Remember, Remember the Fifth of November
by Mike GodeskyRemember, remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Four hundred years ago today, Guy Fawkes attempted to kill much of the English Protestant aristocracy by blowing up Parliament during the annual State Opening using barrels of gunpowder in an undercroft just beneath the House of Lords. One of Fawkes’ fellow conspirators wrote a warning to Lord Monteagle. Monteagle showed the letter to Secretary of State Robert Cecil, who had the vaults underneath the House of Lords searched on November 5, 1605. As a result, Fawkes was found and arrested. The Gunpowder Plot is one of the most well-known assassination attempts in history, mostly due to how close Fawkes actually came to crippling the entire English government. In England and some of its former colonies, November 5th is now marked as Guy Fawkes Night—a celebration of Fawkes’ failure.
In the 1980’s comic V for Vendetta, V models himself in the image of that infamous terrorist. In an alternative timeline in which the United States and the Soviet Union destroyed each other in nuclear war, England survived by becoming a fascist dystopia. This government becomes the target of an elaborate plot devised by the terrorist and anarchist known only as V. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, V begins his campaign against the state by succeeding where Fawkes failed—blowing up Parliament.
Today, a film adaptation of the comic directed Larry and Andy Wachowski, creators of the Matrix trilogy, is planned for release. It was originally to be released yesterday, to line up with Guy Fawkes Night. In that case, this post would have been a review of the movie. However, the film has since been delayed until March 17, 2006. A disappointment to be sure. After all, March 17th isn’t mentioned at all in the rhyme. But it did get me thinking about V, and how he stands in comparison to other comic book characters. So while we all wait for the movie, I thought I might share some thoughts on that subject instead.
V is a very rare case as far as superheroes go—a superhero whose philosophy is openly anarchist. Most superheroes are dedicated toward upholding the law, which presents writers with a dilemma. How can they portray a person who is ultimately breaking the law by taking it into his own hands as enforcers of the law?
In many cases, the hero is depicted, either expressly or implicitly, as being an arm of the state. A favorite storyline of the Golden Age featured readers’ favorite superheroes such as Superman and Wonder Woman battling the Nazis. The first issue of Captain America, arguably the most nationalistic superhero ever made, had on the cover an image of the Captain punching Adolf Hitler in the face.
When I learned that the release of V for Vendetta had been postponed, I decided to quench my thirst for comic book superheroes by reading Volume 2 of The Ultimates, Marvel’s modern day reworking of The Avengers. In the story, such notable comic book characters as Captain America, Iron Man, Nick Fury, and the Hulk make up an elite government task force created to respond to the emerging threat of supervillains. As I read, I was surprised to find the Nazi storyline still alive and well. Volume 2, titled “Homeland Security,� deals with a race of shape shifting aliens who were originally behind the rise of Nazi Germany returning to subdue the Earth. Perhaps more interesting, however, is The Ultimates’ reinforcement of current government policies in the same way that comics of the past have served as American propaganda during World War II and the Cold War. With the exception of Ultimate Thor, who is portrayed as a pacifist opposed to the military-industrial complex, a major theme of The Ultimates has been people’s failure to recognize the seriousness of the threat of supervillains and the need for an aggressive military response. Replace “supervillains� with “terrorists,� and the philosophy of The Ultimates is basically a defense of the Bush Doctrine.
Even those superheroes not officially employed by the United States government are often depicted as agents of the government. Superman, for instance, has long been an American icon, fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way.�
Comic book superheroes are not always recognized for their good deeds, though. Spider-Man is often mistaken for one of the criminals he has dedicated his life to fighting. This is thanks in no small part to Daily Bugle editor J. Jonah Jameson’s attempts to smear his character. However, it does bring to light an interesting question. There is very little difference between Spidey and his more patriotic counter-parts. In fact, he is often thought of as Marvel’s Superman. So why is Superman a paragon of American justice, while Spider-Man is a vigilante? For that matter, what gives any superhero the right to use the violent and destructive measures they so often employ?
Ever wonder what happens to all those buildings superheroes smash through while protecting people from crime? In a rare issue in which the aftermath of such spectacular battles is actually considered, the Mighty Thor realizes, “It’s my fault they’re out of work! I never even considered the repercussions these super fights have on the people I’m trying to protect!� The reader, however, knows that Thor’s actions were justified in order to serve the greater good.
