministry of Interior/Navy/Colonies, etc. This began to happen when the focus needed to be shifted from the spectacle of public torture of the current means to criminal punishment to the current trials, where the judge would only serve the sentence, not the punishment itself, in a clear statement that relieved the magistrates “of the demeaning task of punishing.” (p. 10) In the same manner, the Party delegates this job to a Ministry located on a building where entrance is forbidden and nothing can be seen. The complete opposite of a public spectacle, where people might entail in the criminal’s defense after witnessing his/her cries for redemption and, as how it has happened in the past in our ‘reality’, demand his/her pardon by threatening to start riots against the ones in charge. To the IngSoc Party, this energy should not be annihilated, but be nurtured and only released in what they call The Two Minutes Hate, where they would manipulate a frenzied generalized Hate towards Emmanuel Goldstein, the Party’s utmost traitor, his comrades, The Brotherhood, and whichever continent was at war with Oceania at the time. Everything was put together in two minutes of frenzied euphoria, a daily chore, part of every Party member’s routine. The Hate, as Winston calls it, is scheduled and cannot be missed. It is one of the obligatory duties to the Party, and as much as Winston tries to fight it, he cannot help but join in with the frenzy.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that

one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 14)

Julia believes that this frenzy comes from the Party’s puritanism, which is endured so that the Party members’ repressed sexual energy in the form of hysteria can be used for its own purposes, i.e. war-fever and leader-worship.

'When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 133)

According to Paul Virilio (1999), in his Strategy of Deception, this happened constantly in the war in Yugoslavia, and it was then, right after the end of the Cold War, the start of what he calls the ‘information warfare’. Even though he traces its origins to the Second World War and the use of media disinformation by the Nazis, he claims that this information warfare was consolidated only years after that, by the United States of America (USA), trying to manipulate people into agreeing with the cause for the war in the Balkans.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we saw the development of a strange ‘defense of the human species’, popularized in the media by any number of ‘TV marathons’ and other interactive shows (on social, health and ecological issues). In actual fact, these were intended to prepare people’s minds for future large-scale humanitarian manoeuvres of a much less peaceful kind, such as those in Kosovo. Successful manoeuvres, since, on that latter occasion, one clearly saw ‘the birth of an immense upsurge of solidarity in favour of the Kosovars, sustained by stars from show-biz, the cinema and finance.’ (VIRILIO, 1999, p. 71)

Based on this citation, it is not difficult to infer the range of the capacity of social manipulation nowadays. Especially now, with the help of the Internet. Virilio believes that “with the ‘liberation of information’ on the Web, what is most lacking is meaning or, in other words, a context into which Internet users could put the facts and hence distinguish truth from falsehood” (VIRILIO, 1999, p. 78). This was also a concern in George Orwell’s mind when he chose to participate in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco. During the war, he claimed to have seen different kinds of media manipulation which has led him to distrust the English language itself.

Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any

relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’. (ORWELL, 1943)

His first-hand experience in the battlefield as well as inside the media, when he worked as a journalist, is believed to have been the inspiration behind Winston Smith’s character. Therefore, it is interesting to notice how he describes another example of government deception when he writes about Winston’s job and his anxiety in dealing with the obviousness of the Party lies.

The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed - if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 34, 35)

This citation recalls the popular citation falsely attributed to Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s propaganda chief and member of the Nazi party, where it states that “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” (UNKNOWN). Although its origins cannot be specifically determined, this citation became part of the popular belief about the “Big Lie2”, which is now widely spread out and used by parties of different philosophies to control and manipulate people into thinking and believing whatever they need them to think and believe. Based on this propaganda strategy, the media is deliberately used by governments and regimes to manipulate and control the population of one’s country. Among the theorists who mention this, Virilio is one to repeat it in many of his books. In Strategy of Deception (1999), through the words of M. Guérin, he manages to infer that “only the chaos on the ground

2 The ‘Big Lie’ is considered to be an expression used by Adolph Hitler in ‘Mein Kampf’ (1925) to determine a certain propaganda technique, where one would use so absurd and big a lie that no one will believe it is not true. Hitler accused his enemies of using such a technique, yet never admitted to using it himself. In 1951, the US Army produced an anti-communist film with this expression as its title, where it compares the Communist regime with the Nazis.

enables you to escape propaganda” (p. 25); since nowadays, with at least one television set in every home, now connected to the Internet, it is hard to avoid being bombarded by a constant stream of information – much of which is tailored specifically to the individual. According to the philosopher, those have become “purely and simply global tele-surveillance of social or asocial behaviour, of those ‘attitudes’ which advertising has worked for decades now to engineer” (VIRILIO, 1999, p. 22). Based on this premise, it would be natural to worry about the quality of the world’s History, as did Orwell in his essay Looking Back on the Spanish War (1943),

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. After all, the chances are that those lies, or at any rate similar lies, will pass into history. (...) For, as I have pointed out already, the Government, also dealt extensively in lies. From the anti- Fascist angle one could write a broadly truthful history of the war, but it would be a partisan history, unreliable on every minor point. Yet, after all, some kind of history will be written, and after those who actually remember the war are dead, it will be universally accepted. So for all practical purposes the lie will have become truth. (ORWELL, 1943)

This means that for every lie embedded in a person’s head through the new omnipresent media, a new reality is being formed and acknowledged as a new ‘truth’. Thus, depleting the concept of its intrinsic meaning and transforming it into a meaningless word. In Orwell’s time, examples of this could not only be seen in Nazi propaganda, but also in Joseph Stalin’s regime, where the soviet propaganda would serve as a means of spreading lies and punishing the ones who would disagree with the Party’s ‘truth’. Thus, the truth is, as it has always been, in the hands of the powerful. The truth of the powerful becomes the truth of the people under them, and it is true until it serves its purpose as truth of the moment. Then and only then, it can be changed according to a new paradigm. Additionally, after and through the advent of the ‘Big Lie’ expression and propaganda, the world’s population gained access to a knowledge which triggered a paranoia outbreak, causing them to be even more susceptible to manipulation.

In the era of the ‘information revolution’, the same process is now affecting disinformation: whereas in the past it was lack of information and censorship which characterized the denial of democracy by the totalitarian state, the opposite is now the case. Disinformation is achieved by flooding TV viewers with information, with apparently contradictory data. The truth of the facts is censured by over- information, (...) Now more is less. And in some cases, less than nothing. Deliberate manipulation and unintentional accidents have become indistinguishable. (VIRILIO, 1999, p. 48)

The concept of this ‘Big Lie’ entangles many aspects, one of them being the creation of other realities apart from the one known to a specific subject or people in a determined moment of their life. These different realities, as mentioned above, are created to incite the sympathy or hate of the public. Also, these different realities, as supposed realities in themselves, appear as another kind of truth as seen from a different point of view. Now, these contrasting realities are not based on the vision of human eyes, but on the virtual ‘eyes’ of machines. This concept is also addressed by Virilio in The Vision Machine (1994), where he mentions that the general point of view has changed from the human eye, to the lenses of cameras, and now, it is a virtual point of view – with images being perceived and interpreted by computers, a virtual brain to mechanic eyes, to where human beings do not have total access.

‘Now objects perceive me', the painter Paul Klee wrote in his Notebooks. This rather startling assertion has recently become objective fact, the truth. After all, aren't they talking about producing a 'vision machine' in the near future, a machine that would be capable not only of recognising the contours of shapes, but also of completely interpreting the visual field, of staging a complex environment close-up or at a distance? Aren't they also talking about the new technology of 'visionics': the possibility of achieving sightless vision whereby the video camera would be controlled by a computer? The computer would be responsible for the machine's - rather than the televiewer's - capacity to analyse the ambient environment and automatically interpret the meaning of events. Such technology would be used in industrial production and stock control; in military robotics, too, perhaps. (VIRILIO, 1994, p. 59)

This virtual vision becomes inherently inaccessible to human reason, since it does not have the means to interpret the computer’s logical reasoning – maybe the closest to an impartial point of view. Nevertheless, how can one be sure about its complete impartiality, if the system itself was not built by independent-thinking machines, but by human-programmed ones? Based on this thought, is the system’s point of view really impartial or is it propagating the point of view of its original programmer? Does it have the acquired ‘intelligence’ to become independent of human reasoning? If so, what kind of point of view would this be? Virilio admits his limitations as a human being, and believes no one has the kind of knowledge to access this information, since one cannot (at least until now) know what would be the reasoning behind a virtual system. As a consequence, in the near future, human beings tend to be at the mercy of virtual interpretation, whatever that would be. Virilio’s vision is somewhat apocalyptic and similar to the vision shown by the Wachowskis in their movie, The Matrix (1999), where, in a near future, machines dominate

the planet, using humans as energy sources. Everything in the world inside of the Matrix is watched and interpreted by computers, and seen and analyzed through their point of view. Even the character who rebels against it, Neo, finds out, in the end, that he is just one more version of a rebel – an anomaly in the programming of the Matrix – in a series of rebels already annihilated by the machines. Although it appears to be pessimistic, this point of view is common in many recent dystopias, e.g. Bong Joon-ho and Kelly Masterson’s movie Snowpiercer (2013), based on the French graphic novel Le Transperceneige, written by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette. In this narrative, the rebel, Curtis Everett, finds out that his ‘revolution’ was premeditated and created by two friends, one of which is Gilliam, the rebellion’s spiritual ‘leader.’ The other friend is Wilford, the builder of the machine on which every last human depended – a fortress-like train, created to protect the human race from the apocalypse of a new Ice Age. In this filmic narrative, the ‘machine’ also has its own point of view and desires, and it is responsible for everything that happens inside it. Some of these aspects are seen in Nineteen Eighty-Four, when Winston realizes, by O’Brien’s final discourse, that the Party is bigger than everything and everyone in Oceania. The Party here acts similarly to the machines mentioned in the examples above. Its necessities and yearnings are more important than anyone else’s and its will to power is bigger than any revolt or rebellion of any specific individual or group. The Party is bigger than anything and anyone and, being so, all those working under it should function as a piece of the engine for fear of being replaced and annihilated.

The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual. You know the Party slogan: "Freedom is Slavery". Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone -- free -- the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 264)

What O’Brien states not only recalls what it is said at the end of the other dystopias mentioned earlier, but also the concept of deindividuation3, which is also found in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, when dealing with ‘docile bodies’.

3 Perceived loss of individuality and personal responsibility that can occur when someone participates as part of a group. (WESTMONT COLLEGE PSYCHOLOGY. Available at: . Access on 25 mar. 2015).

What was then being formed was a policy of coercions that act upon the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behaviour. The human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it. A ‘political anatomy’, which was also a ‘mechanics of power’, was being born; it defined how one may have a hold over others’ bodies, not only so that they may do what one wishes, but so that they may operate as one wishes, with the techniques, the speed and the efficiency that one determines. Thus discipline produces subjected and practised bodies, ‘docile’ bodies. Discipline increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of utility) and diminishes these same forces (in political terms of obedience). In short, it dissociates power from the body; on the one hand, it turns it into an ‘aptitude’, a ‘capacity’, which it seeks to increase; on the other hand, it reverses the course of the energy, the power that might result from it, and turns it into a relation of strict subjection. (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 138)

Thus, as a ‘docile’ body, Winston should not defy the system, but comply with it, something he struggles to achieve, as O’Brien tries to convince him that he has no hope of escaping.

'I don't know -- I don't care. Somehow you will fail. Something will defeat you. Life will defeat you.'

'We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable. Or perhaps you have returned to your old idea that the proletarians or the slaves will arise and overthrow us. Put it out of your mind. They are helpless, like the animals. Humanity is the Party. The others are outside -- irrelevant.' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 269)

The concept behind what O’Brien is saying mirrors what Jean Baudrillard claims in In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities (1983), where he accuses what he calls “the masses” of being

neither good conductors of the political, nor good conductors of the social, nor good conductors of meaning in general. Everything flows through them, everything magnetises them, but diffuses throughout them without leaving a trace. And, ultimately, the appeal to the masses has always .gone unanswered. They do not radiate; on the contrary, they absorb all radiation from the outlying constellations of State, History, Culture, Meaning. They are inertia, the strength of inertia, the strength of the neutral. (BAUDRILLARD, 1983, p. 2)

The “masses”, in this case, do not only bear great similarity to the proles mentioned by Winston and O’Brien, but also to the Party itself and its sense of collectivity above all else. According to Baudrillard, the “masses” have become a major force, more powerful than anything else, even greater than the system in which it lives4. However, it is even stronger than its own or any individual’s will to control its course. This concept mirrors O’Brien’s

4 Jean Baudrillard, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York, 1983, p. 44.

words to Winston, when Baudrillard introduces a paradoxical concept: even though the “masses” have all the power in their hands, they are not interested in using it for anything else than destroying all concepts and meanings5. It is almost like chaos in its essence. Thus, Winston’s belief in the power of the proles to change their future is as useless as Syme and O’Brien had explained to him. According to Douglas Kellner, in his Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond (1989), this concept of the “masses” as a giant force capable, through its inherent inertia, to overthrow the system, may still have a ‘positive’ political reading, even though it is not one shared by Baudrillard. He argues that

the apathy and cynicism of the masses create the space for a new meaning, and thus for the intervention of radical cultural texts and politics aiming at the production of new systems of meaning and a new society, thereby providing an opening for radical political movements to attempt to produce new forms of struggle and politics (...) (KELLNER, 1989, p. 89)

Yet, even Kellner admits to the paradox intrinsic to this theory, when he realizes that

one could conclude that the efforts at producing alternative means of communication, alternative messages, only aid in the 'regeneration of meaning and speech' which either will also be resisted by the silent majorities or which may even serve the interests of a system which, to regain legitimacy, must regenerate a belief in meaning. (KELLNER, 1989, p. 89)

This echoes the inherently paradoxical ideas behind the concept of doublethink which O’Brien tries to introduce into Winston Smith’s mind during the tortures. In fact, after seeing his old, wrinkled, beaten body in the mirror, Winston begins to realize the size of his doom. As O’Brien had stated, he is ‘the last man’ and his ‘species’ is doomed to annihilation. He remembers that this had been his destiny since the beginning, when he had written “down with Big Brother” repeatedly on his diary. The Party would never allow for a dissident to roam free for much time, for

the lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and this by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. (UNKNOWN)

5 Baudrillard, op. cit., p. 47-48.

This statement, wrongly attributed to Goebbels, ascertains the fact that Winston would be sacrificed in favor of the survival of the Party. In the end, Winston accepts his fate after being taken to Room 101, and tortured by his worst fear – rats. He realizes the ‘truth’ when he betrays Julia, even though he had been certain of its impossibility.

'I don't mean confessing. Confession is not betrayal. What you say or do doesn't matter: only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you -- that would be the real betrayal.'

She thought it over. 'They can't do that,' she said finally. 'It's the one thing they can't do. They can make you say anything -- anything -- but they can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you.'

'No,' he said a little more hopefully, 'no; that's quite true. They can't get inside you. If you can feel that staying human is worth while, even when it can't have any result whatever, you've beaten them.' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 166)

Yet, Winston realizes they had made him believe it when he sincerely wishes for Julia’s suffering instead of his own. They had changed the human in him – he is not the same person as before, he is an empty shell – lost to Big Brother and the Party – as O’Brien had predicted.

'Do not imagine that you will save yourself, Winston, however completely you surrender to us. No one who has once gone astray is ever spared. And even if we chose to let you live out the natural term of your life, still you would never escape from us. What happens to you here is for ever. Understand that in advance. We shall crush you down to the point from which there is no coming back. Things will happen to you from which you could not recover, if you lived a thousand years. Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 256)

This type of torture resembles one example in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish (1977), where he mentions that “the expiation that once rained down upon the body must be replaced by a punishment that acts in depth on the heart, the thoughts, the will, the inclinations.” This kind of punishment contrasts with the public spectacles of torture and murder which happened in the past. The punishment of the criminal should now happen away from public eyes. And yet, as a means to avoid the repetition of crimes by other criminals, a new kind of punishment is created – the punishment of the soul. In this case, the person does not need to be a criminal already, but only a member of the public which a certain sovereign (be it a king, a government, a boss, higher classes etc) needs to control. For this, as what

happens inside a prison, the individual is “caught up in a system of constraints and privations, obligations and prohibitions" (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 11). According to Foucault, punishment has now become an economy of suspended rights, where the individual’s body can still be controlled and manipulated, yet now in the distance and behind a system of strict rules. This system resembles the world Winston has lived since he can remember:

A utopia of judicial reticence: take away life, but prevent the patient from feeling it; deprive the prisoner of all rights, but do not inflict pain; impose penalties free of all pain. Recourse to psycho-pharmacology and to various physiological 'disconnectors', even if it is temporary, is a logical consequence of this 'non-corporal' penality. (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 11)

Although he is caught and eventually tortured, his life as a ‘free’ man had always been an illusion. He had been living under the same conditions as the convicts of a crime inside their prison cells. His real ‘crimes’ are not important, what is important is controlling his every thought, his every breath – controlling his soul. That is what O’Brien suggests when he says: “We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The Party is not interested in the overt act: the thought is all we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 253). This citation recalls another one of Foucault’s observations, where he states that the intention of this new kind of punishment is “judging the 'soul' of the subject. Breaking the soul, not only judging the act of crime, but the individual himself. Focus on the individual's being, not on his offence. Manipulation of the mind and 'soul' of the individual” (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 18). The efficiency of The Party’s punishment system is so evident that Winston ends up empty, after being released from the Ministry of Love, hoping it be a matter of time until he is shot in the head. This fact is actually something which is never confirmed. The only confirmation is that he now loves Big Brother over everything and everyone else. It is his new truth.

1.2 Big Brother is Watching You: Freedom is Slavery

As seen in the first part of this chapter, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston speaks about a society of fear in Oceania, where the Party is constantly feeding fake news to the population

in order to control and manipulate it. The nature of those news are essentially about neverending wars, shortages of food (more specifically, chocolate rations); new found terrorists and traitors; or Goldstein and his Brotherhood. In essence, news to keep the population of Oceania at bay, in constant fear of outsiders and eternally indebted to Big Brother, the embodiment of the Party, who functions as an entity resembling a god – constantly loved and feared by his worshipers, but never once seen. Friedrich Nietzsche’s observations on the nature of religion, more specifically on Christian beliefs, in his Human, All Too Human (1878) could be used to describe the beliefs of the people living in Oceania. In the part named ‘Sorrow is Knowledge’ – where he uses a statement which already recalls some of the axioms of Winston’s world – Nietzsche states,

How willingly would not one exchange the false assertions of the homines religiosi that there is a god who commands us to be good, who is the sentinel and witness of every act, every moment, every thought, who loves us, who plans our welfare in every misfortune—how willingly would not one exchange these for truths as healing, beneficial and grateful as those delusions! But there are no such truths. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 138)

Although he despises the illusions propagated by the Christian church, he admits that Philosophy cannot claim to be the bearer of truth any more than any religion.

Philosophy can at most set up in opposition to them other metaphysical plausibilities (fundamental untruths as well). The tragedy of it all is that, although one cannot believe these dogmas of religion and metaphysics if one adopts in heart and head the potent methods of truth, one has yet become, through human evolution, so tender, susceptible, sensitive, as to stand in need of the most effective means of rest and consolation. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 138)

Thus, based on Nietzsche’s observation, the tragedy of Winston at the end of the narrative would be similar to the fate of any human being who searched for the certainty of a previously determined truth – a susceptibility to consolation which might cause hopeless feelings of emptiness: “From this state of things arises the danger that, through the perception of truth or, more accurately, seeing through delusion, one may bleed to death.” (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 138) To avoid the possibility of such a thing happening in Oceania, the Party uses methods of conditioning the individual’s physical body so he may be able, even from early on in his infancy, to follow a strict list of rules and commands, as if he or she were a machine, or specific parts of it. Foucault mentions this method as one method of punishment used in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and which is still used until today.

To begin with, there was the scale of the control: it was a question not of treating the body, en masse, ‘wholesale’, as if it were an indissociable unity, but of working it ‘retail’, individually; of exercising upon it a subtle coercion, of obtaining holds upon it at the level of the mechanism itself - movements, gestures, attitudes, rapidity: an infinitesimal power over the active body. (...)

Lastly, there is the modality: it implies an uninterrupted, constant coercion, supervising the processes of the activity rather than its result and it is exercised according to a codification that partitions as closely as possible time, space, movement. These methods, which made possible the meticulous control of the operations of the body, which assured the constant subjection of its forces and imposed upon them a relation of docility-utility, might be called 'disciplines’. (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 136)

According to Foucault, then, life in Oceania might be compared to life in prison – where everyone has to obey a determined and fixed timetable of rules, and where every step and every movement of each individual is accounted for. Winston makes this clear when he describes his routine, his neurosis with time and when he should be home, or at work, or in bed, or when the lights are out. He is never free of the Party rules, constantly fearful of the consequences of a slip in his routine. An example is the terror Winston feels while he imagines the light which the Thought Police would shine into his eyes when and where they catch him. This acts in opposition to the myth of the ‘light’ as a benign conduit through which a god would appear to his or her subject.

It was always at night -- the arrests invariably happened at night. The sudden jerk out of sleep, the rough hand shaking your shoulder, the lights glaring in your eyes, the ring of hard faces round the bed. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 19)

The humming sound and the unvarying white light induced a sort of faintness, an empty feeling inside his head. He would get up because the ache in his bones was no longer bearable, and then would sit down again almost at once because he was too dizzy to make sure of staying on his feet. Whenever his physical sensations were a little under control the terror returned. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 238)

Even in torture, he mentions light as one of the worst methods to endure – erasing his sense of time. Not only he cannot understand where he is, but he also cannot discover what time of day it is. Here, light emerges as a technique of torture and confusion.

He did not know how long he had been there; some hours at any rate; with no clocks and no daylight it was hard to gauge the time. It was a noisy, evil-smelling place. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 226)

They slapped his face, wrung his ears. pulled his hair, made him stand on one leg, refused him leave to urinate, shone glaring lights in his face until his eyes ran with water; but the aim of this was simply to humiliate him and destroy his power of arguing and reasoning. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 241)

Winston’s horror reaches its peak when he realizes O’Brien’s connection to his imprisonment and torture after noticing the nature of the enlightened room in which he is locked.

In this place, he knew instinctively, the lights would never be turned out. It was the place with no darkness: he saw now why O'Brien had seemed to recognize the allusion. In the Ministry of Love there were no windows. His cell might be at the heart of the building or against its outer wall; it might be ten floors below ground, or thirty above it. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 229)

It is ironic how ‘the place with no darkness’ should be the place where the tortures happen. Here, light emerges as a means to blind the subject to reveal to them the horror of reality, making them bleed – much like in Nietzsche’s observation mentioned earlier. Yet, in the world of Oceania, this inversion of concepts serves as another way to confuse and control its subjects – to blind them from the weaknesses of the Party and convince them that the Party is invincible.

As long as one knows very well the strength and the weakness of one's dogma, one's art, one's religion, its strength is still low. The pupil and apostle who has no eye for the weaknesses of a dogma, a religion and so on, dazzled by the aspect of the master and by his own reverence for him, has, on that very account, generally more power than the master. Without blind pupils the influence of a man and his work has never become great. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p.155)

Nevertheless, even when using similar forms of mind and body control, the Party does not permit religion or any religious thoughts in the sectors of the Inner and Outer Party. According to Winston, only the proles have this ‘luxury’, since they are not considered dangerous, but equated to animals. For them, other list of `luxuries’ are also permitted, as Winston states that,

In all questions of morals they were allowed to follow their ancestral code. The sexual puritanism of the Party was not imposed upon them. Promiscuity went unpunished, divorce was permitted. For that matter, even religious worship would have been permitted if the proles had shown any sign of needing or wanting it. They were beneath suspicion. As the Party slogan put it: 'Proles and animals are free.' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 72)

This citation also mentions another important aspect of the religious belief: Puritanism. It is one more issue criticized in Orwell’s narrative, and used by its main characters to rebel against the party.

As mentioned in the first part of this chapter, Julia believes the Party uses the hysteria created by this repressed sexual energy to manipulate its subjects. This seems to be an observation shared by Sigmund Freud, as it is mentioned in M. Keith Booker’s Dystopian Impulse in Modern Literature – Fiction as Social Criticism (1994).

whether it be through religion or other means, for Freud the powers that be in society derive most of that power through the repression of sexual desires, (...) But for both Freud and dystopian governments, sexuality functions as a central focus for repressive energies largely because it is also a potential source of powerful subversive energies. (BOOKER, 1994, p. 12)

This idea of being a source of powerful subversive energies also surfaces when Winston is wondering about the nature of the Party’s Puritanism. He believes that acting on one’s sexual desire – something strictly forbidden for Party members in Oceania – is the equivalent of a revolutionary act. To him, “the sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 68) His rebellious acts go even further when he chooses to love someone who works in the Junior Anti-Sex League – an organization which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes – and who is already a criminal in the eyes of the Party. Julia, according to Winston, is only interested in her sexuality, believing that breaking the rules without being caught is the only manner of hurting the Party. Yet, according to Winston’s point of view, her selfishness in only being interested in the doctrines which affected her personal life illustrates the selfishness of a whole generation, born under the Revolution, with no recollection of a time before it.

Life as she saw it was quite simple. You wanted a good time; 'they', meaning the Party, wanted to stop you having it; you broke the rules as best you could. She seemed to think it just as natural that 'they' should want to rob you of your pleasures as that you should want to avoid being caught. She hated the Party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. Except where it touched upon her own life she had no interest in Party doctrine. (...) He wondered vaguely how many others like her there might be in the younger generation people who had grown up in the world of the Revolution, knowing nothing else, accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 131, 132)

It seems, according to the citation, that the negative criticism on Oceania’s recent generations is very similar to the negative criticism on our society’s recent generations. Nevertheless, our society uses a different method to assert obedience through sexuality. In this case, Foucault puts it best when he suggests that

modern society seeks not to repress or even to extirpate sexuality, but instead to administer sexuality and turn sexual energies to its own advantage. In short, sexuality does not necessarily stand in direct opposition to official power and may in fact stand in direct support of it: "Pleasure and power do not cancel or turn back against one another; they seek out, overlap, and reinforce one another" (History 48). (FOUCAULT, apud. BOOKER, 1994, p. 12)

According to Foucault, in modern society, as opposed to the reality in Oceania, sexuality is encouraged through psychoanalysis, while, at the same time, trying to classify each sexual behavior as normal or ‘deviant’. This method becomes a new strategy for the manipulation of the individual behavior once it creates negative examples against which “to define proper conduct” (BOOKER, 1994, p. 13). Furthermore, a good literary example of the Foucauldian theory on sexuality appears in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), where society has banished the concept of family, where humans are reproduced in vitro through machines, and where sexuality is not only encouraged, but also devoid of the intensity of feelings. In this “brave new world”, there is no such thing as the concept of monogamy, for example, which is discouraged. In a slightly different manner, what happens in the world of Oceania is that the Party uses the energy of the repressed sexuality of its subjects to manipulate them into a frenzy in favor of its own purposes. This happens with ‘The Hate’, as well as with the Anti-Sex Junior League and the education of its children. According to Winston, sex was only legal among married members of the Party, and only with the objective of begetting children. They call it their ‘duty to the Party’. This Party ‘rule’ recalls Nietzsche’s statement about religious dogma, where he states that “the greatest sin of man is the sin of being born. In all pessimistic religions the act of procreation is looked upon as evil in itself." (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 175) In Oceania, it is not different. According to O’Brien, the Party seeks to eventually ban sex from the lives of its citizens as soon as they are able to find a suitable form of alternative procreation. Additionally, to get married in Oceania, the couple should face an interrogation and receive the approval of a committee – which is only given to couples who are clearly not attracted to each other. This happens because

the aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 65)

That is why, even though it is forbidden, casual sex with members of the proles is not seen by the Party as treason, but sometimes as “an outlet for instincts which could not be altogether suppressed.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 65) This happens because the Party believes that having sex with a member of a ‘sub-class’ is always a joyless and dull experience. Therefore, the problem for them, as Julia mentions, is happiness and joy. Those feelings are forbidden among members of the Outer Party. As a clear example, Winston mentions his marriage to Katharine – a wife he despises and wishes to kill, but with whom he has not spoken for nearly eleven years. To him, Katharine is ‘a human soundtrack’, repeating every slogan and everything pertaining to the Party, yet he confesses he could have endured life with her if it were not for the sex. According to Winston, “to embrace her was like embracing a jointed wooden image” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 67). To Katharine, the only purpose of sex is to beget children for the Party, so she endured it as such. In this case, since she was not able to produce any, she had decided to give up and disappear from Winston’s life, even though the Party would not permit divorce. In an honest moment, Winston admits he should have killed her when he had the chance. As soon as he does, Winston also confesses his initial wish to kill Julia right after seeing her for the first time.

‘I hated the sight of you,' he said. 'I wanted to rape you and then murder you afterwards. Two weeks ago I thought seriously of smashing your head in with a cobblestone. If you really want to know, I imagined that you had something to do with the Thought Police.’ (ORWELL, 1961, p. 121)

According to him, his feelings were such because he believes the Party is trying “to kill the sex instinct, or if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it,” and that “as far as women were concerned, the Party’s efforts were largely successful.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 66) He mentions explicitly that “sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 65, 66). These aspects of the Party’s view on sexuality appear to exemplify Freud’s view on the matter more than Foucault’s. In fact, Winston’s initial opinion on the problem of the Puritanism of the Party seems focused especially on women’s behavior. According to him,

women were the ones to blame for the success of the Party on instilling this type of sexual behavior in its subjects, even though it was not entirely their fault.

The women of the Party were all alike. Chastity was as deep ingrained in them as Party loyalty. By careful early conditioning, by games and cold water, by the rubbish that was dinned into them at school and in the Spies and the Youth League, by lectures, parades, songs, slogans, and martial music, the natural feeling had been driven out of them. His reason told him that there must be exceptions, but his heart did not believe it. They were all impregnable, as the Party intended that they should be. And what he wanted, more even than to be loved, was to break down that wall of virtue, even if it were only once in his whole life. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 68)

Yet, after knowing Julia, he realizes there are exceptions to this rule. So, as she tells him of the many men with whom she had slept, his love for her grows – for it is the ultimate betrayal of the Party’s idea of purity and virtue. In this case, although there seems to be constant negative criticism on women’s behavior in Orwell’s works, which is itself the cause for negative criticism by feminist writers such as Deirdre Beddoe, according to Christopher Hitchens, in his Why Orwell Matters (2002),

it would be equally acute to say that [women] (...) are incapable of happiness, or are made unhappy by men. And it would certainly be true to say that men in Orwell’s fiction are utterly incapable of happiness without women. Yes, they resent the need of women, as many men do, and as Orwell himself obviously did. Yes, they distrust the marriage bond as a ‘trap’ set by a hypocritical and acquisitive society. But to write about male-female relations in any decade and to omit these elements would have been to abandon verisimilitude. (HITCHENS, 2002, p. 90)

This statement can be exemplified by the way Winston shows his dependency on Julia for happiness – a dependency he did not have with his wife, or the prostitutes for whom he would search when feeling lonely. Also, in the manner in which he describes the woman from the proles, singing under the window of the hidden bedroom where he meets Julia, and the way in which she is the one to inspire his hope in the possibility of future freedom.

As he looked at the woman in her characteristic attitude, her thick arms reaching up for the line, her powerful mare-like buttocks protruded, it struck him for the first time that she was beautiful. (...) The mystical reverence that he felt for her was somehow mixed up with the aspect of the pale, cloudless sky, stretching away behind the chimney-pots into interminable distance. It was curious to think that the sky was the same for everybody, (...) everywhere, all over the world, hundreds of thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another's existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same -- people who had never learned to think but who were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world. If there was hope, it lay in the proles! (ORWELL, 1961, p. 219, 220)

As well as the manner in which he describes his mother and the guilt he feels for the possibility of being responsible for her disappearance.

His mother's memory tore at his heart because she had died loving him, when he was too young and selfish to love her in return, and because somehow, he did not remember how, she had sacrificed herself to a conception of loyalty that was private and unalterable. Such things, he saw, could not happen today. Today there were fear, hatred, and pain, but no dignity of emotion, no deep or complex sorrows. All this he seemed to see in the large eyes of his mother and his sister, looking up at him through the green water, hundreds of fathoms down and still sinking. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 30)

In one way or another, what Hitchens suggests is that “viewed with discrimination, Orwell’s actual prejudice turns out to be against the sexless woman, or the woman who has lost her sex and become shriveled and/or mannish.” (HITCHENS, 2002, p. 90) That is why Winston states that “a real love affair was an almost unthinkable event.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 68) With women being brainwashed into thinking sex is the enemy, to him, there is no meaning in trying to find one to end his loneliness. In any case, this changes when Julia sends him a note with the words ‘I love you’ written on it. Suddenly, his sad empty world turns into a world with meaning – even though he is constantly frightened of the Party and certain that they will get caught one day. Even so, it seems that Julia gives him the strength he needs to fight the Party he hates. One good example happens when he realizes they are both already dead, even if the Party had not gotten to them yet, Julia tries to convince him to enjoy the present moment.

'We are the dead,' he said.

'We're not dead yet,' said Julia prosaically.

'Not physically. Six months, a year -- five years, conceivably. I am afraid of death. You are young, so presumably you're more afraid of it than I am. Obviously we shall put it off as long as we can. But it makes very little difference. So long as human beings stay human, death and life are the same thing.'

'Oh, rubbish! Which would you sooner sleep with, me or a skeleton? Don't you enjoy being alive? Don't you like feeling: This is me, this is my hand, this is my leg, I'm real, I'm solid, I'm alive! Don't you like this?' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 136)

To Julia, breaking small rules is the fast way to happiness and the smart way to secretly defeat the Party. Being happy, to her, is in itself defeating the Party, since happiness is dangerous to a system that wishes to control the minds of its subjects. In a sense, Julia is a revolutionary – even though Winston accuses her of being a conformist for not believing in The Brotherhood

or being interested in Goldstein’s ‘Book’. In fact, she cannot be individually accused of this, without taking her generation into account – a generation brainwashed since its birth. And yet, even so, she rises from it as a revolutionary of the body, breaking the rules wherever she can. On one hand, if she is to be compared to Brave New World’s Lenina Crowne, for example, it may be said that Julia possesses a more rebellious spirit than the former. Lenina’s “rebellion” does not go beyond her interest in “odd” characters like Bernard Marx and John the Savage. The closer she gets to an act of rebellion is when she falls in love with the latter, even though she insists in trying to get her life back to “normal”, increasing her consumption of Soma6 according to her level of disturbance. On the other hand, based on this premise, Foucault’s earlier observation on sexuality may somehow be coherent with Winston’s thought on Julia’s lack of political interest. She is happy with her sexuality, like she mentions many times, and, as such, is satisfied with her life. Contrary to what she believes, her happiness and sexual fulfillment had not caused her to ignore the Party and its general rules – or even to avoid doing her duties and attending Hate Week – her happiness has turned her into a conformist with a rebel’s cause. While, in the case of Winston, his repressed sexuality has turned him into a fearful (almost cowardly) rebel, who wants to see the Party disappear. As Nietzsche would put it, “it is an established fact that the imagination is restrained through the regularity and adequacy of sexual intercourse while on the other hand abstention from or great irregularity in sexual intercourse will cause the imagination to run riot.” (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 174) In short, this concept is as paradoxical as the Party wants any concept in Oceania to be. In this case, based on Nietzsche’s theory, Julia would be similar to Lenina if comparing their general alienation is set against the context of the world in which they live. Actually, Julia would use sex as a political excuse, but, in the end, would only be doing it for pure pleasure and as a way to disconnect herself from the daily chores and rules of a corrupt(ive) system. In a similar manner, Lenina uses Soma for the same reason, since sex, to Lenina, does not seem to be a moment of catharsis as it is to Julia – maybe for the simple fact that, for the latter, it is forbidden. That is, Lenina needs Soma every time she starts to question herself about her deeper feelings and her need for a monogamous relationship. Meanwhile, Julia ignores all those questions simply because they are all forbidden. In other words, this thought continues to be a paradoxical one since, according to Julia, feeling individual pleasure

6 A synthesized drug with "all the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects" (42). “The universally prescribed soma helps to keep the population in a happy stupor, incapable of mounting (or even conceiving) any assault on the status quo.” (BOOKER, 1994, p. 49)

is an act of rebellion in itself, that is, even though Winston accuses her of being indifferent to the “resistance” and selfish for only thinking about herself, Julia continues to be a dissident and a revolutionary in her own way. Nevertheless, another final aspect common to religious belief, and as (or more) important as the other ones mentioned before, is the concept of “the eye that sees it all.” This concept is embedded in almost everything in Oceania – from the telescreens, “an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 2) to the Thought Police, and to the Party children, educated to spy on their own parents from an early age. In that case, Nineteen Eighty-Four is one of the best of works of literature to exemplify the theory developed in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, where he uses the idea of Jeremy Bentham’s ‘Panopticon7’ as basis for his thoughts on discipline.

Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. (...) To achieve this, it is at once too much and too little that the prisoner should be constantly observed by an inspector: too little, for what matters is that he knows himself to be observed; too much, because he has no need in fact of being so. In view of this, Bentham laid down the principle that power should be visible and unverifiable. (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 201)

According to Winston, the telescreen is an instrument analogous to what Bentham thought to be a Panopticon, only it is not a building with its grand architecture, but a small camera, able to simultaneously watch, listen and speak to the observed subject in its range of sight. Winston states that the telescreen cannot be turned off completely, only dimmed, so the words broadcasted are still distinguishable. This instrument is used by the Thought Police – a security system capable of watching and scrutinizing every thought – even when the subject is not aware of it. Winston talks about other police patrols, snooping into people’s windows in helicopters, however, the only one that really matters is the Thought Police, which acts much as the official in Bentham’s tower.

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched

7 Proposed by Jeremy Bentham as a circular building with an observation tower in the center of an open space surrounded by an outer wall. This wall would contain cells for occupants. This design would increase security by facilitating more effective surveillance. In these cells, the occupants would be clearly visible to an official residing in the tower, however, they would not be visible to each other. This would create a state of constant vigilance, since it would be impossible for one to know when he or she is being watched. (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 2015)

everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 3)

This system acts as a form of controlling the population as well as instilling fear – much like the “eye of God”, who sees and knows all. Consequently, the Thought Police acts as the hand of this “God”, which, in this case, is Big Brother. In Oceania, committing a thoughtcrime is the equivalent of committing a mortal sin. To be a thought criminal, one does not even need to be aware of it. Winston claims that even his “back can be revealing” of what he is thinking at a determined moment. Thoughtcrime is considered to be “the essential crime that contained all others in itself” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 19) and can be anything, as long as it goes against the principles of the Party or Big Brother. So, it is a matter of time before one is found guilty. As Winston puts it, “thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever. You might dodge successfully for a while, even for years, but sooner or later they were bound to get you” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 19). Their punitive system recalls one used in Europe, in the past, as Foucault describes in his Discipline and Punish, where “the entire criminal procedure, right up to the sentence, remained secret: that is to say, opaque, not only to the public but also to the accused himself” (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 35). In this punitive system, “the accused did not have the right to a lawyer, or to know the evidence, to know his accusers, the accusations towards him, the nature of the evidence against him, he could not have access to the documents of the case” (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 35). Like the magistrates of the past in Europe, the Thought Police is able to accuse anyone with any amount of “proof” they are able to produce against the subject. Also, these “proofs” do not have to be logical or even “true”, since “truth” is relative to the Party’s wishes. As a consequence, anyone might be the enemy looking for a slip in the subject’s mental paradigm, causing a constant state of paranoia. This is where the Party children are most useful. Winston states that nearly all children are horrible in his time because they are taught to be spies and turn on their parents and friends as early on in their lives as possible. To Winston, if one has children, it is only a matter of time before they turn against him or her and denounce them to the Party as traitors.

What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it. The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother -- it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All

their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children. And with good reason, for hardly a week passed in which The Times did not carry a paragraph describing how some eavesdropping little sneak -- 'child hero' was the phrase generally used -- had overheard some compromising remark and denounced its parents to the Thought Police. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 24)

In doing so, the Party destroys the old idea of family, as it does with the idea of sex, and, consequently, isolates its subjects as a means of obtaining total compliance and submissiveness. In a different way but with a similar aim, as mentioned before, Huxley demonstrates this in Brave New World with the complete annihilation of the concept of family. This new society, now based and organized in a caste system, does not know the concept of feelings or emotions, or the concept of love for a parent, a sibling, or a lover. On the contrary, since they are born (or better still, decanted from their bottles), they are brainwashed and conditioned into thinking these concepts are short of disgusting and unnatural.

The philosophy of this official opposition to the family again recalls Freud, who suggests in Civilization and Its Discontents that family attachments can run counter to the interests of society at large: "The more closely the members of a family are attached to one another, the more often do they tend to cut themselves off from others, and the more difficult it is for them to enter into the wider circle of life" (56). Huxley's World Controller Mustapha Mond indicates his agreement with this attitude: "What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group!" (27). (BOOKER, 1994, p. 55)

This method is useful to keep people inside their ranks, as mentioned by Foucault, as disciplined members of a functioning and happy society – devoid of worries and thoughts. On the other hand, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, a constant state of fear and paranoia is not too dissimilar from our modern-day “reality”, or even the past’s, as in Foucault’s account of an unfair system, where “the magistrate could accept anonymous denunciations, ‘to conceal from the accused the nature of the action, to question him with a view to catching him out, to use insinuations’ (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 35). This example mirrors what happens to Winston at the end of the narrative, when he is caught by the Thought Police and is questioned by O’Brien, who uses his cunning and charm to lead Winston into a trap, insinuating sufficient facts to convince him of his guilt. “It was O'Brien who was directing everything. (...) It was he who asked the questions and suggested the answers. He was the tormentor, he was the protector, he was the inquisitor, he was the friend.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 243, 244)

Much like O’Brien to Winston, the idea behind Big Brother is to be exactly the same: the protector, the inquisitor, the tormentor, the friend. Just like many gods in many religions, Big Brother acts as the supreme being to which everyone must bow and obey. The only exceptions to this rule are the proles. Interestingly enough, to the Party, the proles are the same as animals – harmless and powerless. Because of that, they are not watched regularly or controlled by Party slogans. According to Winston,

To keep them in control was not difficult. A few agents of the Thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous; but no attempt was made to indoctrinate them with the ideology of the Party. It was not desirable that the proles should have strong political feelings. All that was required of them was a primitive patriotism which could be appealed to whenever it was necessary to make them accept longer working-hours or shorter rations. And even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 71-72)

Once again, this quote recalls Baudrillard’s theory on the silent majorities and their incapacity to yield to any revolutionary call, since entertainment always comes in first for them. Based on this theory, it is even ironic to realize that society has gone back to a time where the (now mediatic) spectacle is the main focus of attention. Thus, if to the Party, the proles are even more gullible than the children and women, to Winston, they are the answer to his wish for a freer world. In their blind belief in the ‘Book’, Goldstein and the proles are also reminiscent of a religious dogma. The mere mention of ‘The Book’ – a book supposedly written by Goldstein, where he reveals his revolutionary dogmas and which, supposedly, is passed on from rebel to rebel in a secretive manner – is enough to inspire in him a sense of awe, which even causes him to undermine Julia. This ‘Book’ is a myth – as is Big Brother and Goldstein – and yet, Winston falls for it, realizing the dimension of his blind faith only when it is too late. Based on Freud’s theory, where “the need for religious belief arises directly from the infant's sense of helplessness and longing for a strong and protective father figure, but it is also this longing that endows totalitarian leaders like Hitler and Stalin with a sort of erotic fascination” (apud BOOKER, 1994, p. 11); it is easy to understand why the Party would choose to abolish religion, and yet use its tactics to instill discipline and order. According to M. Keith Booker, this is common in dystopian fiction, as well as in totalitarian governments of modern reality, where they

depend on precisely the sort of mass-delusion that Freud associates with religion as an attempt to gain a "protection against suffering through a delusional remoulding of reality" (...) Freud attributes to religion precisely the sort of monologic demand for conformity that typically informs dystopian regimes." (BOOKER, 1994, p. 11)

This demand for conformity, according to Nietzsche, is not only caused by religion, but can also be caused by art in a

strive to effect an alteration of the feeling, partly by an alteration of our judgment respecting the experience (...) partly by the awakening of a joy in pain, in emotion especially (...). The more one is disposed to interpret away and justify, the less likely he is to look directly at the causes of evil and eliminate them. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 137)

In other words, Nietzsche believes that without this numbness of character, which is caused by religious feelings or “narcotic arts”, it is not possible to rule over people, once that, without it, they will eventually search for the cause of their pain and seek to abolish it. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 137) One of the best examples to illustrate Nietzsche’s theory is given by Huxley in his Brave New World’s ultra-capitalist society, where hedonism and entertainment are always put in the first place over anything with the power to take “happiness” away from its citizens. Sexual games, music, literature and art – all forged specifically to capture their senses and numb their feelings – are employed with a single objective: to prevent intensity which would, consequently, create strong connections between people which might divert them from “productive” activities and consumption.

popular culture is an important element in this program, as a massive Adornian Culture Industry bombards the populace with a constant stream of mind-numbing stimuli not only for the senses of sight and sound, but of touch and smell as well. This industry is administered by various "Bureaux of Propaganda," whose techniques are developed in a "College of Emotional Engineering." The products of this culture industry are devoid of any real content that might lead to analysis or thought. Books are almost nonexistent, because reading is a largely individual activity that is difficult to control and because books take too long to read, creating the danger of an extended exposure that might lead to thought (...) (BOOKER, 1994, p. 58)

This method also recalls O’Brien’s discourse in Nineteen Eighty-Four, when he tells Winston that there is no use in putting his faith on the proles; as well as Baudrillard’s modern theory when he says that

now, in fact, the masses have no history to write, neither past nor future, they have no virtual energies to release, nor any desire to fulfill: their strength is actual, in the

present, and sufficient unto itself. It consists in their silence, in their capacity to absorb and neutralise, already superior to any power acting upon them. It is a specific inertial strength, whose effectivity differs from that of all those schemas of production, radiation and expansion according to which our imaginary functions, even in its wish to destroy those same schemas. (BAUDRILLARD, 1983, p. 2-3)

Thus, Winston ends up convinced of his inability to change the future and the inherent invincibility of the Party.

1.3 Reality Control: Ignorance is Strength

In Winston’s world, one of the main forms of obtaining control over the population is through language – in this case, through the destruction of language for the creation of a new one, called Newspeak. The main objective of the creation of Newspeak is to diminish the English vocabulary to a point where individuals are prevented from thinking due to the lack of words necessary to form deep thoughts or create complex concepts. With this technique, the Party believes that it will have complete and total control over people’s thoughts and will eventually banish thoughtcrime. To the Party, as it is to Nietzsche, in the Genealogy of Morals (1897), “the right of masters to confer names goes so far that we might venture to regard the origin of language itself as a manifestation of power on the part of rulers. (...) They seal everything and every happening with a sound, and by this act take it, as it were, into possession.” (NIETZSCHE, 1897, p. 20) By appropriating words from the English vocabulary, mangling, destroying, and/or tampering with them, and then setting them off into the world of Oceania, the Party is able to tame the language to suit its own agenda. Not to mention the introduction of new paradoxical concepts through the invention of composite words, which contain two opposite ideas, designed to confuse the minds of its subjects and to turn them into programmable machines. According to Douglas Kellner, Baudrillard’s theory on the influence of the media on the “masses” works in a similar manner – but now through technology – by turning them into a society of simulations, which

comes to control an individual's range of responses and options for choice and behavior. As opposed to previous determinist social theories, as well as conspiracy theories which postulate individuals or groups manipulating the public for certain

ends, Baudrillard’s model appears to be radically indeterminist, and offers a new model of social control in which codes and programming become the principle of social organization, and individuals are forced to respond to pre-coded messages and models in the realm of economics, politics, culture and everyday life (SIM, pp. 111ff.). Although one is allowed a range of choices - indeed such choice is constantly demanded – the options are predetermined and pre-coded (SIM, p. 117). (KELLNER, 1989, p. 81)

In this case, to Baudrillard, in opposition to Orwell’s theory and other conspiracy theories, it is the code and programming in itself which ‘control’ the masses. This may be different from Winston’s theory about the Party as an individual entity which controls Oceania and must be defeated, and yet it is very similar to O’Brien’s theory about the Party as an unstoppable collective force, beyond any individual identity. Thus, to achieve complete control of its subjects, the Party makes use of a method of predetermined and pre-coded messages packed into a new language, which distorts meaning and diminishes its scope. According to Orwell, in his essay entitled Politics and the English Language, in 1945, that is the sole reason of political language: “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (ORWELL, 1946) The nature of Newspeak, as a clear example of what Orwell meant with the former citation, is firstly introduced when Winston is speaking to one of his comrades, Syme, a specialist in Newspeak and one of the people responsible for the compilation of the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, which is supposed to be the definitive edition. According to Syme, they are close to their final objective, which is to have a language so perfect that no one will speak anything else. Instead of creating words, their objective is to destroy them until there is only the few necessary for instant communication of the basics, and no room for the expression of thoughts beyond the ones that the Party allows.

'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take "good", for instance. If you have a word like "good", what need is there for a word like "bad"? "Ungood" will do just as well -- better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of "good", what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like "excellent" and "splendid" and all the rest of them? "Plusgood" covers the meaning, or "doubleplusgood" if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words -- in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? (ORWELL, 1961, p. 51, 52)

This idea of the significance behind the words “good” and “bad” may be traced to one common observation in Nietzsche’s works, where he infers that our conception of “good” and “bad” is different from the conception of “good” and “bad” of other ancient societies. He explains that “good”, meaning unselfish and humble, as the quality inherent to a human being is false in its premise that every human being is born with these qualities. The very idea of “good” relating to the ideas of unselfishness or humility as the opposite of “bad”, which is related to selfishness or arrogance, is, to Nietzsche, a false concept in itself, since he believes that language is an illusion, an open source of relativity.