And this idea of the greater good is how superheroes operate. The superhero is allowed to use any amount force to achieve his goals. No one else is. The idea involves what sociologist Max Weber called the monopoly of force. According to Weber, a state cannot be defined by its ends since there is no task both exclusive to and unique to the state. Rather, the state is defined as that body which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In other words, state sanctioned use of force is the only kind of force that is morally acceptable. Only the state and those acting with the permission of the state are allowed to use physical violence.
Superheroes, in their quest to uphold the law, often have either explicit or implicit permission from the state to use force. Therefore, Superman is not considered a criminal in spite of his actions that normally would be considered criminal because the government in Superman’s world has decided that he is allowed to use such force. Others, such as the Punisher, do not have such an allowance. As a result, they are regarded as vigilantes.
This is a theme that often crops up with Batman, who, depending on the writer, may be seen either as an agent of the state or as a masked vigilante. Frank Miller’s portrayal of Batman in the popular series The Dark Knight Returns deals largely with this issue of monopoly of force. The story features a Caped Crusader at the end of his years, having lost the support of the public and the government, engaged in a vindictive campaign to restore Gotham.
Much of Miller’s Batman came through in Christopher Nolan’s 2005 film Batman Begins. In the movie, Bruce Wayne says,
They told me there was nothing out there, nothing to fear. But the night my parents were murdered I caught a glimpse of something. I’ve looked for it ever since. I went around the world, searched in all the shadows. And there is something out there in the darkness, something terrifying, something that will not stop until it gets revenge… me.
Batman, and the various incarnations he has taken, forces us to ask where the line is between justice and personal revenge. It is a line with which the Dark Knight himself constantly seems to be flirting.
Even in Batman, however, there is a constant need for comic book writers to reaffirm the legitimacy of the state’s concept of justice. V is the extremely rare example of a superhero who finds himself not only unaligned with the state, but actively opposed to the state. In this way it might be said that V for Vendetta actually has more in common with politically charged stories such as George Orwell’s similarly dystopian 1984 than it does with the tales of V’s comic book counterparts.
Even more surprising is that V’s concept of anarchy appears to be as accurate as it is eloquent. V is careful to distinguish between anarchy and chaos—between “the land of do-as-you-please” and “the land of take-what-you-want.” And while written over 20 years ago, the ideas in V for Vendetta are just as important to audiences today, if not moreso.
V’s response to the concept of monopoly of force can be found in the poster for the film:
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
An interesting Guy Fawkes Night website.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 6 November 2005 @ 12:24 AM
I’ve hear a lot of things about the V comic book. The film however, is a different matter. By all accounts it’s going to be dire. Apparently it won’t even mention anarchism. Ho hum.
Comment by Disillusioned kid — 6 November 2005 @ 3:42 PM
I find it amazing how the subconscious of the general public is beginning to “wake up,” often through movies.
In “The Matrix,” we see an allegory of Plato’s shadow cave. What if there was more to your world that you just couldn’t see? There was the article in which it was mentioned that Mr. Kennedy at one point made the comment that this will all be over soon. We see with V the idea of “ignoring the people who impose the rules” invading the public mind.
Not only do the elites see that “it’s coming,” but the concept is emerging from the general subconscious to the general forebrain. It could very well mean that “it’s coming.” What if kids are so spoiled today because their parents are trying to leave them with as many good memories as possible? They know, but it’s just below the surface…
Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 6 November 2005 @ 5:14 PM
I’ve heard that too. And it’s not like movies based on Alan Moore comics have a great track record. On the other hand, if the movie is even a fraction of the coolness of the comic book, it will be well worth the $9. Besides, the Wachowski brothers did a great job with The Matrix, so I’m willing to withhold judgment until I actually see the film.
Or, along similar lines, what if the youths of today are so “apathetic” because on some level they don’t believe there is any hope for the future? Certainly makes you think…
Comment by Mike Godesky — 6 November 2005 @ 5:32 PM
Would you say it’s fair to call most superheroes fascist? What with the liberal use of force and nearly fetish-like obsession with law and order….