Logic itself rests upon assumptions to which nothing in the world of reality corresponds. For example, the correspondence of certain things to one another and the identity of those things at different periods of time are assumptions pure and simple, but the science of logic originated in the positive belief that they were not assumptions at all but established facts. (NIETZSCHE, 1908, p. 30, 31)

Based on this premise, what Syme is doing is simply relocating the meaning of words. By destroying them, and simplifying the vocabulary, he believes he is narrowing down the margin of thought, simplifying it to its core, where there is no vagueness left. Winston, of course, does not share his enthusiasm and, unwillingly, lets it show – which in itself could be seen as an act of thoughtcrime. Syme sees it, and yet, instead of making an accusation, he tries to convince Winston of the beauty of Newspeak, after realizing Smith’s preference to Oldspeak and all its “vagueness and its useless shades of meaning.” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 52)

‘Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. (...) Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 52, 53)

To Syme, the future is brighter with less words and less conflict caused by the lack of words to instill it. Yet, to Winston, this thought is terrorizing and he, once again, shows his hope in the proles, even without using the exact words to express it. Syme is keen to understand the meaning of his silence. “The proles are not human beings,” he states, as he goes on to

‘predict’ the future by saying the whole literature of the past will be destroyed and will only exist in its Newspeak versions, existing not merely in this new language, but in something contradictory to what it used to be. All knowledge of Oldspeak would disappear, and even the literature of the Party would change.

How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking -- not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.' (ORWELL, 1961, p. 53)

Syme’s argument not only echoes what Baudrillard has been pointing out about the “masses” and its eternal “unconscious” state, but also clashes with Helmholtz Watson’s discourse in Brave New World, when he complains about the empty nature of words to Bernard Marx, arguing that there must be meaning beyond sheer beauty. This goes against what the Party and the World Commanders have in mind to instill conformity. In fact, what Winston realizes mirrors what Orwell realizes about the political language of his time, when he mentions, in his essay “Politics and the English Language”, that many political words are abused, with each having “several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.” (ORWELL, 1946) Orwell’s thought also mirrors Nietzsche’s in the sense that they both realize that language is the means to power and the weapon of the powerful, who manipulates it to their own purposes, with the aim to defend themselves against the indefensible. Orwell admits that “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question- begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” (ORWELL, 1946) In doing so, political parties are able to defend themselves of their committed atrocities which go against their professed aims, or they are able to convince people to comply with a supposedly necessary violent operation or a new war. This is a technique still broadly used today, as mentioned before in the first part of this first chapter.

Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. (ORWELL, 1946)

This is exactly what the Party does when using the concept of doublethink, which is, as Winston recalls it in Oldspeak, the same as ‘reality control’ – even though its concept goes beyond its simple meaning. Essentially, doublethink consists in saying a word, and believing it to be its opposite if the Party wills it to be. It is the concept of the creation of words which infer paradoxical notions. An example is blackwhite – which is the concept of saying something is black when, in reality, it is white. Not only that, but actually believing and knowing it to be white.

The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 212)

This notion that every word has two mutually contradictory meanings recalls the technique mentioned in the first part of this first chapter, where Nazi leaders and the US Army would accuse their enemies of using deliberate lies as truths to manipulate its citizens against them, while not admitting they use the same techniques against their enemies. The importance of language to the propagation of conformity in a certain population is a well-spread aspect in many dystopias of Orwell’s time, as well as nowadays. As mentioned before, Brave New World is an example, as well as Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953). In the latter case, the problem with language is represented by the prohibition of books and the subsequent burning of every last copy of them – in an obvious allusion to the Nazi book burning’s during the Second World War. According to Booker, "such theoretical studies of language are highly relevant to dystopian fiction; most of them in one way or another indicate that the kind of language we use powerfully impacts the way we think, and indeed the way we are." (BOOKER, 1994, p. 81). To further this statement, he also mentions the Whorf or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, which argues that “the language we use powerfully influences the way we perceive reality” and that “the ‘real world’ is largely a linguistic construct.” (BOOKER, 1994, p. 81) Similarly to what Orwell believes, Sapir argues that our language habits dictate how we interpret reality. Based on this observation, Booker also mentions Myra Barnes’ argumentation that “all dystopian

languages technically belong to Whorf8,” since they are all based in a concept of reality control – much like the concept behind doublethink. So, in the case of the Party, language is paradoxical even when its concepts are explained in Oldspeak. Its slogans – War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength – inherently convey opposite ideas in themselves, already preparing the minds of the people to accept the concept of doublethink. Furthermore, it is through the use of doublethink that the Party will obtain total control over the minds of its subjects, using language as a means to easily erase their recent memory. One of the most alarming examples of this technique in Nineteen Eighty-Four is when Winston speaks about the news on chocolate rations:

Bad news coming, thought Winston. And sure enough, following on a gory description of the annihilation of a Eurasian army, with stupendous figures of killed and prisoners, came the announcement that, as from next week, the chocolate ration would be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 26)

And the way they manipulate people into thinking it is always good news.

For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. Parsons swallowed it easily, with the stupidity of an animal. The eyeless creature at the other table swallowed it fanatically, passionately, with a furious desire to track down, denounce, and vaporize anyone who should suggest that last week the ration had been thirty grammes. Syme, too – in some more complex way, involving doublethink, Syme swallowed it. Was he, then, alone in the possession of a memory? (ORWELL, 1961, p. 58, 59)

Yet, although Winston is abhorred with the Party’s shameless inventions and tendency to transform every bad news into good ones, even he falls prey to the Party trap, when he tells Julia that he prefers a positive to a negative, when they are talking about Katharine.

‘Why didn’t you give her a good shove?’ said Julia. ‘I would have.’

‘Yes, dear, you would have. I would, if I’d been the same person then as I am now. Or perhaps I would — I’m not certain.’

‘Are you sorry you didn’t?’

‘Yes. On the whole I’m sorry I didn’t.’ (...)

8 BOOKER, 1994, p. 81

‘Actually it would have made no difference,’ he said.

‘Then why are you sorry you didn’t do it?’

‘Only because I prefer a positive to a negative. In this game that we’re playing, we can’t win. Some kinds of failure are better than other kinds, that’s all.’ (ORWELL, 1961, p. 135)

Unwillingly, he mirrors what the Party instilled inside his mind, which is always to prefer a positive to a negative affirmation, since negative thoughts, as Nietzsche puts it, may awake uncomfortable feelings, which may instigate a search for the origin of the evil of these feelings and consequently its destruction. Unfortunately for Winston, his job and his age allow him to be one of the few people who are still confronted with the uncomfortable philosophical idea of paradox. With his direct access to both languages and the nature of his job – which is to erase the past news and rewrite them so they can fit into the Party’s new paradigm – it is even harder to agree with total compliance. Maybe if he had worked somewhere else, or if his job had been a different one, then he would not have chosen to rebel against Big Brother, or even met Julia, who, even though working with language and fiction – in Pornosec, a department engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography meant exclusively for the proles – considers herself ‘not literary’ and finds her job ‘boring’. Winston’s desperation and hope in finding a similar mind finds temporary relief in the form of O’Brien, a co-worker of whom Winston suspects, and at the same time to whom he is extremely drawn. When they finally speak, O’Brien tells him everything he wants and needs to hear about the Party, Goldstein, the Brotherhood, and the Book. Consequently, Winston instantly believes that the Revolution is real and proceeds to read the Book as a Christian would read the bible. Even though he suspects O’Brien, Winton’s eagerness to believe in every word his co-worker says is bigger than the suspicion itself, which will finally leads to Winston’s capture and the discovery of O’Brien’s real identity. At this point, Winston finally realizes that he has no escape from the Party. When O’Brien tells him that he helped in writing the Book and that Goldstein is a myth that will live forever, to be dealt with and defeated repeatedly, generation after generation, and that the proles will never revolt9, Winston’s first reaction is denial, yet, gradually, his mind cracks under the brutality of the Party’s power over the truth of his reality. He finally understands that the Party is (and has always been) inside every aspect of his life – embedded in his

9 A similar destiny to Neo’s in the Wachowskis’ movie sequence, The Matrix: Reloaded (2003).

thoughts since he was a child, learning to choose words with which to express himself, much like the predetermined and pre-coded messages and models theorized by Baudrillard, where “everything in the system is subject to cybernetic control, and that what appears to be oppositional outside, or threatening to the system are really functional parts of a society of simulations, mere 'alibis' which only further enhance social control (apud KELLNER, 1989, p. 81). In realizing this, he accepts that, as O’Brien tells him, he is “the last man” because he had been lucky, in a way, to know a time when there was no Party or Big Brother. Winston’s agony mirrors the agony of a generation which would soon be forgotten – completely erased from the annals of History. When he dies, he will not only die, but will disappear from the Party’s reality as if he had never been born in the first place. He will be vaporized, vanished from the Earth – any proof of his existence will be completely erased and destroyed. He will become an unperson10. Based on this observation, it is natural to wonder if Winston’s narrative is indeed worthy of trust. Maybe Orwell’s message in this narrative is not only to criticize political regimes, but to criticize the thought system of a whole generation – doomed to repeat itself in the oncoming years – through the use of the same language manipulation against which he preached, where truths are far from fixed, but closer to mere perspectives. One may wonder about this possibility when reading the Appendix at the end of the book, where the basic principles of Newspeak are explained in detail. It is interesting to notice that, right at the beginning of the narrative, in page 4, Orwell puts an asterisk next to the word Newspeak – at the first time it appears. This would lead the careful reader to stop following Winston’s story and jump to the end of the book, where one would read about the principles of Newspeak. As one does so, one would soon realize the sudden change in verb tenses, as if this Appendix had been written in the future, after Winston’s narrative. Of course, this would only be perceived after the reader had finished reading this part and gone back to Winston’s narrative, since only after that, the reader would have understood the nature of the story. However, in doing so, the reader may infer that, in the time where the Appendix was written, contrary to what Syme had predicted, Newspeak was a dead language, and English (or Oldspeak) was back in vogue. This is a very important aspect to ponder and one which cannot be ignored.

10 Much like what happened to Nikolai Yezhov in the Stalinist Russia, when after being a secret police official and the head of NKVD (People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) for four years under Joseph Stalin, was arrested, tortured and executed by the same government for which he worked. After his death, he was erased from History (and photographs where he appeared by Stalin’s side) and became a famous case of a political unperson. (HOOVER INSTITUTION, STANFORD UNIVERSITY. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015).

According to Larry Caldwell, mentioned by Thomas Moylan in his Scraps of Untainted Sky (2000), “the appendix functions as ‘a kind of ironic anti-closure’ to the story, wherein the ‘temporal ambivalence of the verbs and of the adverbial locutions expressly confounds the Party's ‘forever’ and destabilizes its closed narrative." (apud MOYLAN, 2000, p. 163) In this case, the Appendix functions as another example of the duplicity of Winston’s narrative, since his report cannot be clearly verified. Now, if throughout the narrative, Winston complains about the absurdity of the idea behind the possibility of an erased past, while fighting O’Brien and the Party until the end to try to prove that he is right – that the past cannot be erased, that it exists somewhere – and yet, realizing that not only it can be erased, but it is being erased while he speaks, how can one know if Winston’s report is real? How can one be sure that what he recalls in this narrative is the ‘real’ past? What if Winston’s past is one invented by the Party? Or how can one be sure that Winston is ‘real’ and his narrative is nothing but another one of O’Brien and the Party’s ploy to deceive and control? If every time Winston recalls a moment from his past, where he is with his mother and sister, he wonders if what he remembers is real or not, how is his report in this narrative different from his other memories of the past? What is the truth? What is real? Winston’s truth or a different one, to which the reader cannot have access? Or is it still the truth of the Party? Or is it the truth of the person who has written the Appendix? If Nietzsche’s perspectivism is taken into consideration, every one of these possibilities is ‘real’, has the same value and is equally acceptable as truths. However, if all of them have the same value, then what really happened to Winston? Did this narrative really happen or was it all in his mind – only a fragment of his imagination, a ‘false memory’, as he would put it after having another dream about his mother?11 Certainly, this possibility may be inferred after reading about Winston’s life after the tortures in ‘Room 101’, when, while in the Chestnut Tree Café, his mind is flooded by a series of memories, which appear to be so real that neither he nor the reader knows for sure. These questions, once again, call to mind the theories of perspectivism in Paul Virilio’s The Vision Machine (1994). According to him, the relativity of truth and the problem of perspective are aspects being amplified by technology. Through the eye of a camera, the perspective of truth ceases to be organic and becomes virtual – now going beyond the power of words and into unknown territory. At the end of his book, Virilio illustrates this thought by using a fable based on the calculator pen – a pen equipped with an optical system which reads

11 ORWELL, 1961, p. 296.

the numbers written in the paper in front of it, while the electronic component does the sum automatically.

The fable concerns what my pen, a blind pen this time, will write down for you, the reader, as the final words of this book. Imagine for a moment that to write the book I have borrowed technology's state-of-the-art pen: the reader pen. What do you think will come up on the screen, abuse or praise? Only, have you ever heard of a writer who writes for his pen... ? (VIRILIO, 1994, p. 76)

If taken into consideration, this citation, once again, generates the question: then, what is this truth? In Nineteen Eighty-Four, specifically, the truth is the truth of the Party. At least if it is agreed that Winston’s report is minimally reliable. After all, Winston clearly states, throughout the narrative, that the truth is whatever the Party wills it to be at any determined moment. While, in the case of our “reality”, in the punitive system used in Europe in the past, according to Foucault (1977), the truth used to be a matter decided by the sovereign and his judges, and no one else could interfere. “Before the justice of the sovereign, all voices must be still” (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 35). Although officially gone in European countries, this type of punitive system can still be found in some other ones - particularly in places like North Korea, Thailand, or Egypt, where the voice of the sovereign must be heard in fear of brutal retaliation. In any of those cases, truth is a tricky concept, about which even Nietzsche had trouble pinpointing. Throughout his later work (right up to his unpublished notes on truth in Truth and Lie in the Extra-Moral Sense (1873), Nietzsche’s thoughts on truth were based on his theory of perspectivism – that is, that the ‘truth’ is dependent on one’s perspective. If this is the case, then the truth of the Party becomes the truth of O’Brien and Winston as soon as it is laid down for them to follow. At first, the Party’s truth is all Winston knows. This lasts until he decides to buy a diary in “a little junk-shop in a slummy quarter of the town” (ORWELL, 1961, p. 6). The minute that he has this book in his hands, he feels like a criminal. He explicitly reveals that he felt guilty carrying it around in his suitcase, even with nothing written on it. Later, when he finally decides to open and write on it, he discovers what he believes to be his own truth. “Down with Big Brother,” he writes several times, in capital letters, unconscious of his dissatisfaction with the Party’s version of the truth he now discredits. It is then that Winston’s truth is born as a different, but equally comparable, version of the ‘Truth.’

The problem is that his truth is a one man’s truth against the truth of a whole system and its collectiveness. This fact alone tends to overcome the comparability between both truths, discrediting one of them as the truth of a minority of one, or, as Winston himself refers to it, as the truth of a lunatic.

He wondered, as he had many times wondered before, whether he himself was a lunatic. Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one. At one time it had been a sign of madness to believe that the earth goes round the sun; today, to believe that the past is inalterable. He might be alone in holding that belief, and if alone, then a lunatic. But the thought of being a lunatic did not greatly trouble him: the horror was that he might also be wrong. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 80)

As seen in the citation above, Winston is terrified of being ‘wrong’, and constantly argues with himself and with the beliefs forced upon him by the Party during his life. Throughout the narrative, though, he becomes increasingly sure that he is ‘right’ and that the Party’s truth is, in fact, ‘untruths’. This happens mostly after O’Brien’s manipulation, which employs Goldstein and his Brotherhood as means to lure Winston and Julia into thoughtcrime. After that, Winston accepts his role as one of the carriers of ‘the real truth’ as soon as he reads ‘The Book’. Once he realizes he is not alone with his thoughts, he embraces the courage to fight for his own truth against the ‘untruths’ of the Party.

after reading it he knew better than before that he was not mad. Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 217)

However, at the end of the narrative, when he is being tortured by O’Brien in ‘Room 101’, Winston finally realizes there is no real truth, only versions of it. This fact and O’Brien’s discourse on the ‘reality’ of truth makes him doubt his own beliefs and consequently give in to O’Brien’s and the Party’s truth again.

You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. (ORWELL, 1961, p. 249)

According to O’Brien, the only ‘real’ truth is the truth of the Party because it is a ‘collective’ and ‘immortal’ truth, and not the truth of the individual, which can be mistaken and perish. As he mocks the ones who, like Winston, believe that the truth is something external and that it exists somewhere only ‘enlightened’ people can see, he echoes some of the philosophers who reject the theory of a fixed and externalized truth, as Nietzsche once believed to be the real truth. Yet, according to Maudemarie Clark’s essay on Nietzsche, Nietzsche on Truth & Philosophy (1990), even he changed his mind in his later works and joined his colleagues, when he adopted perspectivism as his theory on truth, claiming that it is not possible for any ‘truth’ to be correlated to a fixed and externalized truth, since human beings do not and cannot have access to the truth of the thing-in-itself, as Immanuel Kant believes, but only interpret what one perceives of this supposed truth. Then, if this is the case, there is no real truth, only versions of it through the perspective of each individual or group of individuals or system, and ‘reality’ and its ‘rules’ are usually dictated by the beliefs of the silent majorities. Hence, the truth of the sovereign and his judges, who, at their time, had (and, in some cases, still have) the power of dictating reality to their subjects. That is the truth Winston hopes may be demolished in the future, and believes to have been different in the past:

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone -- to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink -- greetings! (ORWELL, 1961, p. 28)

With this quote, Orwell seems almost to be sending a message to his readers, not from Winston, but from himself to an age that he fears will come soon. Unlike Nietzsche and the postmodernists, Orwell still believes in a definitive truth outside the ‘versions’ told by the media and the rulers of a determined country. To him, the Nazi method of denying the existence of ‘truth’ in order to have complete control over the future and the past is terrifying and a real threat to the freedom of humanity12. His solution is to keep on believing in the power of ‘real truth’ and trying to express it in spite of those who do not want it to be spoken.

Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday's weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing,

12 George Orwell, Looking back on the Spanish War. London, 1943.

as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can't violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. (ORWELL, 1943)

2 V FOR VOLITION: FEAR AND DECEPTION IN V FOR VENDETTA

One who knows too much eventually goes insane. Delirium, Neil Gaiman

2.1 The Silent Majorities: Europe After the Reign

Like Nineteen Eighty-Four, V for Vendetta shows a typically dystopian society, where fear is in control of people’s minds, turning them into easily manipulated puppets. Much like Orwell’s world, Alan Moore’s land basically consists of London, England, although it is clear that the whole world has been affected by a nuclear war. The difference between the two narratives, though, is that Moore’s London bears more resemblance with the 1980’s London where Moore lived (even though the story is placed in the 1990’s) than Orwell’s London, which was written to resemble a city living by the sign of a more austere future. In the case of V for Vendetta’s movie version, written and adapted by the Wachowskis, London resembles the city in 2005 (when the movie was released), even though the story is reset to happen in 2020. In any case, Alan Moore’s London is a city living in post-nuclear war time, when the rest of the world is almost entirely destroyed. Being the only one practically left intact, London ends up in the hands of a fascist party, Norsefire, which claims to have helped it during the post-war chaos phase. This Party is divided in sectors, where its leader, Adam Susan is in charge of the ‘head’, and of Fate – a supercomputer responsible for the decisions of the government’s system. In the movie version, though, Adam Susan is Adam Sutler13 - a typical authoritarian figure ahead of his subordinates. He is not only the leader, he is the “high chancellor” – an insignia bearing the same irony used by the Nazi leaders in the Second World War – and he is the sole responsible for England’s fate, since the real ‘Fate’ is not present in this version of the narrative. Therefore, Sutler resembles a fascist leader – the classical anti-hero, unilateral and stereotyped bestowed with a single side: evil. Viewers do not perceive him as a complete

13 The name change in the film was done to resemble Adolph Hitler’s.

human being living a casual life, they can only perceive him as the symbol of a fascist Party. Compared to Adam Susan, Sutler is a shallow character. Susan, on the other hand, has layers to his personality. The reader is set to follow his thoughts, understand his feelings, and even sympathize with him as one would do when experiencing another’s deeper human side. Even though he is still a fascist, he has a softer side which is only shown to the reader. This is an important feature intended by Alan Moore: to present both sides of the story as impartially as possible, avoiding the influence on the reader’s interpretation in favor of either Fascism or Anarchy. According to him14, the goal is to show the advantages and disadvantages of the situations created in the narrative, as well as letting the reader choose his/her right side. In any case, even though Moore believes in the capacity of the reader to choose well, he also fears that society is not ready to accept the responsibility for their own lives now that it has been conditioned into obedience for so many years.

(...) if we were to take out all the leaders tomorrow, and put them up against a wall and shoot them (...), society would probably collapse, because the majority of people have had thousands of years of being conditioned to depend upon leadership from a source outside themselves. That has become a crutch to an awful lot of people, and if you were to simply kick it away, then those people would simply fall over and take society with them. (MOORE, 2007)

This is one of the most important issues in the graphic novel, which mirrors Orwell’s – the ‘chain of obedience’15. Directly opposed to ‘the chain of command’, the expression ‘chain of obedience’ is used regularly by today’s hacktivists16 throughout the web in order to characterize a society of ‘conformers’, which, according to them, are the real evil behind the system. The meaning of this expression is directly based on the notion that society’s sense of obedience comes from a pre-condition brought about by the rise of a hierarchical system, where each one has its predefined role and place, and follows the commands of the person placed directly above them. This kind of behavior is particularly common in places like the army or in prisons, and is mentioned by Foucault in Discipline and Punish, especially in his chapter about discipline.

14 Alan Moore mentions his intentions on depicting the fascist characters in a series of short videos filmed for a BBC’s show named ‘Comics Britannia’ (2007). 15 This expression is often seen in political and anarchist blogs throughout the Internet, especially linking to a short video on YouTube, which is narrated by an anonymous person over a series of dystopian movie images. Yet, I have found one site, which tries to explain the concept: ‘http://fractalenlightenment.com/32187/issues/breaking-the-chain-of-obedience’ 16 A hacker who is also a political activist, using his computer knowledge to promote hers or his political agenda mostly by subversive means. (OXFORD DICTIONARY)

In discipline, the elements are interchangeable, since each is defined by the place it occupies in a series, and by the gap that separates it from the others. The unit is, therefore, neither the territory (unit of domination), nor the place (unit of residence), but the rank: the place one occupies in a classification, the point at which a line and a column intersect, the interval in a series of intervals that one may traverse one after the other. Discipline is an art of rank, a technique for the transformation of arrangements. It individualizes bodies by a location that does not give them a fixed position, but distributes them and circulates them in a network of relations. (FOUCAULT, 1977, p. 145)

As Foucault explains in this quote, this is the way society has been functioning for a long time, especially after the Industrial Revolution. Based on this idea, it is not difficult to imagine society’s reaction to rebels and/or differences of general opinion, when their claims are generally met with negative criticism and, sometimes, outrage. Nonetheless, mentioning this subject without recalling Stanley Milgram’s17 experiment would be omissive – especially when analyzing its conclusions and consequences. Milgram’s experiment on obedience “measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.” (WIKIPEDIA) Milgram’s findings were astounding and perplexing, when concluding that sixty-five percent of the experiment participants, in his first set of experiments, agreed to administer the final 450-volt shock in a test when they are told to shock another person when their answer to a determined question is incorrect. Even though the other person is an actor and the shocks are not real, the participants administering the shocks were not aware of it. In this case, despite its controversial and highly debatable methods, Milgram’s experiment18 continues to shed a light on human psychology and the power of authority. As he summarizes in his article “The Perils of Obedience”,

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when

17An American social psychologist, best known for his controversial experiment on obedience conducted in the 1960s during his professorship at Yale. Milgram was influenced by the events of the Holocaust, specifically the trial of Adolf Eichmann, in developing this experiment. (GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2001) 18 Milgram’s experiment can be watched in a video released by Wesleyan University on Social Psychology at www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3SC2Rq_V8

the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. (MILGRAM, 1974)

Thus, it seems natural to infer that the concept of a ‘chain of command’ is nothing but a psychological device built to turn people into docile bodies, ready to take the path of least resistance, which, in the case of these dystopian societies, is connivance. Therefore, hacktivists argue that causing even a small fracture in this illusion would naturally render the ineffectiveness of this ‘chain of command’. As a consequence, according to Alan Moore’s theory, a natural state of chaos would be established, since society does not appear to know how to deal with the lack of authority figures.

Picture 1 – Delia Surridge on Stanley Milgram’s experiment (continue)

Picture 1 – Delia Surridge on Stanley Milgram’s experiment (conclusion)

Subtitle: Milgram’s experiment mentioned by Delia Surridge in V for Vendetta, as she is talking to V, after knowing she will soon die in his hands. Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 75.

Even after sharing his pessimist approach on the future, Moore still chooses to believe in the power of the anarchist thought and in the massive education of people’s minds in order to achieve a definitive change in the current paradigm.

In order for any workable and realistic state of anarchy to be achieved, you will obviously have to educate people—and educate them massively—towards a state where they could actually take responsibility for their own actions and simultaneously be aware that they are acting in a wider group: that they must allow other people within that group to take responsibility for their own actions. Which on a small scale, as it works in families or in groups of friends, doesn’t seem to be that implausible, but it would take an awful lot of education to get people to think about living their lives in that way. And obviously, no government, no state, is ever going to educate people to the point where the state itself would become irrelevant. So if people are going to be educated to the point where they can take responsibility for their own laws and their own actions and become, to my mind, fully actualized human beings, then it will have to come from some source other than the state or government. (MOORE, 2007)

Similarly, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley also believed in humanity’s ability to survive the worst possible scenario, as mentioned by George Woodcock in Five Who Fear the Future (1956) (apud MOYLAN, 2000), where he states that

they hold to the conviction that the individual is a "hero" who can stand tragically against the "over-development of social and political organization" (...). Although they acknowledge defeat in the present, they also look beyond it to the possibility of an eventual triumph for humanity. Their bleak vision, therefore, is "not

necessarily a measure of their despair" but "rather a measure of their hatred of unfreedom and their anxiety for the perpetuation of freedom itself and its attendant values." (MOYLAN, 2000, p. 124)

Yet, on the other hand, Moore’s cynical beliefs towards modern society seem to invoke part of Baudrillard’s theories. In this case, Alan Moore chooses to entrust his vision to the main character of his story, V, an unfortunate dissident who, despite showing some similarities to Orwell’s Winston Smith, is, however, very different in personality. After suffering for years at the hands of a government he despises, V learns that nothing is more important than his integrity, his real freedom. To him, being free is more than being “happy”, and he passes this on to Evey Hammond, his protegé, as she goes through the same “rite of passage” into a new reality19. On the other hand, Winston is tortured into surrendering to IngSoc and loving Big Brother. This never happens to V, in spite of years of torture and being subjected to painful experiments – merely because he learns not to be afraid of death. He believes that when one faces her or his own death, after losing everything else, there is nothing left with which to threaten them and, at that moment, the power of authority disappears. This is exactly when he becomes a symbol, a ‘savior’ to society – a somehow perverted Jesus Christ figure, chosen to lead them into a new system. And Evey functions as his successor – figuratively, his ‘second coming’ – after he is killed by Eric Finch. This conclusion is foreseen in a scene, where he is explaining to Evey about the nature of Anarchy vs. Chaos.

Picture 2 – V reciting W. B. Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 198.

19 MOORE, LLOYD. V for Vendetta. Book 2, chapter 13, p. 7 (1988)

When V chooses W. B. Yeats’ The Second Coming to explain the nature of chaos, he uses Yeats’ words and the Christian symbolism behind his poem20 to let Evey know what will happen after he is dead. In the graphic novel, through the use of subtext, V explains that, from the chaos he has created will arise a new order, led by his second coming, in this case, Evey, who will follow his steps, hiding behind the same mask and also taking up a protegé of her own – Dominic.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? (YEATS, 1919)

Although here he defines himself as Jesus, in many other situations, he accepts his fate as a figurative Lucifer, showing off the dubious side of the concept of embodiment of a general idea – an idea which represents all ideas in one. A vector. A vortex. Now, chaos. Tomorrow, order. Now, Verwirrung. Tomorrow, Ordnung21. And so it goes, indefinitely – resembling the historical gyre mentioned by Yeats in his poem, moving in cyclical phases, alternating between one state and another. This idea of V’s multifaceted persona seem to recall the Jungian archetypes, including among them ‘god’, the ‘devil’, the ‘father’, the ‘wise old man’, the ‘hero’, the ‘animal’, the ‘trickster’, the ‘shadow’, and the ‘anima’/‘animus’ – all in one character. While Evey seems

20 Yeats wrote this poem right after World War I, when his apocalyptic feelings towards humanity were at their peak. 21 Verwirrung and Ordnung are German words for disorder and order, respectively. V explains to Evey the concepts behind these words in Book 3, chapter 2, p. 16

to invoke others as the ‘child’ and the ‘maiden’, but yet, is transformed into the ‘mother’, the ‘shadow’ and the ‘anima/animus’ by the end of the narrative22. Therefore, for this transformation to be possible, Evey needs to comply to V, even though their beliefs are not the same. However, at first, in the graphic novel, Evey is the typical example of a conformist. An orphan of sixteen-years old (later, in Book 2, she claims to be seventeen), she appears to be lost in a bleak world after witnessing her mother die and her father be caught by the Fingermen. Homeless, she has to live in a dirty hostel and work in a factory, putting matches in boxes23 along with a lot of other kids. In a desperate moment of sincere weakness, Evey tells her story, admitting that before V appeared to help her, she had been looking to sell her body, as older girls did in the factory in order to make more money for food. Instead, she had an encounter with the Fingermen, who were ready to rape and kill her.

Picture 3 – V comforts Evey

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 31.

In this scene, the reader may already foresee V’s intent in transforming Evey from a child, a girl, into a woman – a free woman, the real her. On the other hand, in the movie adaptation, Evey is a completely different character. She is not a potential prostitute, even though it is clear that she is on her way to a sexual encounter (in this case, with Gordon Deitrich, a popular talk show host at the BTN – the sole

22 More on Jung archetypes and the symbolism behind V and Evey characters in parts 2.3 and 2.4. 23 This is one of the places where there’s a reference to Lucifer – in this case, it is the name on the cover of a big box of matches. (Book 1, chapter 3, p. 23)

TV network in London). She is obviously older, already in her twenties, and more mature. She is already a woman, and shows a hint of her rebellious spirit in her encounter with the Fingermen, as she tries to attack them with a pepper spray can before V’s arrival. Later in the story, the viewer discovers that she not only is an orphan, but had already lost a brother to a virus outbreak when she was a child. It was the main reason to turn her parents into political activists and, consequently, into Norsefire’s victims. At twelve (as it happens in the graphic novel), homeless, she is taken to a “Reclamation Camp” to be re-educated and then sent back into society. After hearing about this, Eric Finch, Norsefire’s lead investigator, naturally considers her to be a potential terrorist and V’s accomplice. Based on the differences of both personalities, it is clear that the Wachowskis had to adapt and write new scenes to make Evey’s arrival in the Shadow Gallery plausible. In this case, the writers decided to create a situation where she could decide whether to help V. As a consequence of her choice, she ends up in V’s hideout. There, she discovers she cannot leave until V’s revenge is done. This is where her rebellious spirit arises once again, even though it does so timidly. In the movie, Evey does not see V as her savior; at first, she does not even see him as a mentor, much less as a friend. That is the extreme opposite of what happens to her in the graphic novel, which serves as an allegory to the role of women in Moore’s dystopian society as crucial parts in the fight between conformism and non-conformism. This women’s issue is an important feature not only in Moore’s narrative, but also in Nineteen- Eighty Four, and as such, Moore’s women in V for Vendetta hold an outstanding significance to the unfolding of the story24. Concentrating at first in the graphic novel’s narrative, where there’s more emphasis on the women’s issue, it is possible to identify four important female characters in the plot (besides Evey): Valerie, Delia, Helen and Rosemary. All of them have important roles in the unfolding of the narrative, even though their roles as Party women and/or members of society appear to be inferior to that of men. An obvious example is the lack of women as heads of Party sectors, which resembles the politics behind the Nazi party. Yet, that is where Helen Heyer thrives. Helen is a power hungry woman, who does anything to get to the top of the ‘chain of command.’ In her case, she wants to turn her husband into the next Party leader, even though she constantly and even violently diminishes and humiliates him in front of other Party members, on account of his supposed weakness (in her opinion, being a “professional

24 Gary Spencer Millidge, Alan Moore: storyteller. New York, 2011, p. 87

voyeur”). However, Helen never alludes to the possibility of being the Party leader. Instead, while speaking with her lover, Alistair Harper (a former-mobster and one of Peter Creedy’s Fingermen), she admits her wish to become Eva Perón25 and rule the country through her husband, manipulating him into doing whatever she wants. That is, her objective is never to be in the spotlight, but always behind the curtains.

Picture 4 – Helen plotting against the Party

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 230.

The case of Rosemary Almond is the opposite. She is the typical woman figure of this dystopian society – submissive, apathetic, conformist, and obedient to her husband, Derek Almond, even after he abuses her verbally and physically. In addition to all of this, even after his death, Rose continues to remember Almond as a good man, mostly because he is her world. As a widow, she is left with no money, no home, no help from the Party, and forced to work as a dancer in a strip club in order to survive. This goes on until the day she decides to buy a gun, at first to commit suicide, then, to assassinate Adam Susan – the person responsible for her (and everyone else’s) misery, according to her.

25 Eva Peron was the wife of Argentina's president, Juan Peron. From 1946 to 1952, Eva Peron, also known as Evita, controlled the labor unions, and purged them of their leaders, thus making them entirely dependent on the government. She also suppressed groups that insulted her. She was well-loved by much of Argentina, however. (BOUDREAUX, 2004)

Picture 5 – Rose preparing to assassinate Adam Susan

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 236.

On the other hand, Delia Surridge’s situation is different. She is the only one linked to the Party, not as a direct member, but as a doctor responsible for the experiments done in Norsefire’s “resettlement camp” in Larkhill. She is the only woman with an important job in the Party, which demanded great responsibility. With that responsibility comes her direct accountability for the deaths of many, along with the shaping of V’s destiny. In other words, their doom and transformation are directly linked to her. In addition, later in the story, the reader discovers that she had been Finch’s lover for a short period, which causes him to swear revenge on V for her death, and sets things in motion for V’s own death. In addition to V, another one of Delia’s victims is Valerie Page, a lesbian actress who had been imprisoned and tortured for her sexuality. Throughout the narrative, the reader discovers, along with Evey, that Valerie had been the woman in the cell next to V, and that she is directly responsible for V’s vendetta and transformation into a “free being”. If it were not for the letters she had written and passed over to him through a hole between their cells, maybe V would not have endured the rest of his days in his cell, or maybe he would have given up and allowed them to break him, as it happens to Winston Smith in Nineteen Eighty- Four, or yet, maybe he would have chosen to die. In doing so, Valerie not only transforms V, but, through him, also transforms Evey, turning her into a “free woman”.

Picture 6 – Evey reading Valerie’s letter

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 161-162.

In other words, even though they appear as having secondary roles, as if they occupy inferior places in an all-male ‘chain of command’, these female characters end up piercing through the noise, making a rumble loud enough to be able to disturb the imperative silence imposed by Norsefire. In a way, the silent majorities are rumbled on by individual woman’s voices.

Picture 7 – V’s speech on silence

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 195-196.

Differently from Orwell’s story, women’s role in the building and changing of this narrative’s course is very clear. In the film adaptation, Rosemary and Helen do not exist; however, Delia and Valerie still play their roles as intended by Moore. In this specific case, Evey ends up being the most important female character since, as mentioned before, she already appears as a semi-strong woman even before her total transformation. In addition, in the film, general women are not portrayed as inferior beings: there are women working in various sectors of society, as well as others having respected jobs inside sectors directly linked to the Party (i.e. the BTN). In the Wachowskis version, women are mostly seen as beings from the current western society – still underestimated, but far from the women living under the sign of Fascism. In both cases, they somehow have a voice which echoes out through not only their male counterparts, but also throughout the ‘chain of command’ and down on to the silent majorities. In this respect, V’s main objective in the graphic novel eventually aims to break the paradigm perpetuated by these ‘silent majorities’ – the illusion of the ‘chain of command’ – and to revert back to a natural state of chaos so that society may decide its own future. Based on Baudrillard’s theory on the same ‘silent majorities’, it is ironic to notice the paradox underlying V’s idea – where chaos and order might live under the same sign, and silence and noise might be one and the same. To Baudrillard, the future of the masses is unknown even to themselves, and yet, V seems to believe this will always be the ‘right’ choice exactly for being the consequence of natural causation – even though he finds it easy to control and manipulate them, differently from what Baudrillard believes.

On the other hand, in the movie, V is not so much an anarchist, as he is a liberal, trying to find middle ground between Fascism and Anarchy, where people may still maintain a government, as long as it is held accountable for its crimes. In this case, V does believe in the power of the ‘silent majorities’, not as a chaotic force, but as an organized group of rebels and dissidents with predetermined objectives supposedly chosen by their representatives. That is, based on Baudrillard’s theory, a perpetuation of a former system which regains control as it reestablishes a belief in meaning. In both cases, V’s apotheosis may only come through an individual: Evey. That is why her transformation appears to be the most important incident in the narrative. Even though V’s manipulation may seem warped and cruel, his true intentions lie not on harming her for pleasure, but on freeing her from the prison she has been living her whole life, as he was freed from his. V’s objective is to eradicate her fears, transfix her, transform her, turn her into someone like him. For this to happen, he imprisons her, shaves off her hair, tortures her, questions her, and almost starves her to death – all inside his Shadow Gallery – in a place similar to the ‘resettlement camps’ to which once he was taken. Evey’s journey throughout days of physical and psychological pain is the same journey taken by her conformist society for centuries and which V is determined to end. Along with Evey, the reader slowly discovers the nature of V’s past and reasoning, until Valerie’s letters are mentioned. After reading her explain about “the only inch worth having” – her integrity – both Evey and the reader understand that what Evey is going through is a test. She goes through hell and back, renewed – transformed, transfigured. She is someone else. She is now free – reborn into a new reality.

Picture 8 – Evey’s transformation

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 174.

Yet, she also realizes the truth about everything – her life in an eternal prison, which is society as it is.

Picture 9 – Evey learns the truth

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 172.

Both sides of Evey are clashing together in one scene, one final moment of transcendence as in Carl Jung’s concept of transcendent function, where he explains the conjunction of thesis and antithesis in one being, dividing the ego into united opposites, causing the unconscious to create a middle ground for both. According to Jung,

If the mediatory product remains intact, it forms the raw material for a process not of dissolution but of construction, in which thesis and antithesis both play their part. In this way it becomes a new content that governs the whole attitude, putting an end to

the division and forcing the energy of the opposites into a common channel. The standstill is overcome and life can flow on with renewed power towards new goals. (JUNG, 1983, p. 480)

In any case, it is also possible to create a parallel between Evey’s transcendence and the general population’s, when they suddenly stop their chaotic revolt to listen to Evey’s message, and then decide the future for themselves.

Picture 10 – Evey’s speech as V

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 260, 261.

In the end, the reader does not know the path chosen by society, but he or she knows Evey will go on playing V’s character and acting in his show, now being another part of his persona.

Notwithstanding, in the film adaptation, even though Evey comes out transformed from the same experience in the hands of V, she appears to have become stronger than him, and not only a part of his overbearing persona. One example of this is in the scene after the rain baptism – she shows up to let V know she is leaving – she not only looks more mature and hardened, but also more secure and independent. It is a brutal transformation compared to the one she endures in the graphic novel, where she continues living with V, now clearly treating him as a mentor. In the movie, however, she leaves him behind to cry over his pain and bad luck. From this point on, V’s strong persona seems to fall back into a weaker archetype – he becomes the fragile captor who falls in love with his prisoner. This does not happen in the comics. Even though Evey’s maturation into a woman is clear, she is still dependent on V’s teachings.

Picture 11 – Evey becomes Eve

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 185.

However, in the film, she stops being fearful and obedient to become fearless and self- sufficient.

EVEY I'm sorry I'm not a stronger person. I'm sorry I'm not like my parents. I wish I was, but... I'm not. I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but... I am. (SCENE 126)

EVEY You got to me? You did this to me? You cut my hair! You tortured me! You tortured me! Why?

V You said you wanted to live without fear. I wish there’d been an easier way, but... there wasn’t. (SCENE 202)

V I must confess every time I heard a siren, I...worried about you.

EVEY I worried about myself for a while. But then one day I was at a market and a friend, someone whom I worked with at the BTN got in line behind me... I was so nervous that when the cashier asked me for my money, I dropped it. My friend picked it up and handed it to me. She looked at me right in the eyes... didn’t recognize me. I guess whatever you did to me worked better than I’d have imagined. (SCENE 260A) (WACHOWSKY, MCTEIGUE, 2006)

Those are different types of transformation, yet, even so, interesting ways of showing the change necessary to the public of each medium, in each moment in time. In the case of the graphic novel, with Evey’s transformation, Alan Moore seems to wish to mirror the fear, violence, chaos in the face of a nation before it may be transformed into a more courageous, wiser and freer society, where everyone should follow their own rules, and depend only on themselves to live. In the movie, however, the Wachowskis seem to wish Evey’s transformation to mirror not only fear, but the innocence, obedience, conformism, and violence of a society before it may be transformed into a society less conniving and permissive, while wiser and bolder. They are, somehow, two different societies: the first one focuses more on humanity’s natural state of free will, while the second one focuses more on humanity’s sense of collectivity and morals, to know what is right or wrong. In a way, the filmic narrative ends up seeming more biased and moralistic; however, on the other hand, it seems to send a clearer and more direct message in the end – almost a positive one. While in the graphic novel, the reader is left with an open ending, a blank page for him or her to fill up. Thus, the ending may lean either to optimism, or to pessimism, depending on who is reading it. This is another aspect which resembles Nineteen Eighty-Four and his ambiguous and subjective last pages. In both endings, though, what is important is the message. Alan Moore believes in the power of choice over obedience. He does not want to tell people how to think, so he lets his anti-hero do the work for him (after leaving the scene and everything else on Evey’s hands), trusting that, whatever Evey (or society) chooses, it will be the right path for them at that particular time. Through this choice, they may stop being silent majorities to become a group of individual voices, singing together. That is what V realizes after talking to Evey in the end – his role as the destroyer does not have a place in the new world for which he is fighting. He,

then, decides to leave it all in Evey’s hand, a non-violent person, to be responsible for the building of this new world, while he chooses death as the only possible path left for his violent being. In the movie, although very similar, V chooses death not only for his political philosophy, but also because he sees himself as a monster through Evey’s eyes – a monster who deserves to die for whatever he has done. V chooses death over the possibility of becoming whatever he hates the most – a tyrannical authority.

2.2 The Grand Illusion: Vicious Cabaret

Just as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the most important and characteristic aspects of V for Vendetta’s world is deception and how it is presented in the narrative. In this case, there are two major types of deception happening at the same time: the first and more general one is the government’s deception. The second and more personal one is the deception created by V – his theatricality and his method of manipulating each of the characters in order to consolidate his revolution. The first one is similar to the deception which occurs in George Orwell’s novel (and common to dystopian narratives) – manipulation through TV shows; prohibition on books, music, films, and arts in general; culture relegation; and the forging of Party propaganda and fake news. To better analyze this, it is important to separate both versions of the narrative. In Alan Moore’s graphic novel, England’s post-nuclear war situation allows the possibility for an extreme fascist government. Naturally, with the mass destruction and the lack of hope, the population of London is happy to leave their fate in the hands of a “caring” Party, which promises order and peace. As a consequence, they become accomplices of the Party’s crimes and violence against its own people. Since Moore has decided to depict every Party member as a common human being, instead of evil enemies of the people, the reader is led to believe that their vision is the only intelligent and interesting option available at that determined moment.

“When I came to write the Nazis in V for Vendetta I found out that I was writing them as almost caricatures. I thought, this is not what real Nazis are like, real Nazis are ordinary people. I tried to come up with the credible human beings who had chosen fascism for whatever reason. And I think that greatly enriched the characters in V for Vendetta, it made it into a three-dimensional struggle. (...)” (MOORE apud MILLIDGE, 2011, p. 301)

Therefore, the idea of building a Big Brother-esque supercomputer ends up not being so radical as it might have been if the situation was different. In this case, Fate (as it is called) is a god-like machine, which has Ears able to hear everything; Eyes, which see everything all the time; a Nose, to smell the crimes committed against it; Fingers to grab and imprison the dissidents and undesirables; a Head, where not only its brain is located, but also where the Leader of the Party stays; and a Mouth, used to inform its population about the latest “news” through its “voice”. The ‘Voice of Fate’, according to Adam Susan, is what holds the Party together, what gives it credibility, and through where it manipulates people’s fears, forging stories and news to control the population according to its needs. Based on this premise, Norsefire, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is then divided into a few sectors, which, in this case, represent Fate’s body parts. ‘The Head’ is run by Adam Susan, Norsefire’s Leader; ‘the Ear’ is led by Brian Etheridge – the party member responsible for Norsefire’s audio-surveillance division; ‘the Eye’ is yet another surveillance division – in this case, visual – and it is led by Conrad Heyer, Helen Heyer’s husband; ‘the Mouth’, in reality, is the voice of Lewis Prothero; ‘the Nose’ is the police division, led by Eric Finch and his subordinate, Dominic; and ‘the Finger’ is the Party’s secret police force, led, at first, by Derek Almond, Rosemary “Rose” Almond’s husband, then, after his death, by Peter Creedy. All of these divisions function as parts of a body – the body of Fate – which, here, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, acts as a religious entity, and which resembles the concept of the “body politic” mentioned by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651). To Hobbes, a sovereign state can only function if it is united as a giant “artificial person” – a body politic which mimics the human body. In this body politic, the sovereign, or the person who has the absolute power over his or her subjects, is the head, while the assembly of other men charged to help the sovereign makes up the rest of this body. This “monster” receives the name of Leviathan – a word derived from the Hebrew for "sea monster" and the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible – and its nature is necessary to the maintenance of peace and prosperity of a nation.

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, (...), is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person

shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his judgement. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a COMMONWEALTH; in Latin, CIVITAS. This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. (...) And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence. (HOBBES, 2010, p. 75-76)

In this case, Susan functions as “the head”, or “the sovereign”, as in Hobbes’ Leviathan, and yet, he is constantly subjected to the wills of this machine, ironically called Fate – the only “member” of the Party with autonomy to do whatever it wants. Additionally, Fate’s body parts (sectors) also recall the few Ministries in Nineteen Eighty-Four, sectors clearly conceived in order to better control the population, as well as to improve the dynamics in responsibility distribution – similar to what Foucault cited in Discipline and Punish. In the movie, this subject is not mentioned – Norsefire functions as a regular Party, with regular sectors, and Fate is never introduced. Instead, the supercomputer is only referred to as ‘interlink’ – a type of closed intranet system, resembling North Korea’s ‘Red Star 3.0’26. In both cases, though, besides ‘the Head’, there are five sectors – five as in the symbolism behind V’s name27 (V = five in Roman numerals). ‘The Head’, in the case of the film, is represented by a big close-up of Adam Sutler’s face in a screen, from a very low angle, causing impact not only on his subordinates, but also on the viewers, who might feel smaller and uncomfortable. This is a well-known camera trick designed to cause claustrophobia, uneasiness and powerlessness, as cited in Brian L. Ott’s article The Visceral Politics of V for Vendetta: On Political Affect in Cinema (2010):

Shots of Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt), for instance, typically show him on an over- sized video screen from an extreme low angle; this has the dual effect/affect of associating him with power and subjecting the audience to his panoptic gaze. As Barry (1997) explains, ‘‘The language of camera angles is . . . highly manipulative emotionally . . . . If the angle is extreme, the attitude becomes emphatic. Low angles (shot from beneath with the camera looking up at a subject) give the subject a sense

26 See article by Robert Hansen in White Hat Security blog, where he explains the nature of North Korea’s internet system through the analysis of their official browser. (Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015). 27 This subject often reappears throughout the narrative.

of importance, power’’ (p. 134). The low-angle shots of the Chancellor are also shot in extreme close-up, making his worn, wrinkled face unnervingly immediate. ‘‘In exaggerating proximity,’’ MacDougall (2006) observes, ‘‘the close-up brings to cinema a quasi-tactility absent in ordinary human relations. When we meet others in daytoday exchanges we do not explore their faces with our fingertips, but in the cinema we come close to doing this’’ (p. 22). (OTT, 2010, p. 45)

This technique helps to establish Adam Sutler as the sole sovereign in this regime, and also recalls the concept of Hobbes’ “body politic”, which argues for a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign in order to avoid a “war of all against all28.” In this case, though, Sutler acts like a real sovereign in total control of its subjects, and never submits his will to a machine. To Sutler, his type of government is the only one capable of preventing total chaos. As Hobbes, he also believes that,

in such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (HOBBES, 2010, p. 56)

Therefore, as a consequence of the fear of war, violence and death, the people of London naturally chooses the authoritarian Adam Sutler as the said sovereign and, as described by Hobbes in his book, unquestionably abides to his laws and methods in a typical social contract. At the same time, the Party also uses its deception tactics through religion, however, it does so differently from Nineteen Eighty-Four, once the link to the Christian church is shown explicitly and commented upon by Susan. In any case, manipulation occurs through the preaching of fascist dogmas, repeated in the Church and on TV – persecution and torture of “undesirables”, non-conformist minorities, puritanism, unrefuted obedience, constant vigilance, general culture banishment in favor of a culture of its own, xenophobia, obsession for a false state of union, patriotism etc. All of these dystopian dogmas are clearly cited by Adam Susan and piously corroborated by him.

28 In Latin, “bellum omnium contra omnes”, which is the description used by Hobbes to characterize human existence in a “state of Nature”, i.e. a pre-social anarchic condition.

Picture 12 – Adam Susan describes his beliefs

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 39-40.