Anyway, great article. Cultural criticism of the highest caliber–talk about laying bare Mother Culture’s siren song!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 November 2005 @ 12:04 PM
an excellent book on fascism and superheroes is Frank Miller’s sequel to the DK Returns, “The Dark Knight Strikes Again”. In it, Luthor and Braniac have taken complete control of the world, and the Batman fights back with a very intersting strategy. not as good as DK Returns, but worth the read. Another excellent read is Alan Moore’s Watchmen, the #1 readers pick in the TIme Mag best 100 books of the 20th century.
I think it would be “wrong” to label superheroes as fascists. after all fascism means
fas·cism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
whilst it is possible to label certain heroes as upholders of the fascist order, most lack any qualities mentioned in sections 1 and 3.
oh, and often justice and revenge are very close together.
i would try to write more, but i have to go to work.
GREAT ARTICLE!!!
Comment by Rory — 8 November 2005 @ 2:55 PM
Glad you guys enjoyed it. As far as the question of fascism goes, I’d say it’s not a totally unfair interpretation, although I hesitate to use the word “fascist.” But there’s definitely a very conservative trend in comic books. Especially if you look at the Golden Age superheroes who were really based on the boy scout model pioneered by Superman. This is your Supermen, your Wonder Women, your Captain Americas, your Captain Marvels, and so on. By the time you get to Stan Lee’s era, this seems to have lessened a bit. And I think Stan Lee himself had a lot to do with this. He really strikes me as someone who actually wanted to make scifi movies, but ended up in comic books instead. So with him you get characters like Spider-Man, the Hulk, the X-Men, etc. It’s less about truth and justice. There’s more character stuff. There’s more horror movie kind of stuff. And of course, by the time you get to today, when a comic book store doesn’t look like the kind of place you’d want your child anywhere near, it’s deteriorated even more.
But still, if you think of your classic, traditional superhero, it is very much based on the Superman boy scout model. That’s sort of the superhero archetype. And I think you could make the claim that there’s a hint of fascism there. They’re very harsh in the execution of justice, and they’re also in many cases very nationalistic. Think about Superman. Would we like Superman as much if he wasn’t American? In the Elseworlds series Red Son, Superman lands in the Soviet Union. And it really makes you think.
Rory mentioned “suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship.” Censorship maybe not so much, but superheroes do depend a lot on terror. That’s sort of the point I was driving at with Batman, although I’m not sure I was really clear because it was little bit rushed. But Batman, especially in stories like Batman Begins, depends a lot on striking fear into the hearts of his enemies. You make criminals so afraid that they don’t even think about breaking the law. Other superheroes don’t really do this on purpose, but they sort of have the same effect. What’s one of the biggest complaints about Superman? That he’s too powerful. As soon as Big Blue enters a fight, you know it’s over. Supe has to be that powerful because he’s an embodiment of justice. And the idea is that if you commit a crime, justice will be swift and severe. And that’s a key idea in fascism as well. Say what you will about fascist regimes, but they have a very low crime rate. Because for those that do commit a crime, the police will come out of nowhere and deal with those people harshly–just like superheroes.
It’s also reinforcing the idea that there are all these nasty bad guys out there waiting to get us, and that we need some sort of overwhelming police force to respond to these threats. Think about the Justice League. It even sounds like a government organization. It’s like the League of Nations. Maybe it’s just me, but the way it hits the ears, it sounds a tad Orwellian too. Like they could have called it the Ministry of Peace, and it would have had the same effect.
Obviously, though, comic books don’t really get into all of that. The situations superheroes typically deal with are pretty black and white, so the reader feels okay about the hero’s actions. It’s like when the police take down a rapist. Even if you don’t like the police, nobody’s going to get upset about them locking away someone like that. Comics don’t tend to get into the really sticky issues involved in monopoly of force. After all, they would be a poor defense of the concept if they did. I was watching the movie Training Day on USA the other day. Now there’s something you’d watch if you really wanted to get into that sort of thing. But comics don’t, because they want the reader to feel good about the character throwing a car into his opponent’s face.
Ironically, Superman was originally conceived as a villain in a short story titled “The Reign of the Superman.” I think that’s interesting. You can take it as you will.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 8 November 2005 @ 6:08 PM
Did the kids at school ever call you “Mr. Glass,” Mike?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 November 2005 @ 6:19 PM
Hey Mike, you ever watch the cartoon show “Justice League Unlimited”? Last season, they took on the idea of how far power can go and how close to fascism the Justice League really came.