A more specific aspect of the graphic novel is not only to show the deception tactics practiced by the government or political entities, but also to show the population’s apathy in relation to these tactics. In this case, Moore directly criticizes Margaret Thatcher’s government and her conservative and, sometimes, extreme resolutions, which led England into chaos, harboring riots and rebellions all over the country. Not only that, but Moore also criticizes the whole idea behind a conservative wave being reproduced in politics at the time. One of the biggest issues, according to him, was the persecutions of homosexuals after the discovery of the HIV virus and AIDS. According do Moore, the tabloids of the time were circulating the idea that Thatcher’s government intended to put all the infected in concentration camps, a quarantine, to separate them from the “non infected”.

It's 1988 now. Margaret Thatcher is entering her third term of office and talking confidently of an unbroken Conservative leadership well into the next century. My youngest daughter is seven and the tabloid press are circulating the idea of concentration camps for persons with AIDS. The new riot police wear black visors, as do their horses, and their vans have rotating video cameras mounted on top. The government has expressed a desire to eradicate homosexuality, even as an abstract concept, and one can only speculate as to which minority will be the next legislated against. I'm thinking of taking my family and getting out of this country soon, sometime over the next couple of years. It's cold and it's mean spirited and I don't like it here anymore. Goodnight England. Goodnight Home Serve and V for Victory. Hello the Voice of Fate and V for Vendetta. (MOORE, 2012, Preface)

Something similar also happened in the United States, also during the 1980’s, when, during Ronald Reagan’s conservative government, people started to claim for the isolation of HIV positives, based on the belief that they were victims of a controlled epidemic. Therefore,

with no further interest in pursuing a cure for this disease, which only seemed to infect “undesirables”, Reagan deliberately let thousands of his own citizens die from AIDS, causing society to believe that it was best for the majority (KELLER, 2008). In the same manner, Moore and Lloyd try to reproduce this scenario in their panels, showing the neglect and prejudice in people’s everyday talk, as well as lies spread by the media. In Moore and Lloyd’s world, along with the truths and lies spread out indiscriminately, they show that slander and evil affirmations can not only crush people, but also a whole State. Or, as V says in the movie: “while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power.” (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2005) In the case of the Wachowskis film, the deception is similar to the ones provided by the Bush administration, as well as their unabashed media manipulation, which were known, specially after 9/11, to incite terrorism. In James R. Keller’s words, author of V for Vendetta as Cultural Pastiche – A Critical Study of the Graphic Novel and Film (2008), “the violent and destructive acts of terrorists are less important to the perpetrators than is the media coverage that ensues, because media permits the terrorists to advertise their motivating political or social cause(s).” This issue is also widely commented by Paul Virilio in some of his books, when he speaks about the war in the Balcans, showing past examples, also about the USA in relation to the rest of the world. Yet, it is in Administration of Fear that he speaks more freely about his pessimistic view on the future and the politics of fear, forged and propagated mainly by the USA and accepted and carried on by its allies.

The administration of fear also means that States are tempted to create policies for the orchestration and management of fear. Globalization has progressively eaten away at the traditional prerogatives of States (most notably of the Welfare State), and they have to convince citizens that they can ensure their physical safety. A dual health and security ideology has been established, and it represents a real threat to democracy. That is a brief explanation of my choice. (VIRILIO, 2012, p. 15)

In this case, the Wachowskis’ choice is to change a bit of the narrative’s political story so that it would resemble the viewer’s current reality and provide them with the possibility of a deeper identification. Some of the examples of this kind of deception are scandalous and alarming, mainly for sounding so much like the ones in our “reality”. One of them is the Voice of London (which corresponds to the Voice of Fate in the graphic novel), also known as Lewis Prothero. He preaches on television (not on the radio, as in the graphic novel), resembling some of the talk show hosts in USA, who spread their opinions on politics, and,

consequently, manipulate their audiences. Prothero firstly depreciates the USA, informing the viewer that they have created a war and that this war had spread, which turned them into the “biggest leper colony in the world.” All of this because they are godless. It is a similar thinking to that of the Bush-Cheney supporters during the 2000’s (KELLNER, 2010). Prothero ends his speech with “England Prevails”, a slogan which also appears in the graphic novels, resembling also the slogans in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Another important example is Peter Creedy’s role in the story, which in the Wachowskis version is very different from the graphic novel. Creedy, in the movie, is the sole responsible for the fabrication of Party lies. He works directly with Sutler, acting in the shadows – or, as V would call him, as a “spider”. Even though he is Sutler’s direct subordinate, Creedy would do anything to achieve Sutler’s place and power. The same thing happens in the graphic novel, but Creedy in the film is a unilateral character, evil and soulless, when Creedy in the graphic novel ends up betrayed and assassinated by one of his subordinates – Alistair Harper. In the film, Creedy is cold and calculating, and he is the one to forge the idea of using a virus against their own citizens. With this fake terrorist attack, they end up killing thousands of people and condemning random groups for the attacks, forging fear and panic, and manipulating the elections in favor of Norsefire. After Norsefire’s election, a lab launches a vaccine which cures the disease and through which they win millions of dollars. The lab, obviously, is owned by one of the members of the Party. With it, Creedy guarantees that his Party achieves power – then, the next step would be to eliminate Adam Sutler. In this case, the Party, as well as its members, are portrayed even more cruelly and ruthlessly than in the graphic novel. While the graphic novel allows the reader to understand both sides of the situation, in the movie, the viewer is led to believe that he is being played not only by the government, but also by the media itself. Certainly this issue depends entirely on the point of view of each spectator. However, it is not surprising that the film has received completely diverse criticism.

It's quite likely that Vendetta will split the opinions in some parts of the country. The unflinching message may be too much for some people to accept. (OTTO, 2006)

V for Vendetta was attacked for promoting terrorism, although the scenario makes it clear that Vs role is to act out a revenge fantasy. The emphasis is not on terrorist violence, but awakening people to the oppression of the system in order to bring about change through direct action. (KELLNER, 2010, kindle edition, l. 4197)

Yet, the controversial criticism started even before the movie was released, when V for Vendetta’s initial release date was postponed right after the recent terrorist attacks in London29. In this case, the film’s initial release date was set to be on November 5th, 2005 – 400th birthday of the Gunpowder Plot – yet, many speculated that the reason for its delay was the nature of its content, even though the film’s producers denied it30. Instead, the film release was set to March 17th 2006, removing some of the power behind its marketing strategy. Despite this, many critics acclaimed the film for the objection to Bush’s administration, which, at the time, was suffering a decrease in its credibility. Especially after the costly failure in the Iraq war as well as their failure in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina catastrophe (KELLNER, 2010). Based on this premise, it is not hard to understand the reasons behind the changes made by the Wachowskis – even without Alan Moore’s blessing. In this case, the Wachowskis have succeeded in transforming a 1990’s London into a 2020’s London, portraying situations resembling the current administration (of both England and the USA)’s deception strategies, the rumored attacks against its own population31, the attempts on patriotic propaganda, the fake and alarming news, the persecution of Muslims, homosexuals, and political dissidents, the hypocrite evangelism etc. This change in the narrative helps to illustrate what Noam Chomsky calls “the political economy of the Mass Media,” where he and co-author Edward S. Herman state that the mass media of the United States "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion". (CHOMSKY, HERMAN, 1988, p. 306). This leads to the analysis of the second case, which is more specific and individual: V’s theatricality. The case of the story’s main character also presents outstanding differences between both media. Nevertheless, both are successful in showing the importance of theatrics in V’s manipulation tactics, in order to carry out his vendetta.

29 A series of coordinated suicide attacks in central London, which targeted civilians using the public transport system during the morning rush hour on July 7th, 2005. 30 EDELMAN, Scott. C is for controversy. Sci Fi Weekly. Ed. 568, March, 2006. Available at: < http://web.archive.org/web/20080101022910/http://www.scifi.com/sfw/column/sfw12459.html/>. Accesso on: 03 feb. 2015. 31 WIKIPEDIA. Available at: . Access on: 03 feb. 2015.

Despite the absence of the amount of time available to Alan Moore, used to develop plots and characters manipulated by V, the Wachowskis were also able to develop V’s deceptive methods in the movie. In both cases, V appears initially as a masked actor – like the masked actors of Ancient Greek theater32, citing some of William Shakespeare’s plays. His mask mirrors the face of Guy Fawkes with a “maddening smile33”, which never goes away. At first, his face also evokes other symbols, like the Venetian Carnival masks, Erik’s mask in Gaston Leroux’s Phantom of the Opera (1910), or the masks used by the members of a secret society in Stanley Kubrik’s film, Eyes Wide Shut (1999). It is a mask which inspires curiosity, but also fear, and it is used by V as an artifice to control every situation he designs34. From the beginning, it is clear that V starts his domino game – his puppet theater – by using the same deception techniques used by the government he hates. Therein lies the irony which Alan Moore may want to convey. Somehow, V acts in the same manner that the government against which he is fighting, and yet, he has a different agenda. Firstly, he wants to exact revenge on everyone responsible for his capture and torture. Yet he does so mostly by manipulating other characters into doing his job, instead of personally killing or destroying them. Except for a few examples, V also seems to torture and punish each of these people by using the same tactics they had done in the past in relation to him and others persecuted. On this, James McTeigue, V for Vendetta’s movie director, states that

To delineate V’s two sides one step further, he wants great social change, very altruistic social change, while he’s simultaneously out for murderous revenge. The question is, can you have this hope for overall social change if, on the other hand, you’re murdering people who wronged you? Even his vendetta, at some point, is very much abstracted. No one did anything to him personally. Maybe Delia Surridge did as the doctor who conducted the Larkhill experiments on him, maybe Prothero did because he was the commander at Larkhill, but neither were working alone. As for Sutler, he was in charge of an ideology, but he wasn’t in charge of the prison camp. Are any of the people V kills truly responsible for what happened to him? There is no easy answer. (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2006, p. 214)

Still, V not only manipulates his enemies, but also his protégé, Evey. Since the moment he takes her home, he presents her to a world of magic and imagination unknown to

32 Masks were used in Ancient Greek theater firstly to amplify the voice to be heard from long distances, then to help identification with the public through the use of exaggerated facial expressions; and also to allow an actor to play multiple roles in a play. Worn by the members of the chorus, the masks created a sense of unity and uniformity, while representing one single organism and simultaneously encouraging interdependency and a heightened sensitivity between each individual of the group. (VOVOLIS, Thanos. Mask, actor, theatron and landscape in classical greek theatre. The Acoustics of Ancient Theatres Conference. Patras, 2011). 33 MOORE, LLOYD, Book 3, chapter 9, p.14. 34 More on the nature and symbolism of V’s mask in part 2.4.

her until then. Also, he introduces her to many books, films, songs and paintings – stolen from the censors – with the intent of educating her and starting her transformation into his immediate successor. Throughout the time they spend together, the reader understands that, even with Evey’s growing interest in culture and his stories, she is still a conformist and enjoys her comfort zone, refusing to grow up and accept the reality in which she is living. In V’s eyes, she does not want to visualize the prison inside of which she has grown, and from which she needs to be released. In a clearly allegorical scene, after reading her a bedtime story35, V now amuses Evey with a magic show. In this scene, he uses a rabbit to mirror her situation, at first by making the rabbit disappear from its cage, and then bringing it back, without the cage around him.

Picture 13 – V’s magic show (continue)

35 In this case, he reads her parts of Enid Blyton’s The Faraway Tree. For more on this, see chapter 2, part 2.3, p. 85.

Picture 13 – V’s magic show (conclusion)

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 96-97.

This scene functions as a clear allegory to Evey’s immediate future, which may be inferred by the reader, but not by Evey at that time, since her childishness does not allow her to identify the bigger issues at play. At this moment, it is impossible not to mention Carl Jung’s theory of the archetypes and what they represent in this part of the narrative. To Jung, the archetypes are, by definition,

factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce. They exist preconsciously, and presumably they form the structural dominants of the psyche in general. (...) As a priori conditioning factors they represent a special psychological instance of the biological 'pattern of behavior,' which gives all things their specific qualities. (JUNG, 1983, p. 149)

In this specific case, Evey appears as the classical child archetype, displaying all of her innocence, while V plays one of his many archetypal roles – at this instance, of the magician archetype, with his mysterious, yet powerful methods of illusion. At this moment, V unfolds careful and masterfully part of Evey’s reality, forcing her to face the ‘real’ world, so that she may learn to wake up for herself, without the comfort of V’s paternal presence (which is yet another archetypal figure that he plays). On one hand, even though he is manipulating his protégé, V believes that unless she stops seeing him as the father she has lost, Evey will never be truly free. And, without freedom, she will never be the successor that he needs.

Picture 14 – V’s deception

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 102.

After this scene, the next time they meet is when Evey is preparing to murder her lover’s killer. Already going through deep changes, Evey’s child archetype shows signs of its potential future, and opens up her personality for development and future change. However, for this to happen, she is stopped by V, who kidnaps and carries her back to his Shadow Gallery. Furthermore, it might be said that this is the biggest charade in the narrative, where V not only tricks Evey, but also the reader (and the viewer, for that matter), who also believes that Evey is being imprisoned and tortured by the Fingermen, in a Norsefire resettlement camp. Here, V shows one more aspect of his archetypal personality, as he wears the mask of the trickster, with his deceiving and hidden methods of persuasion and control. At the time of the perception of the truth, the reader may have different reactions, although Evey’s experience is definitely agonizing, when finally understanding the nature behind V’s reasons and the depth of his insanity, while assimilating her own transformation into someone else. While literally transforming her protégé into a new person and archetype, V, once again, achieves what he had planned. After this moment, he does not need to manipulate Evey anymore, even though that is what happens. Evey, now completely changed, does not simply follow his steps, but asks questions and gets frustrated with V’s lack of objective answers. However, in the graphic novel, she continues to be molded into becoming his successor – something only acknowledged in the end, after V’s death, where his allegory is mirrored in Evey’s smiley face.

Picture 15 – Evey’s smile

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 253.

It is an allegory on Anarchy – where the person chooses the path independently of anyone’s rules or orders. In a way, this is an ironic issue since, from the beginning of the narrative, the reader realizes that Evey has not chosen this path for herself, but has been another subject in V’s wild play. She has not chosen the role of successor, but was shaped to accept it in the end. Even though she has a choice in not accepting this role after his death, one may expect this resolution by analyzing her history of helplessness and her love for V, built slowly throughout the narrative. In the film, in order to fit a two-hour narrative, Evey’s character needed to be changed. Therefore, V’s manipulative game also needed to change. Since Evey is now a more mature person, V needs to improve his theatrics to cause her to fall for his act. In this case, right at the time he shows up to save her, V’s presentation needs to be more “interesting” than it is in the graphic novel. For this, the Wachowskis’ V needed to be transformed into a more humane anti-hero – less cold and calculated than his comics counterpart. In this first moment, Evey and the viewers get to know a bit of the personality behind that mask. V exposes himself more as an individual, and not only as an idea in human form, as it happens in the graphic novel. So, in this case, V already shows signs of his theatricality since his first encounter with Evey – and much more convincingly than in the graphic novel. Considering the type of medium (in this case, cinema), which affects different senses in the viewer, Hugo Weaving’s V may easily induce empathy and identification with his character. This may happen not only based on the actor’s talent – with the use of body movements and nuances in order to convey different emotions in diverse situations without the need to rely on facial expressions – but also on the use of tone of voice, which may cause strangeness, but also calmness in dealing with the

crazy terrorist behind a mask. Because of this, both Evey and the viewer are instantly drawn to that interesting character, despite the level of his madness.

Body language can be very effective and Weaving takes the utmost advantage of this. Emotional moments play out well despite the occasionally unnerving and unchanging mask. If the story takes hold of you the way it did me, then the emotions of V come through and you will start to forget the mask is even there. (OTTO, 2006)

Not only in the movie, but also in the graphic novel, according to Scott McCloud in his Making Comics (2006), “body language can tell readers who your characters are before they even speak” (p. 102). Based on that, in the comics, V’s body language is even more important than in the movie’s, since it cannot rely on the advent of sound. In any case, the actor’s ability to transcribe it to the screen is still a very important feature used to convey V’s change of personality in the film. According to Linda Hutcheon’s A Theory of Adaptation (2006),

novelists often comment on their surprise when actors—through gesture, tone of voice, or facial expression—interpret through incarnating characters in ways the initial creator never envisaged (see Cunningham 2003: 1): actors can bring “their individual sense and senses to the characters and give them those glances and gestures that come from their own imaginations. (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 81-82)

Nonetheless, this change is necessary for credibility in Evey’s acceptance in following V right after their encounter, but also in Evey’s reaction to V’s invasion of the BTN – the place she is working when he appears. That is, instead of hiding, Evey decides to help V and, in result, is knocked out by Dominic. In this case, if Evey were still the immature girl from the comics, this scene would seem unlikely. Instead, she decides to help V and, in return, is helped by him, when he takes her home to avoid her capture. This may be the moment when Evey’s own theatrics is revealed. That is, when she realizes she is stuck with V, she decides to act on it. At first, she confesses to being an actress when younger – playing Viola in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. This fact alone not only shows her tendency to theatricality, but also lays the ground for a future identification with Valerie Page’s acting life. In this case, as soon as Evey discovers the truth behind the murders of Party members, she decides to play V, pretending to offer him help. Instead, she betrays him, confessing to Bishop Lilliman, and asking for his protection in exchange for information. When V arrives to kill him, he is clearly stunned by her boldness, but only watches her, as she apologizes and runs away. For Evey to get to the point where V needs her to be a part in other events in order to perform his biggest charade, she needs not only to be kidnapped, but also other events to help

in character evolution. This is where Gordon Deitrich’s great character transformation impacts the narrative. In the movie, Gordon is a completely different character, who does not have a romantic relationship with Evey, but accepts the responsibility of harboring her in his house. In this version, he is a gay man hiding among fellow Party members, who don’t know about his secret. This adaptation was undoubtedly intended to reach the LGBT movement in one more way of tackling their struggles under a totalitarian regime. As James R. Keller comments,

The Gay/Lesbian audience will not fail to recognize the cinematic repudiation of rightwing policies that deny same-sex couples their emotional and sexual attachments, and they can be expected to appreciate the condemnation of the inhumane, uncharitable, irresponsible, neglectful, and perhaps even genocidal response of the American and British governments to the most devastating health crisis of the twentieth century. (KELLER, 2008, p. 226)

Thus, later in the narrative, after shooting a different script for a comedy show he hosts, where he ridicules Sutler, Gordon is captured and beaten, while Evey is still in his house. While trying to escape, Evey is then captured herself and taken to a facility, where she is questioned and tortured. At first, Evey and the viewer think it is the work of Creedy’s Fingermen, but then, it is revealed that it has all been V. Yet, this time, Evey’s reaction is different. Instead of continuing to live with V, after thanking him with a kiss on his fake lips, Evey decides to “unmask” him without actually taking off his mask: by accusing him of being a monster and leaving him. At this moment, V’s image is already broken and visibly humble, being in a more vulnerable state than his protégé for the first time in the narrative, while she takes the lead as the empowered woman she has become. This aspect resembles what happens in Shakespeare’s Macbeth36, however, with the advent of role reversal. In this case, V is Lady Macbeth – ruthless and calculating at first, then maddened and suicidal in the end. On the other hand, Evey is Macbeth – manipulated and weak at first, then cruel and power hungry in the end (KELLER, 2008). So, instead of thanking him for the change in her life, Evey uses irony to hurt him. The viewer may hear and feel the bitterness in her words just as V hears and feels it. When she approaches his mask, as if she would kiss it, then stops and coldly thanks him, the viewer understands that V has fallen prey to his own puppet show. In a completely different situation, in the graphic novel, Evey is manipulated until the end, while in the movie, it seems like Evey has her life’s destiny in her hands and she has

36 Cited by V many times throughout the narrative.

already made her choice. It is Evey’s choice to return to the Shadow Gallery after leaving – when she realizes she loves V and before trying to change his mind about revenge. She does not return in order to be his successor, or because she feels indebted to him. In other words, even after being manipulated, Evey actually ends up manipulating V, who falls in love with her and hesitates before completing his vendetta. Even before the final sequence, where Evey reappears, V takes off his mask (even though his face is never shown) and breaks the mirror in his room, while crying – already foreshadowing an unexpected improvisation in his play37. Although in the graphic novel V seems to have everything under control, The Wachowskis’ V literally loses himself when he hesitates to follow his plans, leaving the aftermath in Evey’s hands. In the end, V is visibly shaken by his feelings for Evey and almost succumbs to her pleading, even though he decides to choose his revenge. On the other hand, Evey accepts her role as his successor not because she was manipulated into accepting it, but because she chooses to do so – out of love and respect for him. Based on the character’s personality, the viewer may believe that she has power over her fate – especially after seeing her ponder about the consequences of pulling the lever on the train leading up to the Houses of Parliament. Her choice is made without V’s direct influence. According to McTeigue, this is the first time V realizes there can be a flaw in his plans: When the first domino falls, it’s akin to the chain reaction of events he has set in motion. One of the really nice things about this is, as in life, plans can never be perfect. There is always an anomaly. Up until that point, he [V] thinks he will complete his vendetta, leaving nothing to chance. But at the end of the long chain reaction of perfectly set dominoes, the last one does not fall; he picks it up and looks at it. It’s there he understands that chance plays into even his plans, and so he decides to leave the ultimate choice to Evey. That’s why when Evey goes to pull the lever on the train there’s that single domino sitting there. It’s V’s recognition that he has to allow for chance; he can go as far as he can go, and then it has to be about what the people want rather than what he wants. (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2006, p. 201)

37 More on the mirror symbolism and the concept of the mask in part 2.4.

Picture 16 – The Last Domino

Font: MCTEIGUE, 2006.

In any case, besides Evey’s manipulation, which is the most important in the narrative, V also shows his manipulative skills on other characters in the narrative. He is not so direct as he is with Evey, but instead, makes use of his shadow image to control people from “behind the curtains,” almost as a hand pulling puppet strings, or a finger flicking the first in a series of falling dominoes. Incidentally, the domino allegory, for example, is very explicit in Moore’s original narrative, where V literally uses each character as a piece in his game – going beyond his personal vendetta. Actually, V wants to change the current paradigm. He considers himself to be the literal embodiment of an idea, ‘platonically’ fighting to fulfill itself, whereas, in the movie, the more humane V does not explicitly use the characters in the narrative, but instead urges London’s citizens to identify with him as an idea, and learn to see through the blindfold. In other words, V’s deception is used more on the general people (both in the movie and in real life), than on Party members, or people directly related to them. On the other hand, the graphic novel almost dismisses the people of London, shoving them into the background, while individual characters serve as examples of archetypes in Moore’s conformist society. Ultimately, theater is everything to V. In the graphic novel, Evey soon notices it, while he claims that he will bring back melodrama into the world.

Picture 17 – V and Evey’s melodrama

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 33.

To V, all that matters is theatricality and deception, and the graphic novel is filled with examples in which not only V quotes Shakespeare’s plays, but also creates theatrical situations to achieve his goals. To him, there is no action without a script to follow. He needs to have complete and total control over the events and does not fear the unexpected because the unexpected does not exist. He is the master of the play, the writer, the director, the actor – the rest of the cast and crew, including everyone else, are mere puppets in his show, unaware of the plot they are following. In the graphic novel, V appears as an arrogant sociopath, with almost no capacity for feeling. At least, this is Delia Surridge’s opinion about him, after she spends time with him in Larkhill, after he starts manipulating the crew of doctors and people responsible for the camp. Although his behavior and his requests arouse the curiosity of some, they are never enough to cause suspicion. As a consequence, V blows up the facility and everyone inside, in an almost

suicidal attack. Delia’s memory of that day is summarized mostly by her feelings when his eyes meet hers – the eyes of a psychopath looking at an insect.

Picture 18 – V’s transformation

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 85.

In picture 18, V appears literally as a shadow figure, resembling Jung’s shadow archetype – the other side of the Self, the dark side, the hidden side of consciousness. Based on Delia’s reaction to him, both in the past and the present, it is clear that she is also facing her own shadow self. In Jung’s words,

It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses – and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster's body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware. (JUNG, 1983, p. 30)

Based on this quote, it may be inferred that V serves as a shadow mirror to Delia’s own psychopathy in doing the human experiments without pondering about its mortal consequences. On the other hand, in the film, V uses his theatricality more as a hero of a tragic drama. In Walter Benjamin’s words: “a sua vida desenvolve-se a partir da morte, que não é o

seu fim, mas a sua forma, pois a existência trágica só chega à sua realização porque os limites, os da vida na linguagem e os da vida do corpo, lhe são dados ab initio e lhe são inerentes” (BENJAMIN, 2011, p. 116). The Wachowskis’ V suffers – he is a human being, has clear feelings, and shows them. Therefore, his is more of an actor’s performance – who thinks he is in control, but is actually being led by the story – than a producer’s, director’s, or writer’s performance – let alone the performance of the master of the play himself, with the power to control everything. In the film, despite the changes made in his DNA and body by Delia Surridge’s experiments, which transformed him in a super-being, V is definitely human and continues to have a human heart. This fact may link V’s character to the monster character in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Therefore, it is easier for the viewer to expect a tragic ending – his death is inevitable, where, on the other hand, in the comics, his death comes as a surprise even to Eric Finch, who murders him. To Finch, it makes no sense that a “psychopath” like V would simply let himself be killed by him, choosing death over his final victory.

Picture 19 – Eric Finch doubts himself

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 242.

In both narratives, V chooses death, but in the film, it resembles a hero’s death choice in a tragic romance – an actor at the end of a melodramatic play, much like Leroux’s Phantom of the Opera, or Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notredame. On the other hand, in the comics, V dies as the director of the play – the god who chooses to sacrifice himself for his followers, in order to take them to the next evolutionary stage. Maybe this dissimilarity

among the character’s two versions is the reason behind the Wachowskis’ choice of leaving V’s ‘Vicious Cabaret’ out of the story. Incidentally, Vicious Cabaret is the title of the graphic novel’s second book and it is where V’s deception is explicitly revealed to the reader. After that, Finch discovers that V not only wants revenge, but something else – unknown to them. He only discovers what it is when it is too late – he has also been played to be V’s assassin. At the end of V’s ‘Vicious Cabaret’, V succeeds in manipulating each character into destroying each other’s lives, mainly fueled by their hunger for absolute power. And even though he is the master of the play, his hands still can be seen, pulling the strings from the darkened ceiling right from the start. Consequently, the reader finds out, along with Adam Susan and Dominic Stone, that V has always had direct access to Fate – that he has been directly responsible for everything coming from Fate’s system. V has been behind it all, and responsible for all that has happened. In other words, it has always been him all along. After this discovery, Adam Susan loses himself to insanity, causing an imbalance at the Party’s foundations, while Rose shows up to become Susan’s assassin. V creates chaos manipulating every one of the Party’s members through the use of the Party’s supercomputer Fate. As mentioned before, V is set to represent an ironical and paradoxical figure, who may embody Jesus, but also Lucifer – and who infiltrates Fate, which, in Moore’s narrative, acts as an epitome of God. This issue, however, does not appear in the movie. Therefore, V’s ‘Vicious Cabaret’ might only be represented by England’s government, which has forged the aforementioned theatricality on its own citizens – forging false stories in order to manipulate them into doing whatever would be necessary to achieve its goals.

2.3 The Shadow Gallery: Land of Do-As-You-Please

Another aspect of this issue of deception is the question of symbolism and its referential power in the narrative. Throughout the comic books, there are many references to other books, authors, musicians, philosophers, but there are also the ‘hidden’ meanings they convey. In addition, there are the ‘hidden’ elements of symbolism in the imagery of the comic book panels. In the film, director James McTeigue chose to replicate it when deciding which

paintings to hang in the Shadow Gallery, or even with the choice of camera angles, or new references imbued in V’s speech.

I wanted the Shadow Gallery to represent lots of things. (...) There’s a Turner painting of the burning of the Houses of Parliament, and when Evey is standing in the painting room talking to V, there’s an Edvard Munch painting, Pubertat, behind her. Then there’s a great William Wyler film called The Collector, with a few references to that sprinkled throughout. When Evey comes out to talk with V in the reading room, he’s reading Frazer’s The Golden Bough. I didn’t want to make these things completely obvious, but I made some a little obvious, like over by the jukebox, there’s the butterfly collection. There is a lot of detail... (...) (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2006, p. 192)

One of the most symbolic references in the graphic novel is the Land of Do-As-You- Please, which V mentions to Evey when reading her The Magic Faraway Tree. According to Madelyn Boudreaux’s Annotations38, this story comes from a children’s book written by Enid Blyton, where a group of children travels through different lands – one of which is the Land of Do-As-You-Please, a land where one may literally do whatever they want. Because of that, the children have so much fun that they do not want to leave the place. The only thing that is able to change their minds is the thought of their parents and how they would not be able to live in that land. This is a very interesting theme to analyze because, firstly, it shifts the focus from the adults ruling this society to the children, their innocence, their openness to new experiences and worlds, and their great imagination – highlighting a side which still exists in Evey. This issue, and the fact that V is reading her to sleep, shows V’s trust in the innocence and power of children and their ability to change the world. Secondly, by mentioning the parents who are not able to live in this land, Moore may be criticizing a society devoid of dreams and imagination – a society of adults who kills children, makes them suffer and disappear. V speaks about this directly in his speech during his N.T.V.39 raid.

38 BOUDREAUX, Madelyn. An Annotation of Literary, Historic, and Artistic References in Alan Moore's Graphic Novel, V For Vendetta. August, 2004. Available at: Access on: 7 feb. 2015 39 N.T.V. stands for Norsefire Television, and is the fictional replacement for the B.B.C.-T.V., the British Broadcasting Corporation's television programming. (BOUDREAUX, 2004)

Picture 20 – V speaks of children

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 118.

V blames the general population for children’s suffering as one of the main reasons for the horror of a failed and ruined society. Allegorically, he blames people for killing the children inside themselves – and murdering, consequently, their power of imagination, and their openness to new ideas and experiences. Therefore, the Land of Do-As-You-Please is not a land for everyone. It is a land for the ones who are still innocent, who still possess the will to create, to watch things grow slowly. Maybe it is at this moment that V starts to really understand his part in his play. In time, he recognizes his estrangement to this world; that, as his ‘makers’, he would not be able to live in the Land of Do-As-You-Please since he has lost the ability to dream without destroying. This issue is subtler in the graphic novel than it is in the movie. Even though the filmic version does not mention the Land of Do-As-You-Please, or Evey as a child, the issue of V as a destroyer who needs to die in order for his ideal world to live is a lot more explicit. In this case, V realizes this when Evey accuses him of being a monster. Then, he finally sees himself through her eyes and realizes that he does not have a place in this new world he has imagined. In this case, V’s symbolism as the hero also works as Jung’s archetype of Christ, or the Self, which is directly opposite to the archetype of the Shadow, or the Anti-Christ (as mentioned before). That is, V needs to recognize his “monster” side, his shadow self, before he can die as a true and complete self – the embodiment of a true whole idea. In his words, Jung explains that

If the projected conflict is to be healed, it must return into the psyche of the individual, where it had its unconscious beginnings. He must celebrate a Last Supper with himself, and eat his own flesh and drink his own blood; which means that he must recognize and accept the other in himself. But if he persists in this one- sidedness, the two lions will tear each other to pieces. (JUNG, 1983, p. 364)

In addition, the concept of the shadow archetype is not only linked to V’s appearance and his auto-denomination as the devil himself, but also to the name he gives to his home – Shadow Gallery – which not only alludes directly to the concept itself, but is also located in the underground (underworld). Also in relation to this concept, Moore’s narrative clearly shows symbolism on the mythological passing rite from hell to heaven – a transformation from darkness to light as appears in mythology. This passing is usually aided or provided by a shadow figure, usually representing the dark side – in this case, V. Examples of this in mythology include the myth of Persephone and Hades, where Persephone, submissive and naive, experiences great suffering and violence in the hands of Hades when abducted to the Underworld40. However, through the transformation caused by her pain and suffering, she is reborn as the Lady of the Underworld – a different person, with a different personality; stronger and willing, helping heroes on their way out of the underworld. According to Joseph Fontenrose, in his book Python (1959), Persephone had a sister, Despoina, who was Poseidon’s daughter with Demeter. Sometime during her stay in the Underworld, Persephone and Despoina became the same person – both in one. Persephone (the maiden), after merging with her sister (the mistress), has now become the fearless Goddess of the Dead. Something very similar happens in an example in Sumerian Mythology, Inanna’s. Considered as the most prominent goddess in ancient Mesopotamia, Inanna’s myth also speaks of a powerful goddess descending to the underworld in order to meet her shadow sister, Ereskigala41. After three days in captivity, and after being killed by her sister, she ascends back with a different personality – now light and darkness are one. Both myths recall Evey’s transformation into Eve, the mature and fearless woman. In addition, Inanna’s myth also recalls the controversial and often neglected story of Lillith – Adam’s first wife. Lillith comes from chaos, from a time before the creation of time. When Lillith does not accept submission, she decides to leave Adam to go to the desert and marry the devil, or to turn into one herself, as mentioned in different versions of the myth.

40 BULFINCH, Thomas. O livro de ouro da mitologia. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, 1999. p. 67. 41 BLACK, J.; CUNNINGHAM, G.; ROBSON, E. The literature of ancient Sumer. New York: Oxford, 2004. p. 65.

Adam is left to dwell in solitude and complain to God. He asks for a more submissive woman, and God creates Eve42. Also related to this, Alan Moore’s vision of V’s world is full of references to other symbolic imagery. The first to call attention is the direct relation between the names of the characters and their significance to the story. There is the specific example of the names Adam Susan (Sutler) and Evey Hammond – which are directly related to the symbolism mentioned earlier. Focusing on their given names, Adam and Evey naturally recall the biblical names of Adam and Eve. Based on this allusion, one can infer that both represent two different worlds. The first, Adam’s, is a male world – a world of violence, war, terror, torture, suffering – this is a world of forced order, forced obedience, it is stereotypically masculine, one imposing fear. Eve’s world, on the other hand, is the world imagined by V, echoing the female element, devoid of violence, free, yet creative in a rather chaotic manner – leading to a natural order of things. A world of peace, understanding, liberty, and comprehension. And, most of all, of true love and romanticism. This is the world which V intends to bring into reality through Evey. A world stereotypically feminine, which does not impose fear, but the connection with nature and the collective. While Adam’s world is egotistical, gray, ugly, and focused on the individual, even though it claims to revere unity in Big Brother-like slogans such as “strength through unity, unity through faith”, Eve’s world is light, imaginative, colorful, beautiful and focused on the whole as a collective set. This issue may be linked to Moore’s known involvement not only with Anarchy, but with the occult and its beliefs, which probably are linked to paganism, even though much of the imagery and symbolism allude to Christian subjects. In the graphic novel, Evey may be perceived as the classic stereotype for the original Eve. After her transformation, though, she does not marry the devil, but becomes it. On the other hand, in the movie, she does not become the devil, but falls for him and lets him be a part of her – like in Inanna’s myth, she finds her shadow self, instead of becoming the shadow. Unlike Evey in the graphic novel, who accepts her role as the Queen of Shadows, just like Persephone. In the movie, even though Evey is still fearful and obedient to the Party laws, she does not show naiveté or submissiveness. Therefore, Evey resembles Lilith – who, according to some versions of the myth, is one of the two halves of a hermaphrodite being, separated by God.

42 SICUTERI, Roberto. Lilith: a lua negra. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1998.

According to Camila Alves Martins’ dissertation, in her master thesis Faces do Feminino Sagrado: O Arquétipo da Mulher Selvagem (2006):

Há o pedido para a relação harmônica, para a igualdade entre os dois corpos e as duas almas. Adão coloca a ordem de dominação e ela não aceita esta imposição, rebelando-se, gerando a ruptura do equilíbrio. Lilith pronuncia irritada o nome de Deus, se afasta para o Mar Vermelho e deixa Adão: “Procurei em meu leito, à noite, aquela que é o amor de minha alma; procurei e não a encontrei” (Cant. III, 1 apud SICUTERI, 1998, p. 36). Adão se depara com a angústia do abandono e o Sol se põe, descendo as trevas na segunda noite após a primeira, em que foram criados os demônios, e com eles a escuridão. Lilith se torna então o veículo do pecado e da transgressão, conforme a serpente nas escrituras. (MARTINS, 2006, p. 63)

This issue may also be seen in general in Alan Moore’s world, which shows the dual sides of an idea: Fascism and complete chaos. According to Moore, Anarchy is not chaos, but the master of chaos and order. Through V, he proposes both sides to Anarchy: one of destruction and other of creation.

Picture 21 – V speaks about Anarchy

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 224.

Based on this assumption, one may perceive a close relationship between V’s concept of Anarchy and the symbol of the hermaphrodite – of two sides in one to become a whole complete being. As in Jung’s theory of the unified Self, the androgynous being unifies anima and animus43. In other words, to V, neither Adam’s world, nor Eve’s, but Lilith’s world must prevail – a world which accepts not only its light, but its shadow, its darkness, and which

43 To Jung, anima is the female archetype hidden inside the male, and animus is the male archetype hidden inside the female.

knows how to let order establish itself naturally. However, this state of things may only be achieved through the natural transformation of each human being, instead of through the use of forced obedience to submitted laws and rules. Another aspect of the symbolism behind the imagery in V’s story is represented by the transformation of the two characters (V and Evey) through two basic elements: fire and water. V is baptized by fire – natural element generally linked to aggressiveness, anger, war, and destruction; while Evey is baptized in water – natural element generally linked to emotions, tranquility, peace and the power of creation. About this scene in the movie, James McTeigue states that

This was a really nice idea Andy and Larry had when writing the script, to juxtapose Evey’s creation and V’s creation. He is born of fire and rage and she is born of water and understanding, love. I wanted to make the moment real and also surreal. She’s been so desensitized and emotionally raped that it was like she was feeling everything, and then you follow one raindrop down and it explodes. (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2006, p. 215)

In fact, this scene resembles a Christian baptism, with Evey being baptized as Eve – reborn, through water, as a new person, to a new life, a new personality. In Mircea Eliade’s words, the water element has the purifying and regenerative power in itself.

Immersion in water symbolizes a return to the preformal, a total regeneration, a new birth, for immersion means a dissolution of forms, a reintegration into the formlessness of pre-existence; and emerging form the water is a repetition of the act of creation in which form was first expressed. (ELIADE, 1963, p. 188-189)

Additionally, in Astrology, fire is considered a masculine element, while water is a feminine element. Fire is usually linked to the symbol of the Sun, as water is linked to the lunar symbol. Based on the theory of Barbara Koltuv concerning the myth of Lilith, it is possible to say that Evey becomes the moon that wishes to merge into the sun in order to become one single being. According to the author,

No princípio, a Lua quis fundir-se com o Sol e nele se aquecer, como nos conta o mito de Zohar, mas Deus ordenou-lhe que descesse, a fim de seguir as pegadas da humanidade como uma sombra. Em conseqüência dessa diminuição, a Lua renasceu como Lilith, o flamejante espírito livre. (apud MARTINS, 2006, p. 64)

Reading Evey’s plight as mentioned by Koltuv, Evey accepts her role as the shadow and the creator – the mother and the ‘witch’.

Yet, Evey refuses her role as Eve, the submissive woman, prey to sexual offenders and a patriarchal government, and becomes Lilith – a defiant asexual being defined by the idea of freedom. To Carl Jung (apud MARTINS, 2006, p. 64),

o desejo de junção do Sol com a Lua refere-se à imagem das núpcias místicas, da alquimia dos contrários, ou seja, dos princípios antagônicos e complementares. Há a necessidade de Lilith ser ela própria e não inferiorizada. Essa necessidade de movimento revela a busca do relegar-se ao espírito, que em épocas matriarcais assegurava os seus poderes criativos. Mas com o advento da organização patriarcal, ao abandonar Adão ela proferiu o inefável nome de Deus, e voou para o céu, e por isso Deus expulsou-a para baixo.

Again, the symbolism behind the dual archetype, the yin and yang, the opposites which complement each other, animus and anima, seems to be focused on the difference between the two worlds represented in the story. In addition, the allegory behind the scene where Evey is baptized, where a tempest drenches not only her body, but V’s, recalls the power of the water element in neutralizing the fire element and the destruction linked to it. In other words, Evey is reborn to neutralize V’s uncontrollable fire. Evey, then, appears not only as V’s successor, but as the solution to his violence and the errors of his ways.

Picture 22 – V and Evey’s transformations

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 85, 174.

Other names and symbols which also bring significance to the tale, but that are not so immediate as the ones aforementioned are Helen, who, as in Helen of Troy44; she is the reason of a quarrel between Party members and the reason behind the murder of three people. She plays a significant part on the dissolution of the Party itself. Additionally, her name recalls the second phase of the evolution of the anima which, according to Jung, represents a collective and ideal sexual image of the feminine, which is exactly what Helen Meyer represents to the men to whom she relates. Another example is Rosemary (Rose) Almond, who is referred to by V as a special kind of rose, which he is cultivating for Susan. Here, the red rose may have many meanings, besides the more common symbolism attached to romance and (V)alentine’s day, which is also one that appeals to V. Firstly, it is the national flower of England45, which is a powerful symbol in itself. As if Rose Almond would be the spirit of England taking back the country off the hands of its usurpers. Secondly, it has been the symbol of many anti-authoritarian associations, more specifically, socialists of the post-WWII era46. Thirdly, and more importantly, to medieval Christians, the five petals of a rose would represent the five wounds of Christ. Later, it would be associated with the image of the Virgin Mary, and adopted as a symbol of the blood of the Christian martyrs47. This fact alone makes much sense in V’s intrinsic master plan. Since he considers himself the Anti-Christ to a Christian totalitarian State, a symbol representing the five (V) wounds of Christ would be the best possible manner of eliminating this said State’s leader. Especially if he, as the Anti-Christ, does not give the rose to Susan himself, but sends it through the influenced mind of a “maiden”, transforming her into the embodiment of an idea.

44 In Greek mythology, Helen of Troy was the daughter of Zeus and Leda, and sister to Castor, Pollux, and Clytemnestra. She was considered to be the most beautiful woman in the world and, consequently, disputed by many suitors. One of those suitors, Paris, Prince of Troy, abducted her and was the reason for the start of the Trojan War (THE OXFORD DICTIONARY). 45 More info on 46 More info on 47 WIKIPEDIA at

Picture 23 – V’s special Rose

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 223.

Another example is Dominic, who, in the graphic novel, may be the last domino piece in V’s game – since he is the one Evey chooses to be her successor. In the case of the movie, the last domino standing represents Evey48. Finally, there is Valerie, who may either be linked to the myth of Saint Valerie – a tortured saint who was murdered for her beliefs – or to the Valerian flower, which, besides getting its name from the Latin personal name Valeria, coming from the verb valere, which means to be strong and healthy; also is believed to have great medicinal use, especially in the treatment of anxiety disorders and insomnia49. Valerie, in addition to being the indirect cause for the transformation of both V and Evey, is also responsible for the state of mind reached at the end of their struggles – a sense of tranquility and peace. Apart from the symbolism behind the character’s names, there is also the interesting wordplay with the letter V, and Evey’s name. Before expanding on the issue around the significance of the letter V, the issue of Evey’s name should be acknowledged. In the movie, when V meets Evey and asks for her name, he is direct: “Evey? E – VEY. Of course you are.” (WACHOWSKIS; MCTEIGUE, 2005) Evey and the viewer are instantly curious to know the meaning behind his words, as he answers: “It means that I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence,” mimicking the words of Albert Einstein50 on talking about the possibility of human free will. V, as in the graphic novel,

48 More on this in part 2.2. 49 WIKIPEDIA at 50 In a letter to Max Born, Einstein wrote: “quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.” There are variants of this quote which

believes that it is his fate to meet Evey and vice-versa. In this case, he realizes it by the time he hears her name: E – VEY. VEY is the pronunciation of the letter V, but the initial E is the fifth letter of the alphabet – and five, in Roman numerals is V. In other words, E – VEY is the letter V doubled. This, according to V, cannot be a coincidence.

Picture 24 – The Illusion of Coincidence

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 76.

However, in the graphic novel, V never alludes to Evey’s name in this manner. In this case, it is the Wachowskis’ direct interpretation for Evey’s name In addition to that, Evey’s surname is Hammond. Phonologically, the word Hammond resembles Amon (Amun), the Egyptian god who, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, was revered as the god of gods. However, it is also important to notice that the word Amon means ‘the hidden one’ in Egyptian, therefore he was named after one of his most important attributes: being invisible51. Based on this idea, it is interesting to analyze Evey’s name as containing not only the image of the biblical Eve, but also the hidden image of the Egyptian god Amon. In other words, Moore may be leaving clues about a possible new world reigned by a new god or goddess, who is hidden in (and from) the girl, Evey. It is also interesting to observe that, according to the same Encyclopedia, “this attribute of invisibility led to a popular belief during the New Kingdom in the knowledge and

Einstein himself used throughout his life. One of those – mentioned in a conversation with William Hermanns – may be the inspiration to V’s quotation in the movie: "As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world." 51 PINCH, Geraldine. The Handbook of Egyptian Mythology. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2002.

impartiality of Amon, making him a god for those who felt oppressed.”52 In other words, it is possible that this surname is associated to an ancient Egyptian god, who has already been the reason for many wars. This would be another symbolic representation of the power hidden in Evey and may present her as a ‘solution’ to the rigid religious society in which she lives. To analyze this, it is necessary to recall the Jungian dualist archetype between God and the devil, which abounds in Moore’s narrative. While V always refers to himself as Lucifer, at the same time, Adam Susan refers to himself as a pure and virginal religious being, fearful of God, even though the god he worships resembles a machine.

Picture 25 – V introduces himself as the devil

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 56.

Picture 26 – Adam Susan worships Fate

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 40.

52 Enciclopaedia Brittanica, 2015.

Aside from the fact that Susan does not mention a determined religion, the reader understands that his religious thoughts are strong enough to be the base of his political beliefs, and that his society is following the same thoughts. The problem, though, is that his thoughts and love are directed at a machine, which he considers to be god-like, or even greater than God. And, like a God, Fate acts impudently – being the sole responsible for this society’s destiny. In other words, when V possesses Fate, he has complete control over Susan’s destiny, which, for him, is similar to the arrival of the Apocalypse.

Picture 27 – V sends a message

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 211.

As Nietzsche states in Twilight of the Idols, when he compares Christianity with other systems, as it is shown in Susan’s fall from grace when his “god” fails him and all of his beliefs are directly questioned by V.

When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth — it stands and falls with faith in God. (NIETZSCHE, 1988, p. 515-516)

In addition, the symbol V uses, resembling the anarchist symbol53, is also a symbolic message to the Party, but mainly to Adam: his god has never been a god, it has always

53 “The Circle-A is almost certainly the best-known present-day symbol for anarchy. It is a monogram that consists of the capital letter "A" surrounded by the capital letter "O". The letter "A" is derived from the first letter

100

belonged to V. God does not exist. God is dead. At this moment, Adam enters a catatonic state and cannot deal with the deception anymore, much like his Self could not bear to look into the eyes of his Shadow (V). Like with Delia Surridge, V’s frozen face and immutable force acts as a mirror to Susan’s dark secrets and weaknesses and he cannot deal with it. Similarly, V also confronts his Shadow when he shows his hatred for Susan after being ‘fooled’ by him and his ‘beloved’ Justice, with whom he accuses Susan of having an ‘affair’. At this time, both V and Susan act as shadows of each other, reflecting similar poor judgment of character, similar violent methods of achieving their goals, as well as an analogous sense of righteousness.

Picture 28 – V talks about his betrayal (continue)

of "anarchy" or "anarchism" in most European languages and is the same in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The "O" stands for order. Together they stand for "Anarchy is the mother of Order," the first part of a Proudhon quotation.” (WIKIPEDIA, 2015) In the case of V for Vendetta, the “A” becomes a “V”, which may represent either V as the said “mother of Order,” or that V’s vision is a reversed version of Anarchy in the same way that the letter “V” resembles a reversed version of the letter “A”.

101

Picture 28 – V talks about his betrayal (conclusion)

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 42, 203.

This usual play on words and personification of ideas as major archetypes is a common artifice used by V. The main one starts with his ‘name’, V. V may stand for many things, depending on the situation. As mentioned before, V may stand for ‘Room V (5)’, where V was imprisoned, as he may stand for many other words which describe his role in a determined situation or to a determined character in the novel. V may be for villain, which he is, according to the Party and its followers. V may be for “victim”, not only for himself, but for all the victims of the resettlement camps kept by the Party that which V, as a letter, is representing. V is definitely for “Valerie”, the person which turns V into who he is. According to Craig Kline in his essay “Who is V?”54,

In a very real way, he becomes the physical embodiment of that one inch Valerie talks about. Valerie says "we must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us" (160). Beyond V's rebellious aims, he also reminds

54 KLINE, Craig. “Who is V?” Available at: Access on: 7 feb. 2015.

102

the populace about their identity, their integrity, that last inch of being that they had forgotten about: the freedom to be themselves, despite whatever anyone else tells them to do or be. (KLINE, 2000)

Additionally to the fact that every chapter’s title in the graphic novel also begins with the letter “V”, there are other moments to where the “V” symbol is alluded. One example is the “V.V.V.V.V.” (five “V”s in sequence) quote which Evey sees inscribed in the arch of the Big Hall in V’s Shadow Gallery, and which Evey, in the movie, decodes as “vi veri veniversum vivus vici”, that is, “by the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.” Even though both versions of V claim this quote’s origin to Faust, neither versions of the play contain this phrase. Instead, it can be found in Aleister Crowley55’s The Vision and the Voice ("The Cry of the 4th Aethyr, Which is Called Paz", 1909), where he states

Terrible and wonderful is the Mystery thereof, O thou Titan that hast climbed into the bed of Juno! Surely thou art bound unto, and broken upon, the wheel; yet hast thou uncovered the nakedness of the Holy One, and the Queen of Heaven is in travail of child, and his name shall be called Vir, and Vis, and Virus, and Virtus, and Viridis, in one name that is all these, and above all these. (CROWLEY, 1909, my highlights)

Where, in Latin, Vir stands for man; Vis for strength; Virus for poison; Virtus for manliness; and Viridis for green. In a footnote at the end of this quote, Crowley mentions this: “Vi, Veri, Universum Vivus Vici, the motto of the Seer as Magister Templi” (CROWLEY, 1909). Since the letter “U” in Latin can also be written as “V”, the phrase can be abbreviated as V.V.V.V.V. Based on these examples and on Alan Moore’s open appreciation for the occult56, it is probable that this allusion is linked to Crowley’s theories.