Interestingly enough, the end answer to the whole thing was to dismantle the Justice League satellite, the Watchtower, and the council of seven major heroes (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter, Flash, Hawkgirl)that ran it. Instead, they decided to rely on a series of small embassies, each locally involved so that the heroes could get right in with the people again.
Heh. Superhuman rhizome?
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 8 November 2005 @ 6:42 PM
Bill, that sounds awesome. I’ve only ever watched one episode of that show, and I don’t even remember what it was about. But it sounds like something I’d like.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 8 November 2005 @ 7:15 PM
V is an incredible read. Although it isn’t very good overall, Marvel’s “The Ultimates” which is a re-imagining of the old Avengers deals with some of these issues. Not so much with the idea of anarchy versus fascism, but they are a government organization, and they often get caught up in political and diplomatic red tape. I haven’t read too much of it, but it is an interesting take.
The idea of power structures is present in almost every comic book. I never read comic books as a kid, so I had the pleasure of starting out recently reading the more “literary” stuff like Neil Gaiman’s “Sandman.” The vast majority of comics feature the hero or heroes taking the law into their own hands. They do this for a variety of reasons, but it involves a threat that the hero believes only he or she is equipped or willing to take on. There is inherently no faith in the political structures, and little faith in people in general. It’s true that in many cases these threats take the form of radioactive monsters from another galaxy, things that can only be tackled by a super hero, but in many of them, the threat involves something quite mundane. Take a look at “The Punisher.” It’s not very good at all, but the hero is trying to rid the world of organized crime. There is a similar theme in the far more widely respected “Watchmen,” in which the characters are fighting crime, but question whether or not they are equipped to deal with something far bigger than a few masked heroes.
Comment by Jay — 15 November 2005 @ 2:28 PM
I just read an interesting post by aeschenkarnos on MetaFilter in response to the 9/11 in Comics thread. Thought it might be relevant here. He writes:
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 December 2005 @ 11:57 AM
I thought that this was a really amazing movie and everyone should definitely go to see it. Even though anarchy wasn’t explicitly mentioned it was the obvious ideal behind that actions (of course the V symbol which closely resembles the anarchy symbol helps with that). It also has a great deal of current relevence in regards to the numerous parallels with the Bush administration and nazi Germany. It gets its point across well and will hopefully get a lot of people thinking.
Comment by Anisah — 27 March 2006 @ 5:32 AM
This movie isn’t about anarchy… just imagine what this kind of ideea would do to the world…
“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
True.
But fortunatelly this time hasn’t come. The ideea in V for Vendetta is a government represented by the most extreme fascism. And although some might think there is a paralel to problems today regarding the power and actions of the United States, they are wrong.
Sure, there are similarities… but they are shallow. Most of the people actually still like this and no action, similar to V’s will change the state of things.
Regarding anarchy… V (at least the movie caracter, i never read the comics, my country can’t seem to publish quality comick books) was a “freedom fighter” and nothing more. He wasn’t fighting against the government ideea, but freedom. He was fighting against this particular government, a fascist and dictatorial regim that claimed power trough mass murder and genocide. And as if that wasn’t enough… they kept the population in a state of fear, fear of death, and worse fear of life.
In my oppinion V was looking for freedom not anarchy.
Comment by Athos — 30 March 2006 @ 6:54 PM
That was the big complaint about the movie, the fact that in it, V isn’t an anarchist.
In the graphic novel, V has an actual vision of what comes next. Four minutes of screen time devoted to the soliliquy with Lady Justice, and V’s distinction between “the Land of Take-What-You-Want” and “the Land of Do-As-You-Please” would have made the film a masterpiece. As it is, V is merely another freedom fighter, and the movie is merely good.
I also disagree with you that the parallels are “shallow.” The United States government is currently under the sway of neoconservatives, a political philosophy that can justly be called at least quasi-fascist, and that is certainly the direction the country’s politics are moving in.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 March 2006 @ 7:20 PM
Replace the tack-on emotions that just highlighted that V is a flat character with his actual plan and the movie suddenly becomes one of the best.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 31 March 2006 @ 2:18 AM