55English occultist, who founded the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century. (ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WORLD BIOGRAPHY, 2004). 56 MILLIDGE, op.cit., p. 241.

103

Picture 29 - VVVVV

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 45.

Another example which clearly appears in both media is when V plays Beethoven’s 5th (V) Symphony. In the graphic novel, this happens when V kills Bishop Lilliman, while in the movie, V plays this symphony to baffle vigilance when he breaks into Creedy’s greenhouse. According to Moore’s panel in picture 30 (below), the first notes of this symphony represent the letter V in Morse code. Also, the Beethoven’s 5th has sometimes be referred to as the “Victory Symphony” after WWII, in ironical reference to the Allied Forces victory over Germany57, as well as a reference to their famous slogan “V for Victory”, which was used as a direct influence on Moore and Lloyd’s narrative title.

Picture 30 – Morse Code

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 61.

57 More on < http://www.classicalnotes.net/classics/fifth.html>

104

All these examples also point to the evident issue of the number five, which may represent the idea behind Discordianism and the Law of Fives. Discordianism is a religion and subsequent philosophy based on the worship of Eris Discordia, goddess of chaos, which fits perfectly with V’s vision and beliefs. According to its philosophy,

It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. (PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA, p. 00049)

Based on this quote, it is possible to link its philosophy to V’s philosophy, especially in the case of the Law of Fives, where “all things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to five. The Law of Fives is never wrong.” (p. 00016) In conclusion, it may be said that V for Vendetta’s ‘Shadow Gallery’, as well as everything in V’s world, is a gallery for allegoric art and sometimes misinterpreted symbolism, which enriches the narrative with more layers of signification than the obvious imagery of the daily narrative. Also, it serves as yet another means to manipulate characters into changing their points of view or their destiny in the narrative. As Alan Moore states about his work and the power of symbolism,

I believe that magic is art, and that art, whether that be music, writing, sculpture, or any other form, is literally magic. Art is, like magic, the science of manipulating symbols, words, or images, to achieve changes in consciousness... Indeed to cast a spell is simply to spell, to manipulate words, to change people's consciousness, and this is why I believe that an artist or writer is the closest thing in the contemporary world to a shaman. (MOORE apud MILLIDGE, 2011, p. 6)

So it is with Moore’s creation, V, and his fight to change not only the corrupt system in which he lives, but also the state of consciousness of every human being and their collective self.

2.4 The Torturer and the Tortured: Behind the Painted Smile

105

To conclude this chapter, it is necessary to access the nature of V’s character and the role he plays as a messenger and a master of deception in this narrative. The first of the characteristics is the nature of his persona – the character behind the mask. Basically, V is an actor and his life is a stage. Nothing is to be taken too seriously. His mask has a name, but it is not his own. So, who is V really, when not even he is able to answer this question? Firstly, his mask reveals a stolen identity: that of Guy Fawkes’, an ancient revolutionary who died fighting for his beliefs – a revolutionary who was betrayed and rattled and died because of it. A tragic fate for a tragic romance. In the movie, the first scene shows a woman watching the spectacle of his public hanging. She has tears in her eyes and is visibly sad when she exchanges glances with her lover, Fawkes, the tragic hero. V is him, but he is also not. Fawkes was a Catholic dissident in an Anglican England, reigned by James I. In 1605, he had attempted to blow up the British Parliament along with his fellow conspirators, but was caught in action right before the event happened. As a result, he was tortured, then condemned to death by hanging for high treason. Yet, the reason for Moore and Lloyd’s choice of this character as a symbol was not linked to his religious beliefs, but, instead, to his ‘revolutionary’ act of defiance against the sovereign. In a letter to Alan Moore, David Lloyd states

I was thinking, why don't we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those papier mache masks, in a cape and conical hat? He'd look really bizarre and it would give Guy Fawkes the image he's deserved all these years. We shouldn't burn the chap every Nov. 5th but celebrate his attempt to blow up Parliament! (MOORE; LLOYD, 2012, p. 277)

Besides Fawkes, in the movie, V sees himself in Edmond Dantes, the main character of Alexander Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo – a character who mirrors V in his obsession for vengeance caused by injustice, as well as the love that he feels for Evey. Dantes is betrayed by his rival – Mondego. Guy Fawkes was betrayed by one of his Catholic comrades, Lord Monteagle. V identifies himself with all of them and with none. Additionally, his mask resembles The Phantom of the Opera’s Erik’s mask. Specifically in the movie, not only his mask, but also his cadenced voice resembles the “phantom”, calmly enchanting Evey and others (even though he does not sing in the movie as he always seems to do in the graphic novel). Other similarities are his talent for illusionism and the love that he feels for Evey. Even though his love for her may not be perceived as an obsession (as Erik’s is), his obsession for revenge and violence is enough to scare Evey away,

106

leaving him to feel rejected in a similar manner to what happens with Erik. Yet, even though this romantic love for Evey does not seem to exist in the graphic novel, the reader may pinpoint – if she or he carefully examines the panels – some tender moments shared by V, where he shows some kind of emotion, be it of love, or sadness.

Picture 31 – V showing his emotions

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 88, 176, 247.

Still, since it is impossible to read V’s emotions through his face, one has to rely on his body language or his words to try to understand the meaning behind his actions. That is, one has to ‘believe’ in V’s reasoning and trust that there is truth in his theatrics. This is especially difficult in the graphic novel, since the artist is prevented from relying on sound as a form of communication. Because of this, according to Scott McCloud’s theory in Making Comics (2006), comics artists need to know how to reproduce facial and body expressions as a way to make the emotions of the characters ‘real’ on the page (p. 81). David Lloyd chooses to do this not only by exaggerating V’s body expressions, and working on the shades on the panels to emphasize certain characteristics, but he also focus on V’s ‘face’ in determined moments, using shades and Moore’s words to make it appear as if it shows more than just an eternal ‘maddening smile’.

107

Picture 32 – About V’s smile

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 24, 94, 252, 286.

In fact, the use of the mask and its symbolism sheds some light into V’s possible essence as a character. Firstly, because it shows its connection to a darker side of ‘reality’ and the ‘unknown’. An example is in the word mask itself, which derives from the medieval Latin root mascus, masca, similarly to its cognates in European languages: maschera (it.), masque (fr.), máscara (sp. & pt.), Maske (ger.), mask (sw.), maske (da). According to James H. Johnson, in Venice Incognito (2011), “linguists trace a still earlier root, masca, to pre-Indo- European sources in Italy’s Piedmontese and Ligurian dialects. There the word referred most literally to soot or smut, but its more common use designated witches” (p. 56). Still according to the same author, there are various other examples which link the word to devilish creatures or to negative depictions of witches, or diabolical wizards. More importantly, though, is to

108

mention the other word which Venetians used for mask – larva – which also has diabolical connotations. Johnson states that

ancient Romans used the term to describe souls of the dead coming back to earth to haunt the living. Their torment sent victims into delirium: hence larvo, larvare, “to possess with evil spirits.” In time, larva came to mean illusion, fiction, false appearance. Horace employed the term to describe the masks of actors in the theater. (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 57)

Hence, it is exactly how V functions in the narrative – as a vision of a burned corpse coming back from the dead to now torture his torturers. He becomes the diabolical avenger, coming back from the ‘underworld’ to collect the souls of those who do not deserve to live. In addition, this image and its significance to the plot resembles who Johnson mentions as “the god most closely identified with masks,” Dionysus. According to Greek mythology, he was the god of many guises, appearing in the forms of either animals or humans. “Dionysus also transforms humans, producing madness, laughter, oneness with creation, or murderous rage. The attributes of his mask are qualities of Dionysus himself” (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 58). Similarly, V also transforms humans, as he does to Evey, awakening in her the same ‘attributes’ ingrained in himself. Also, to the pagans, the mask of Dionysus embodied something both holy and monstrous – thus recalling Jung’s dualist archetype of Self and Shadow. To a monotheist religion, though, it was seen as unmistakably infernal. Johnson mentions their fear in relation to the resemblance between Dionysus and Jesus, by stating that

Both were divine though born of mortals. Both died violently and returned to life, a resurrection that promised believers everlasting life. Both descended to the underworld to redeem departed souls. To the followers of both, wine was an initiation and a sacrament. Cannibalism figured in both divine narratives, with the Titans’ brutal meal and the words of Jesus at the Last Supper. And every spring brought the celebration of rebirth, in Easter and in the Dionysian festivals. (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 60)

To the Christians, however, this was nothing more than a trick concocted by Satan and spread by pagans to mislead the weak with false analogies. This vision resembles the many ways which V seems to be portrayed throughout the narrative, depending on the person he is visiting. He may be a hero at times – e.g. when saving Evey from the Fingermen – or he may wear the mask of a villain and enjoy it – e.g. minutes before he kills Bishop Lilliman and presents himself as Satan. In reality, V shows his duality even when dealing with the same person, in this case, Evey. After harboring her for a long time, V releases her into a violent

109

world in which she will have to learn to survive for herself. Then, later, he captures and tortures her, only to, then, welcome her back into his world, to be his faithful successor. This duality, as mentioned before, is a classical characteristic of Jungian theory of the Self and it serves V as he walks through his illusionary world by ‘unmasking’ his adversaries by making them face their darkest shadows. By doing to them something similar to what they did to him, V forces them to look into his black-holed eyes carved in a cartoonish ‘face’ and see themselves in that ‘maddening smile,’ realizing for once who they really are. To V, it is not enough to simply kill his enemies, they have to suffer the horror of looking inside and accepting the monsters in themselves. On the other hand (and also related to that), specifically in the graphic novel, there are clear allusions to the masked characters of Italian commedia dell’arte58. The one who apparently resembles V is the Arlecchino (or Harlequin). According to James H. Johnson (2011), despite many different theories about the origins of this character, it was through its Italian version that the Arlecchino has become popular. In this version, Arlecchino is a trickster, an agile and astute servant trying his best to upset the plans of his master, much like V’s agility in destroying the plans of his ‘makers.’ One of the origins of the Harlequin’s name shows, once again, a direct link to mischievous “devils” and “demons” and is the reason behind the character’s popular mischief. In Johnson’s words, Arlecchino is

Unafraid to offend and usually driven by the belly (or lower), he can be bumbling or controlled, naive or spry, coarse or witty, depending on what it takes to cadge a meal or get the girl. Arlecchino engaged the European imagination long before he joined commedia. Like the mask he wears, he is on a direct line from the underworld. Before he was a scamp, he was a demon. (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 61)

Because of that, some claimed that they saw traces of the devil in their masks, specifically the remnants of horns where there was a reddened bump on Arlecchino’s forehead. V also plays with this image right before he kills Bishop Lilliman, when he appears wearing horns and quoting The Rolling Stones’ Sympathy for the Devil (1973) (as shown in picture 25, p. 97). Additionally, in Johnson’s book, he mentions that, as a consequence of this symbolism,

Carl Jung concluded that, despite its surface hilarity, commedia tapped humans’ deepest fears. In the look and conduct of its zanni — in their unnerving mix of infantile and obscene, in the insidious way they controlled others’ actions, and in their relish in creating chaos — commedia dell’arte evoked an ancient fiend in the collective psyche: the Trickster, the quasi-divine joker who subverts and destroys. (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 72-73)

58 Improvised performances based on sketches or scenarios and originated in Italy in the 16th century.

110

One reason for this fear may be the impossibility to recognize the person behind the mask, especially behind that mischievous character, who appears to be fearless and swift in his judgments. However, the masks of commedia dell’arte were not meant to be disguises, but to preserve identities. In line with Johnson’s book, they “held their characters consistent even as particular plots placed them in different occupations and family configurations. (...) The unchanging mask maintained the persona across generations” (p. 75). Based on this fact, V’s mask may allow him not only to play himself, but to be transformed into anyone, or else, into everyone. In turn, anyone could be behind his mask. As another illustration of this symbolism in the graphic novel, it is impossible not to remember Harlan Ellison’s short story “Repent, Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman” when V’s finger appears knocking down the first of the many dominoes he had aligned in a concise pattern. "He had tapped the first domino in the line, and one after another, like chik chik chik, the others had fallen" (ELLISON, 1965). Ellison starts his story with Henry Thoreau’s citation, taken from his “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849), which might as well have been used as an opening quotation to V for Vendetta,

There are always those who ask, what is it all about? For those who need to ask, for those who need points sharply made, who need to know "where it's at," this: "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailors, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purposes as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the Devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it.” (THOREAU, 1849)

According to researcher Madelyn Boudreaux, in Ellison’s short story,

the Ticktockman is aware, as Finch is of V, that the Harlequin's identity is less important than the understanding of what he is. Both the Harlequin and V represent ideas fundamentally opposed to those upon which their worlds rely, and both, though destroyed, plant seeds that have the power to demolish the worlds that broke them. (BOUDREAUX, 2002)

In this case, her examination of these narratives aligns with Ferdinando Taviani’s (a leading authority on the genre of commedia dell’arte) writings, where he mentions that

111

The mask in commedia dell’arte was not so much a false face, (...), as a “lost face”: a negation of its features, a denial of interiority, a way of shifting expression to the body. The characters of commedia were superficial, literally. They were all surface. Their behavior came chiefly as a response to events rather than from within. (apud JOHNSON, 2011, p. 76)

Which, in turn, influenced Russian theater director V. E. Meyerhold to grasp the essence of its mask by identifying it as “chamaleonic,” considering “its lack of expression allowed spectators to see before them all the Arlecchinos they had watched in their lives, and it granted performers greater license to improvise” (p. 76). Even so, at the end of the short story, Ellison plays with Harlequin’s destiny, when, after being captured and recognized, instead of being killed, the Harlequin suffers the same type of brainwashing that Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Winston Smith does. V, on the other hand, chooses death over having his real human identity discovered – in both media. And even Evey, after witnessing V’s death, having the power to discover his ‘real’ identity, understands, as Ticktockman does, that it is less important than the embodied idea of him. Similarly, Taviani claims that the mask “made theatrically credible this absence of character — this absence of psychology, as we would say — that made Arlecchino into a type without making him into a person except through his actions” (apud JOHNSON, 2011, p. 76). Based on this idea, it is easier to understand Evey’s realization that by unveiling V’s mystery, the symbolism behind his persona would diminish and lose its meaning. With it, she understands the significance behind his last words, and finally accepts her shadow self.

Picture 33 – V’s last words (continue)

112

Picture 33 – V’s last words (conclusion)

Font: MOORE, LLOYD, 1988, p. 247, 252.

V is able to play different characters to each person in the story. And he knows this – this is his power. His mystery is his power. His lack of history is his power. He lives as an embodiment of an idea and acts like one. In the graphic novel, he rarely feels unhappy with this resolution. In the movie, however, he suffers, but resigns to his cruel fate. Here, he is more than a simple idea, as Evey mentions at the beginning of the film: “you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it or hold it. Ideas do not bleed. They do not feel pain. They do not love. And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man” (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, p. 10). Therefore, although Moore’s V has mostly shown a persona much more based on a concept of an idea, the Wachowskis’ version of the character is much more humane and bears similar traits to some romantic tragic heroes. One of them is the monster from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818). Differently from The Phantom of the Opera’s Erik, Frankenstein’s monster bears more resemblance to V as it plays with the concept of violence and madness; of rejection by his maker and society, who abhors him as a human being, and yet fears him as a monster. He, in return, seems to have only searched for love and recognition – similar to V’s revelation about his feelings for Evey right before he dies. This final act ends up ‘transforming’ V into a tragic hero, as he believed himself to be. This facet of the mask symbolism demonstrates and exemplifies what philosopher George Santayana states concerning the general nature of one’s persona,

Every one who is sure of his mind, or proud of his office, or anxious about his duty assumes a tragic mask. He deputes it to be himself and transfers to it almost all his vanity. While still alive and subject, like all existing things, to the undermining flux of his own substance, he has crystallized his soul into an idea, and more in pride

113

than in sorrow he has offered up his life on the altar of the Muses. Self-knowledge, like any art or science, renders its subject-matter in a new medium, the medium of ideas, in which it loses its old dimensions and its old pace. Our animal habits are transmuted by conscience into loyalties and duties, and we become "persons" or masks. Art, truth, and death turn everything to marble. (SANTAYANA, 1922, pp. 131-135)

In a way, this change in V’s personality in the filmic adaptation is comprehensible due to the lack of time to develop one’s character, as well as the need to have a relatable hero as one of them – someone with whom the public may sympathize59. Therefore, the solution was to transform V into a more charismatic and less calculated person, even though he still seems obsessed and ruthless in his path to revenge. The Wachowskis’ V is more like Winston Smith than Moore’s V. His romanticism and hope in humanity, sometimes, seem naive, but have the power to conquer both society and Evey, his protegé. On the other hand, the uneasiness of not being able to know the ‘real’ identity of the person behind the mask also permeates the film and helps to color the tragedy behind this anti-hero’s destiny. In scene 262, nearing the end of the film, when Evey and V are dancing, she suddenly wants to know more about him and tries to take off his mask. Carefully, V stops her, by saying: “there is a face beneath this mask, but it is not me. I am no longer that face than I am the muscles beneath it or the bones beneath that” (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, 2006, p.151-152). In a way, V kindly reminds her (and the viewer) of the paradox that is himself, and which he had showed to her when they had first met. At that time, Evey wanted to know who he was, to which he answers: “who is but the form following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask.” When he senses that Evey is annoyed, he gives her further explanation: “I am merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.” (WACHOWSKIS, MCTEIGUE, Scene 14, p. 18). To clarify this, it is valid to use James H. Johnson’s words when he claims that

A mask is pure confrontation. Its features are immobile. Its stare is inescapable. It does not withdraw or avert its gaze. A mask is also incomplete. All surface with nothing inside, an empty facade, the mask announces an absence. As a figure for divinity, its regard is unavoidable, but its incompleteness also signifies the unapproachable. A mask’s implacable presence guards a distance. (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 60)

Having said that, it is possible to comprehend the emptiness of V’s persona in relation to his ‘real’ feelings as a human being. That does not seem to happen in the graphic novel, where V

59 McKEE, Robert. Story: substância, estrutura, estilo e os princípios da escrita de roteiro. Trad.: Chico Marés. Curitiba: Arte & Letra, 2006.

114

appears more like a character in the commedia dell’arte. The difference between both cases may be summarized in Nicolò Barbieri’s defense of the role of an actor:

Clowns (...) were always clowns. But an actor in the role of a clown only imitates a clown: “by wearing a mask on his face, or a false beard, or makeup, he is able to display the essence of another person.” Offstage, an actor has a different identity, is known by another name. “But the buffone is always the same in name, look, and approach, not for two hours of the day but for every moment of his life, and not just on the stage but at home and in the public square.” (apud JOHNSON, 2011, p.76)

In this case, the Wachowskis’ V bears more resemblance to an actor, as Moore’s V to the clown mentioned by Barbieri. The Wachowskis’ V wants a life, wants to love, even though he puts his plans of revenge in the first place. He wears two separate masks and struggles between both halves – shadow and self. He is not in tune with his shadow as he thought he was, and he does not know how to deal with it besides yearning for death, as an actor playing a tragic hero’s part would do. It is only in death that he may be released of the agony of being incomplete. About this, George Santayana comments

Tragedy, the knowledge of death, raises us to that height. In fancy and for a moment it brings our mortal wills into harmony with our destiny, with the wages of existence, and with the silence beyond. These discoveries of reason have fixed the expression of the tragic mask, half horror and half sublimity. Such is the countenance of man when turned towards death and eternity and looking beyond all his endeavours at the Gorgon face of the truth. (SANTAYANA, 1922, pp. 131-135)

On the other hand, the ‘clown’ V of Alan Moore’s narrative seems ready for his death in a completely different manner. As mentioned before, he is more like Dyonisus or Jesus, choosing to die for a higher purpose, so that people can learn how to be free. He is not a Dramatis Persona, as the Wachowskis’ V would present himself to Evey, but an unstoppable and destructive force – a shell to an idea stronger than the body which holds it. Moore’s V dies for this. For his ideal. He chooses to die in a pathetic manner – in the hands of a fragile and vulnerable Eric Finch, still struggling with the effects of LSD he has taken – but to die anyway for what matters is death in itself, and the power of the idea behind the unbreakable smile. For this, he uses the power of the mask symbolism of commedia dell’arte, with its absurd cartoonish effect which “shuns any pretense of holding a mirror to reality” (JOHNSON, 2011, p. 74). It is the same ‘cartoonish effect’ mentioned by Scott McCloud in Desvendando os Quadrinhos, when he explains that “ao reduzir uma imagem a seu ‘significado’ essencial, um artista pode ampliar este significado de uma forma impossível para a arte realista” (p. 30). According to McCloud, the more a face becomes “cartoonish,”

115

the more universal it becomes – and it may be used to describe and represent a considerable amount of different people. Based on these concepts, it makes sense that V’s mask has achieved popularity not only inside the narrative, but outside it, reaching the public of both media. Goethe himself, when he was visiting Venice in the eighteenth century and watched one of commedia’s spectacles, described spectators as if they were seeing “their actual life presented with greater economy as makebelieve and removed from reality by masks” (apud JOHNSON, 2011, p. 75). Here, Goethe might have been describing V for Vendetta’s own spectators, as James R. Keller states in his book, as he tries to understand the meaning behind its symbolism:

The destruction of the Parliament within the film signifies at least twice: one for the citizens of post-apocalyptic London in the film, and once for the movie audience who see their future reflected in the mirror of art, who may one day need to restore their once coveted freedoms by reclaiming their own government. Thus the film signifies outside of its own context, serving as a caution to the actual governments of post-9/11 America and Britain that the overly enthusiastic effort to interdict terrorism will only create more terrorists, not from without but from within. (KELLER, 2008, p. 34)

As a clear example of a powerful image capable of mirroring the spectator’s feeling, causing them to act is the last scene of the movie, where thousands of people march, all dressed in black cloaks and wearing Guy Fawkes masks, towards the Parliament in order to watch it blow up, as V had promised.

Picture 34 – All in Guy Fawkes masks

Font: MCTEIGUE, 2006.

116

This image not only recalls the power of projection, but also the strength behind the icon of the mask. Also, it is impossible not to mention its resemblance to the concept of the carnival, where masked people (especially in Venice) walk around the streets peacefully among others unmasked. To Johnson, the importance behind the concept of the carnival shows how the mask still has the ability and power to transform people, independent of a god, a demon, or an unbroken legacy of associations across time. (p.60) Considering all this, it is safe to conclude that V’s ‘real’ identity is not important. If he is a hero or anti-hero, human or inhuman, mad or sane, a tragic hero or the ultimate villain, an idea or a person masked as an idea, it does not matter, since the concept of his character embodies every possibility. The whole scope of open possibilities is what V preaches when he speaks about Anarchy, and that is how he lives – as an amalgam of quotes, books, movies, plays, paintings, memories, characters, people. And, as such, he mirrors everybody. His message is more important than the body which delivers it. The message is the key to these dystopian narratives – the stories which go beyond the ‘heroes’ and the ‘cowards’ who play parts which resemble ‘reality’ too much. As the critic Salvatore Silvano Nigro has written, “the truth of the mask is the mask itself.” Similarly, the truth of the message is the message itself. As Keith M. Booker claims in Dystopian Impulse in Modern Literature,

the most important contribution of dystopian thought may be to provide opposing voices that challenge utopian ideals, thus keeping those ideals fresh and viable and preventing them from degenerating into dogma. By taking dystopian fiction seriously and by using the dystopian impulse as a focal point for polyphonic confrontations among literature, popular culture, and social criticism we as readers can contribute to this challenge, which is ultimately a positive one. Indeed, it may be that dystopian warnings of impending nightmares are ultimately necessary to preserve any possible dream of a better future. (BOOKER, 1994, p. 176)

In other words, V’s message, as well as Winston’s message to their society and to the ‘real world’ is more important than these character’s background stories or even identities. Winston’s message has not lost its power of subversion after he has been brainwashed, and neither has V’s after his death. They both still live in words. That is the power of language which George Orwell so readily defended, and that Bakhtin considers to be a two-edged sword which may serve as a means of oppression, but also as a means of liberation (BOOKER, p. 85). Thus, the mask serves as the perfect vessel (and the perfect symbol) through which the truth of these words may be transmitted. In Oscar Wilde’s words, “man is

117

least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”60 Or, in Santanaya’s words,

What is not covered in this way by some abiding symbol can never be recovered; the dark flood of existence carries it down bodily. Only in some word or conventional image can the secret of one moment be flashed to another moment; and even when there is no one ready to receive the message, or able to decipher it, at least the poet in his soliloquy has uttered his mind and raised his monument in his own eyes; and in expressing his life he has found it. (SANTANAYA, 1922, p. 131-135)

60 WILDE, Oscar. “The Critic As Artist”. Criticism: Historical Criticism, Intentions, The Soul of Man. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, 2007, p. 185.

118

CONCLUSION

As final considerations, it is crucial to acknowledge the importance of literary texts and general narratives as direct or indirect influence on paradigm shifts in politics and culture, and even as a powerful type of protest against unfair regimes or political views embraced by society at the time of the work’s release. In the case of the two examples used in this dissertation, both were (and still are) very important texts for the creation of a new critical view about not only the future of society, but mainly about its present state. Specifically, even, George Orwell’s novel is a direct (and named) influence on the creation of V for Vendetta’s narrative61, and probably was also a huge influence on the development of Alan Moore’s political and critical views. Moore, who is also an Englishman and has lived under the shadow of the World War II aftermath, has also lived under Orwellian fear of a nuclear war and a bleak future62. Nineteen Eighty-Four, as mentioned in the first chapter, was not only important right after its publication, when critics praised the novel, with one of them claiming it to be the more frightening and depressing novel ever written by a Englishman63, but it has also been regarded as an important work to show the potential consequences of a political road chosen by society in general64. Orwell’s novel remained important and pertinent throughout the Cold War, when the constant threat of nuclear annihilation would always remind the people of its choices. Finally, at the end of the twentieth century, with the rapid and unstoppable technology development and the creation of the Internet, as well as after the installation of CCTV cameras all over the streets of London (as well as in other cities), the Orwellian paranoia has begun to rekindle. Until now, after the 2008 economic crisis, and the NSA scandal65, and many violent protests in between, George Orwell’s novel has achieved an

61 Alan Moore, op. cit., p. 274. 62 Millidge, op.cit. 63 HOWE, Irving. Orwell's nineteen eighty-four: text, sources, criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982 (p. 290–3). 64 Thomas Moylan, Scraps of untainted sky: science fiction, utopia, dystopia (2000, p. 133). 65 BBC NEWS. Edward Snowden: “Leaks that exposed US spy programme.” [S.l.]: 17 Jan. 2014. Available at: Access on: 23 mar. 2015.

119

increase in sales of up to 6000%66 – something that has called many people’s attention and naturally ended up influencing more online, local and even diplomatic protests67. It is also interesting to realize that Orwell’s vision, even though not fully fulfilled, is still very close to what is going on today throughout the world. Besides the obvious examples of new technology which resemble the ones Orwell mentions in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the more important one is the question of media manipulation, used so heavily by the Nazis and the Soviets at the time of the WWII, continued by the Americans during the Cold War, and now efficiently globalized to the other countries in the world. This manipulation, however, was never as destructive as it is now in a globalized and interconnected world. It seems like Orwell’s vision of the centralization of power and the media was right and that, even though he has not predicted a system like the Internet, he has used ideas which may have inspired the visualization and building of such a system. In this case, to Orwell, the Internet may have had the potential of being a powerful and unique system of resistance to an oppressive political system (as it is regarded today), and this fact alone would not have fit in his nightmarish novel. Nevertheless, even if Orwell had predicted the Internet’s creation, certainly he would also have predicted a political regime sufficiently cunning to control it – as many governments are trying to do at this time68. Another aspect predicted by Orwell and that it is even more present in our reality is the forming of economic blocks and super continents, including the European Union, Mercosul in South America, and NAFTA, this without mentioning the religious-fundamentalist organizations blossoming in the Middle East69, which are able to unite different nations against one common enemy: the Western society. This leads to the issue of the neverending war and the obvious necessity, especially in the United States, of a continuous lie-spreading policy in order to maintain the illusion of terror and to keep their economic power over other countries70. The question of the constant war is also directly linked to the aspect of the fear

66 OSBORNE, Hannah. “George Orwell's 1984 book sales soar 6,000% on Edward Snowden NSA Prism data leak”. International Business Times. 11 Junho 2013. Available at: Access on: 23 de mar. 2015. 67 LEVS, Josh; SHOICHET, Catherine E. "Europe furious, 'shocked' by report of U.S. spying." CNN. 1 July 2013. Available at: Access on: 23 mar. 2015. 68 HALLIDAY, Josh. "Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech." The Guardian. 18 May 2011. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 69 REUTERS. "Africa's deadliest terror group just pledged allegiance to Islamic State." Business Insider. 7 mar. 2015. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 70 GEYGER, Rafael. "Documentos dos EUA trazem revelações sobre a ditadura." Notícias Terra. 11 Jul. 2014. Available at: Access on: 21 mar. 2015.

120

politics mentioned widely in this dissertation, and which is increasingly more present nowadays not only through the news and television, but also in everyday life through phone messages, or social media. At this moment, it is practically impossible to escape this social influence. Even if disconnected, one could be influenced by another who is connected at the time, creating a wave of fear seen mostly at times of war. In addition to these aspects, it is still possible to experience the continued party persecution of specific minorities, and the accusation and imprisonment of political dissidents, culminating in hidden tortures and deaths71. These parties and/or regimes not only appear in the Middle East and Asia, but also in ‘developed’ European countries, even though they are still in a timid pace, they already rehearse waves of prejudice, with reactionary and even fascist discourses against common enemies72. Besides Europe, the Republican Party in the United States seems to have been joining forces with religious entities and forwarding their agendas against marginalized minorities73, while directly influencing Brazilian parties and our politics in a similar direction. Even more alarming is the new creation of armies of ‘God’ or ‘Allah’, or other armies based on fundamentalist thoughts74, where the objective is to ‘clean’ the world of infidels – be them whoever they may be. This aspect clearly resembles the hordes of Oceania citizens in their more savage moments, i.e. when they are participating in the Two-Minute Hate. The demonization of the different, the ‘Other’, and the creation of a common enemy, which keeps changing sides and faces, is also a common theme in Orwell’s work that is turning out to be even more constant in recent world news. All of this has worsened after the 2008 economic crisis, when capitalism showed its first real signs of weakness75. The crisis and the near breakdown of some European countries have led to a hoard of dismissals, firings, and unpopular provisional measures which caused

71 HERSH, Seymour M. "Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?" New Yorker. 10 may 2004. Available at: Access on: 12 mar. 2015. 72 PALMER, John. "The rise of far right parties across Europe is a chilling echo of the 1930s." The Guardian. 15 Nov. 2013. Available at: Access on: 24 mar. 2015. 73 BAILEY, Sarah P. "Indiana House passes controversial religious freedom bill." The Washington Post. 23 mar. 2015. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 74 PEREIRA, Andréia. "Membros da Universal, ‘Gladiadores do Altar’ declaram, em vídeo, que estão “prontos para a batalha” e assunto gera polêmica nas redes" Diário da Manhã. 3 Mar. 2015. Available at: Access on: 24 mar. 2015. 75 HOBSBAWM, Eric. "Socialism has failed. Now capitalism is bankrupt. So what comes next?" The Guardian. 10 Apr. 2010. Available at: Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

121

the reappearance of hunger and misery, pointing to an apocalyptic scenery in the world76. All of this has led to a wave of worldwide protests against the crisis, the 1%, banks, corporations, governments, capitalism, and other related aspects which are going on until this moment. Part of these protests can be directly linked to a group of hacktivists called Anonymous, which became initially famous for its direct struggle against Scientology77. This group of anonymous people, who set the dates and places to their public protests online, has appeared in a discussion chat forum called 4chan and has done so initially as a joke – one which has quickly become a political means to different ends. Due to the anonymity, they have decided to choose a symbol and a logo to identify themselves to others like them and people who might want to join their cause: so they chose the Guy Fawkes mask, used by V in V for Vendetta. The symbol was quickly accepted and it is still used today in their videos, even though the aspect behind the use of the Guy Fawkes mask has created a rupture between different groups inside Anonymous78. Yet, since there is no leadership in the group, and with no set of defined rules, the Guy Fawkes mask has become their most important symbol, making the group known throughout the world, especially through the reference of another group: Occupy79. This group has also used the Guy Fawkes mask not only as its symbol, but also as a way of maintaining anonymity of its participants to avoid imprisonment and persecution by the Police or the governments against which they are protesting. The mask has become a symbol for all anti-government or anti-conformist protests, especially after Julian Assange80 appeared in an Occupy rally using the mask (even though he was forced to take it off afterwards)81. Even with the division between internal groups inside Anonymous, the question is that the mask unequivocally invokes V’s words, which are embedded in the politics of the

76 CHOMSKY, Noam. “Will capitalism destroy civilization?” Truthout. 7 Mar. 2013. Available at: < http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14980-noam-chomsky-will-capitalism-destroy-civilization#> Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 77 More information in the documentary by director Brian Knappenberger, We are a legion: the story of the hacktivists (2012). Available at: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SsLGPaYjvM> Access on: 25 Mar. 2015. 78 CARBONE, Nick. "How Time Warner profits from the ‘Anonymous’ hackers." TIME. 29 Aug. 2011. Available at: Access on: 30 Mar. 2015. 79 “The Occupy movement is the international branch of the Occupy Wall Street movement that protests against social and economic inequality around the world, its primary goal being to make the economic and political relations in all societies less vertically hierarchical and more flatly distributed.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 2015) 80 Australian computer programmer who founded the media organization WikiLeaks, a Web site that functioned as a clearinghouse for classified or otherwise privileged information. (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 2015) 81 WAITES, Rosie. "V for Vendetta masks: Who's behind them?" BBC News. 20 Oct. 2011. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015.

122

hacktivist group – an anarchic society, without boundaries, chaotic, without rules, without leaders, anonymous, but which organizes itself on its own and fights for what it represents or what it feels it is right at a determined moment in time, even if it does so in a amoral or anti- moral manner. This political view echoes what Moore’s V believes in the graphic novel. On the other hand, the Wachowskis’ V is the one who delivers an actual call to action to its viewers and ends up influencing the world population, mostly the young generation, to go to the streets – especially after seeing the Guy Fawkes mask covering millions of faces in protests around the world. In the first part of the movie, when V accesses the population, he speaks directly to them about the problems of their society, which do not exclusively refer to his society, but also to the spectators’ society, who watch this scene and empathize with the faces of the anonymous characters who appear watching TV, while V speaks to them. Differently from the graphic novel, where V speaks to his fellow citizens in an arrogant and ironic manner, accusing them of being part of the problem as if he did not belong to their society, the Wachowskis’ V seems to be a real fellow citizen who, placing himself among them and comparing his desires to the ones of his mates, naturally creates public empathy and turns his speech into an inflammable call to action. Furthermore, it is easy to understand how the movie has been easily transformed not only in a political cult, but also in a ‘call to action’ for many protests around the world. This was more evident in 2013, when many protests marked a year of revolt and dissatisfaction against government issues and actions82. The Arab Spring83 was one of the most important ones, culminating in the liberation of the Egyptian people from a fascist government. This series of protests have caused admiration and influenced not only other protests in Europe, but also more Occupy protests in the United States and around the world. Also, they have directly influenced the 2013 manifestations in Brazil84, after the initial revolt against the raise in the bus fare. The images of these manifestations recall David Lloyd’s panels in V for Vendetta, where, in the end, the population has become chaotic, as well as the final scenes of the movie, where a big group of people, all dressed like V and wearing his mask, march to the Houses of Parliament to watch the explosions promised by V, as well as the end of an era of authoritarianism (Picture 34, p. 114).

82 WIKIPEDIA (2015). Available at: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2013_protests> Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 83 “Revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests (both non-violent and violent), riots, and civil wars in the Arab world that began on 18 December 2010 in Tunisia with the Tunisian Revolution, and spread throughout the countries of the Arab League and its surroundings.” (ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 2015) 84 WATTS, Jonathan. "Brazil erupts in protest: more than a million on the streets." The Guardian. Rio de Janeiro: 21 Jun. 2013. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015.

123

All of these current happenings recall the Orwellian premise that the capitalist and monetary political views would naturally spawn this state of affairs85. As a consequence, also, of the increasing governmental violence in combating these protests, with unconstitutional arrests, torture, and media manipulation86, there is a natural tendency in current literature to go back to dystopian topics – now, specifically targeting young audiences. This also occurs in filmic narratives, many of them based on dystopian novels. Many of these novels, also, are being used in classrooms to help in the teachings of politics, economics, as well as to help children and young adults to understand the nature of inequality, tolerance, and to enable the demystification of the ‘Other’87. This is one of the positive consequences of this new dystopian wave, which may influence the development of new minds with the power to deviate society from its current obscured path of an Orwellian dystopia. The major example of the case of these new dystopias which is not only helping towards the education of young children, but also influencing other cultures to rebel against unfair governments and systems is Suzanne Collins’ the Hunger Games trilogy (2008-2010). Besides the bestselling success, it is evident that its cinematic adaptation is directly responsible for the huge world success enjoyed by the books and also responsible for the political influence which has recently caused problems in some countries like Thailand88 and Hong Kong89, where the three-finger symbol of resistance used by Katniss Everdeen (main character), is also being used by the population to resist an authoritarian State. In Thailand, also, there is news of people being arrested for using both Katniss’ three-fingers gesture90, and/or carrying/reading Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four91. While in Canada, USA, Brazil, and

85 ORWELL, George. The road to serfdom by F.A. Hayek/The mirror of the past by K. Zilliacus. [S.l.]: Observer. 9 Apr. 1944. Available at: Access on: 24 mar. 2015. 86 CALIARI, Tânia. "Polícia: para quê polícia?" Carta Capital. 21 Oct. 2013. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 87 TENG, Amelia. "Teenage US bestseller Hunger Games scores as school text." The Straits Time. 22 Feb. 2015. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 88 SOMCHAI, Khun. "‘Hunger Games’ salute gives hope to democracy activists in Thailand." Global Voices. 27 Oct. 2014. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 89 SIM, David. "Hong Kong: Defiant protesters give Hunger Games' three-fingered salute as police clear camp." International Business Times. 11 Dec. 2014. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 90 DOKSONE, Thanyarat. "Thai students detained at 'Hunger Games' opening." UT San Diego. 19 Nov. 2014. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 91 ASSOCIATED PRESS. "Protesting Thai reader of Orwell's 1984 dragged off by police in Bangkok." South China Morning Post. 23 Jun. 2014. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015.

124

many other countries, the use of Guy Fawkes mask in public has been banned92. This prohibition was installed during the 2013 protests, in an intense attempt to oppress the population by facilitating face recognition by CCTV cameras spread throughout the streets. In view of all these alarming aspects, it is clear that the Moore/Wachowskis’ narrative as well as Orwell’s are not only currently meaningful, but also constitute a source of inspiration and influence for the ones who are fighting against a bleak future in society. In this case, it may be said that art, specifically dystopian art, has great potential to influence in social and political issues. Also, even though they belong to the entertainment industry – normally thought of as an alienating channel (as seen in Brave New World) – they may also serve as font of enlightening thought and questioning. In the words of Alan Moore, when asked about his feelings on the use of the Guy Fawkes mask by protesters around the world,

Suppose when I was writing V for Vendetta I would in my secret heart of hearts have thought: wouldn't it be great if these ideas actually made an impact? So when you start to see that idle fantasy intrude on the regular world… It's peculiar. It feels like a character I created 30 years ago has somehow escaped the realm of fiction. (apud LAMONT, 2011)93.

92 MATTHEWS, Kevin. "Protesters who wear masks could spend 10 years in jail." Care2. 25 Sep. 2013. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015. 93 LAMONT, Tom. "Alan Moore – meet the man behind the protest mask." The Guardian. 26 Nov. 2011. Available em: Acesso em: 25 mar. 2015.

125

REFERENCES

BAUDRILLARD, Jean. In the shadow of the silent majorities. New York: Semiotext(e), 1983.

BENJAMIN, Walter. A origem do drama trágico alemão. 2. ed. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica Editora, 2013.

BLACK, J.; CUNNINGHAM, G.; ROBSON, E. et al. The literature of ancient Sumer. New York: Oxford, 2004.

BOOKER, M. Keith. Dystopian impulse in modern literature: fiction as social criticism. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.

______. Dystopia literature: a theory and research guide. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.

BOUDREAUX, Madelyn. An annotation of literary, historic, and artistic references in Alan Moore’s graphic novel, V for vendetta. Natchitoches, LA: [S.n.], 1994. Last revision in 2004. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

BRADBURY, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books, 1987.

BULFINCH, Thomas. O livro de ouro da mitologia. Trad.: David Jardim Júnior. 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Ediouro, 1999.

CHOMSKY, Noam; HERMAN, Edward S. Manufacturing Consent: the political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988.

CLARK, Maudemarie. Nietzsche on truth & philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1990.

CROWLEY, Aleister. The Vision and the Voice. [S.l.: S.n.], 1952. Available at: < http://hermetic.com/crowley/the-vision-and-the-voice/>. Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

DUMAS, Alexandre. The count of Monte Cristo. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2004.

EDELMAN, Scott. C is for controversy. Sci Fi Weekly. Ed. 568, March, 2006. Available at: . Access on: 03 feb. 2015.

ELIADE, Mircea. Patterns in comparative religion. Trans. Rosemary Sheed. New York: World Publishing Co., 1963.

ELLISON, Harlan. Repent, Harlequin! Said the Ticktockman. Galaxy Magazine. [S.l.], v. 24, n. 2, Dec. 1965.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA MICROPAEDIA. 15th ed. 1991.

126

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ONLINE. Available at: Access on: 25 mar. 2015.

EYES WIDE SHUT. Director: Stanley Kubrick. Producers: Stanley Kubrick. Actors: Tom Cruise; Nicole Kidman; Sydney Pollack; Marie Richardson; Rede Serbedzija; Todd Field; Vinessa Shaw; Sky du Mont; Fay Masterson; Leelee Sobieski; Thomas Gibson; Peter Benson e Michael Doven. Music: Jocelyn Pook. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers, c1999. 1 DVD (159MIN), WIDESCREEN, COLOR. Produced by Warner Video Home.

FONTENROSE, Joseph E. Python: a study of delphic myth and its origins. Los Angeles: University of California, 1980.

FOUCAULT, Michel. Discipline and punish: the birth of prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. London: Vintage Books, 1977.

GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang von. Faust. Part One. Translated by Philip Wayne. Harmondsworth and Baltimore: Penguin, 1980.

______. Faust. Part Two. Translated by Philip Wayne. Harmondsworth and Baltimore: Penguin, 1979.

HANSEN, Robert. North Korea’s Naenara web browser: it’s weirder than we thought. [S.l.]: White Hat Security blog, 2015. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar 2015.

HITCHENS, Christopher. Why Orwell matters. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

HOBBES, Thomas. Leviathan or the matter, forme and power of a common wealth ecclesiasticall and civil. Lawrence, Kansas: Digireads.com Publishing, 2010.

HOWE, Irving. Orwell's nineteen eighty-four: text, sources, criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982.

HUTCHEON, Linda. A theory of adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006.

HUXLEY, Aldous. Brave new world. New York: Bantam Books, [1962].

JOHNSON, James H. Venice incognito: masks in the Serene Republic. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2011.

JUNG, C. G. The collected works of C.G. Jung: complete digital edition.. Edited and translated by Gerhard Adler & R.F.C. Hull. New York: Princeton, 1983. v. 1-19

KELLER, James R. V for vendetta as cultural pastiche: a critical study of the graphic novel and film. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, 2008.

KELLNER, Douglas. Cinema wars: Hollywood film and politics in the Bush-Cheney era. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

127

KELLNER, Douglas. Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and beyond. Stanford, California: Stanford University, 1989.

KLINE, Craig. Who is V? [S.l.]: [s.n.], 2000. Available at: . Access on: 7 fev. 2015.

LEROUX, Gaston. The phantom of the opera. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1912. Online version. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

LOB, Jacques; LEGRAND, Benjamin; ROCHETTE, Jean-Marc. Le transperceneige: l’intégrale. [S.l.]: Casterman, 1982.

MARTINS, Camila Alves. Faces do feminino sagrado: o arquétipo da mulher selvagem. 2006. 138 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciências da Religião) – Faculdade de Filosofia e Teologia, Universidade Católica de Goiás, Goiânia, 15 dez. 2006.

MCCLOUD, Scott. Desvendando os quadrinhos. São Paulo: M. Books, 2005.

______. Making Comics. New York: Harper, 2006.

McKEE, Robert. Story: substância, estrutura, estilo e os princípios da escrita de roteiro. Trad.: Chico Marés. Curitiba: Arte & Letra, 2006.

MILGRAM, Stanley. The perils of obedience. [S.l.]: Harper’s Magazine, 1974. Online version. Disponível em: Acesso em: 12 mar. 2015.

MILLIDGE, Gary S. Alan Moore: storyteller. New York: Universe, 2011.

MOORE, Alan. Interview 1. Comics Britannia. London, 2007.

______. Alan Moore on anarchism. Strangers in a tangled wilderness. London, 17 ago 2007.

MOORE, Alan; LLOYD, David. V for Vendetta. New York: Vertigo Comics, 2012.

MOYLAN, Thomas. Scraps of the untainted sky: science fiction, utopia, dystopia. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000.

NIETZSCHE, Friedrich. A genealogy of morals. London: Macmillan, 1897.

______. Human, all too human. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr, 1908. Online ebook version for Project Gutenberg. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

______. The Portable Nietzsche. Selection and Translation: Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin, 1988.

128

ORWELL, George. Looking back on the Spanish War. London: New Road, 1943. Online transcript. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

______. Nineteen eighty-four. [New York]: Signet Classic, [1961].

______. Politics and the English language. Horizon: London, 1946. Online transcript. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

OTT, Brian L. The visceral politics of V for Vendetta: on political affect in cinema. Critical Studies in Media Communication, [S.l.], v. 27, n. 1, p. 39-54, mar. 2010.

OTTO, Jeff. V for Vendetta review: a bold subversive thriller that should both please audiences and fuel post-film debate. IGN. [S.l.]: 16 mar. 2006. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

OXFORD DICTIONARY ONLINE. Available at: . Access on: 25 mar. 2015.

PINCH, Geraldine. The Handbook of Egyptian Mythology. Santa Barbara, California: ABC- CLIO, 2002.

PRINCIPIA DISCORDIA. [S.l.]: [s.n.], 1963. Available at: . Access on: 12. Mar. 2015.

SANTAYANA, George. Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922.

SHELLEY, Mary. Frankenstein: Or, the modern Prometheus. London: Penguin, 1994.

SICUTERI, Roberto. Lilith: a lua negra. 3. ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1998.

SNOWPIERCER. Director: Joon-Ho Bong. Producer: Eun Hee Kim. Actors: Chris Evans; Kang-ho Song; Ed Harris; Tilda Swinton; John Hurt; Jamie Bell; Octavia Spencer; Ewen Bremmer; Ah-sung Ko; Alison Pill; Luke Pasqualino; Vlad Ivanov e Adnan Haskovic. Music: Marco Beltrami. South Korea: Moho Film, c2013. 1 DVD (126MIN), WIDESCREEN, COLOR. Produced by Anchor Bay. Based on the graphic novel “Le Transperceneige” by Jacques Lob, Benjamin Legrand and Jean-Marc Rochette.

THE MATRIX. Director: Andy & Lana Wachowski. Producers: Andy & Lana Wachowski. Actors: Keanu Reeves; Laurence Fishburn; Carrie-Anne Moss; Hugo Weaving; Gloria Foster; Joe Pantoliano; Marcus Chong; Julian Arahanga; Matt Doran; Belinda McClory; Anthony Ray Parker; Paul Goddard e Robert Taylor. Music: Don Davis. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers, c1999. 1 DVD (136MIN), WIDESCREEN, COLOR. Produced by Warner Video Home.

129

THOREAU, Henry. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. [S.l.]: Project Gutenberg, 2004. Last revision: 2011. Online transcript. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

V FOR VENDETTA. Director: James McTeigue. Producers: Andy & Lana Wachowski. Actors: Hugo Weaving; Natalie Portman; Stephen Rea; Stephen Fry; John Hurt; Tim Pigott- Smith, Rupert Graves; Roger Allan; Ben Miles; Sinéad Cusack; Natasha Wightman; John Standing e Eddie Marsan. Music: Dario Marianelli. Los Angeles: Warner Brothers, c2005. 1 DVD (132MIN), WIDESCREEN, COLOR. Produced by Warner Video Home. Based on the graphic novel “V for Vendetta” by Alan Moore & David Lloyd. . VIRILIO, Paul. Strategy of deception. London: Verso, 2000.

______. The administration of fear. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2012.

______. The vision machine. London: BFI, 1994.

VOVOLIS, Thanos. Mask, actor, theatron and landscape in classical greek theatre. In: THE ACOUSTICS OF ANCIENT THEATRES CONFERENCE, 2011, Patras. Invited paper. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

WACHOWSKI, MCTEIGUE. V for vendetta: from script to film. 1. ed. New York: Universe, 2006.

WE ARE A LEGION: the story of the hacktivists. Director: Brian Knappenberger. Producer: Brian Knappenberger. Music: John Dragonetti. Pakistan: Luminant Media, c2012. 1 arquivo eletrônico (93MIN), WIDESCREEN, COLOR. Produced by Luminant Media.

WILDE, Oscar. “The Critic As Artist”. Criticism: Historical Criticism, Intentions, The Soul of Man. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, v. 4. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007

WIKIPEDIA. Available at: . Access on: 12 mar. 2015.

YEATS, W. B. The second coming. In: Michael Robartes and the Dancer. [S.l.]: Kessinger Publishing, 2010.