Power and Identity in V for Vendetta: An Analysis using Foucault's The Subject and Power, Study notes of Dynamics

Download Power and Identity in V for Vendetta: An Analysis using Foucault's The Subject and Power and more Study notes Dynamics in PDF only on Docsity! Master’s Degree programme in European, American and Postcolonial Language and Literature “D.M. 270/2004” Final Thesis Power Structures in V for Vendetta Supervisor Ch. Prof. Shaul Bassi Assistant supervisor Ch. Prof. David John Newbold Graduand Valentina Gaio Matriculation Number 858301 Academic Year 2016 / 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE Introduction 1 ..................................................................................................................................... Graphic Novel as a Form 16 .............................................................................................................. V 23 .......................................................................................................................................... Adam Susan 34 ................................................................................................................................... Evey Hammond 46 .............................................................................................................................. Rosemary Almond 56 .......................................................................................................................... Helen Heyer 63 ................................................................................................................................... Eric Finch 71 ...................................................................................................................................... Valerie 77 ...................................................................................................................................... Conclusion 83 ..................................................................................................................................... Bibliography 90 .................................................................................................................................. Appendices Excerpt from “Victim” in V for Vendetta - Backstory 93 ....................................................... Excerpt from “Versions” in V for Vendetta - Adam Susan and V 96 ..................................... Excerpts from “The Veil,” “Various Valentines” and “Vindication” in V for Vendetta - Rosemary Almond 101 ............................................................. Excerpts from “Verwirrung,” “Various Valentines” and “Victors” in V for Vendetta - Helen Heyer 110 ....................................................................... Excerpt from “Vestiges” in V for Vendetta - Eric Finch 114 .................................................. Excerpt from “Valerie” in V for Vendetta - Valerie 118......................................................... i 3 exemplified by Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, in which he claimed that he was told during a conversation with a constituent that, ‘“In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man[,]”’ and later stated, We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. (Powell) This speech parroted and exacerbated growing racist sentiments about the inevitability of the white population of Britain being overwhelmed and ultimately destroyed by non-white foreigners. It particularly emphasized the idea that a British- born child of immigrants could never truly be a Briton, due to their racial or ethnic background, and that the immigrant, particularly the coloured immigrant, would never seek to, let alone be able to, integrate with British society. This fear of the “other” was not focused only on foreigners, however, as the ongoing AIDS crisis—then believed to be a disease that targeted only homosexuals and drug users, and thus seen by some to represent a divine punishment for their “sins”-- emboldened the intolerant and homophobic climate that prevailed in much of Britain. Though homosexual acts had been decriminalised in 1967 (Sexual Offences Act 1967 c.60), reporting on the topic in the newspapers grew increasingly hysterical, with AIDS treated as the “wages of sin,” and those who obtained AIDS through means such as gay intercourse or drug use were treated as guilty or morally corrupt, as opposed to those who were “innocent victims,” having contracted AIDS due to, for example, contaminated blood transfusion (Thompson 71). By 1988, with the AIDS 4 crisis reaching its zenith, the Tory government was back to reintroducing legislation that was directly homophobic, marked by the passage of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, banning any local authority from, intentionally promot[ing] homosexuality or publish[ing] material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promot[ing] the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship (Local Government Act 1988) In this way, the homosexual underclass was further alienated from mainstream society, and it seemed that even the government itself approved of treating this minority group of its own citizens as a potentially dangerous threat to the “normal” citizens of Britain. This fact no doubt emboldened homophobes and contributed to attacks on gay people throughout Britain. As a result of these tumultuous social crises, race riots and hate crimes were on the rise. As if this galvanization of public opinion against visible and sexual minority groups were not enough, all of these upheavals and social panics were occurring against the increasingly bloody backdrop of The Troubles, the Irish guerrilla war for independence from Britain which had long since moved beyond Ireland’s borders and onto English soil (Aughey 7). This period was marked by a steady campaign of bombings, attacks, and murders in England and abroad carried out by the revolutionaries (Taylor 265). These violent and unyielding tactics of played a large role in further exacerbating the violent and oppressive response of both the police and the government to instances of unrest. 5 It was within this political and social context that V for Vendetta was created, and which it sought to highlight and to warn its readers about. The bleak, cruel reality and heightened social and economic instability of Thatcher’s Britain worried Moore and Lloyd, who looked on with alarm at the government’s increasingly authoritarian responses to crises, as shown in the introduction to V for Vendetta, written in 1988 by Moore. It’s 1988 now. Margareth 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. (Moore) The fear and dismay that resonate through Moore’s words at the time make it clear that both he and Lloyd did not create V for Vendetta as a simple story or thought experiment, but rather as a warning of what was to come if the situation, and the country, continued along the path it was currently following. When they started writing in 1981, they took for granted that the Conservative party would lose the 1983 General Election to the Labour Party. The Conservative Party managed to retain power in this election for several reasons, primary among them being their success in the Falkland War, as well as the timid economic recovery that the country was undergoing around the time of the election, and which seemed to 8 are policed and brutally stamped out. In this version of Britain, the population has willingly given up most of their rights in exchange for the promise of order and an escape from the chaos of the interregnum. The graphic novel takes great care to detail the level of complacency in the population only five years on from Norsefire’s seizure of power. Edward Finch, the chief of the police force colloquially referred to as the Nose, does not hide his disdain for the new order, but considers it to be better than no society at all, and makes no efforts to challenge or subvert even those systems that he actively disapproves of. (Moore 30, 210) The members of the public at large are shown to simply be living their lives as best they can, unquestioningly accepting the repression that has been forced upon them. Even when they are given the assurance that they will no longer be spied upon by the government, it takes a great deal of prompting and manipulation of events for them to start actively attempting to overthrow the government. When a character does say that they “shouldn’t live like this” and that he wishes “we were all dead! It’d be better!” he is promptly attacked and beaten by the rest of the crowd, who unthinkingly reinforce the regime rather than question or speak out against the system. (Moore129) Later on, when Evey, one of the main characters, repeats that they should not be living like this, the man she is with responds with a meek “[n]o, kid, we shouldn’t. What are you going to do about it?” (Moore 130). In this way, Moore emphasizes and critiques the way in which the people of Britain accept even the most oppressive control over their lives, rather than attempting to step outside of the comfortable control that society has trained them to believe that they cannot live without. This focus on power continues from the level of government to society and pervades even the daily relationships of the individual characters. Almost every 9 relationship shown in the story has a distinct power imbalance, with one person in control and the other subordinate to the first. In contrast to this, V’s plan is to give power back to the people, to make everyone equal and to emphasize his belief that order does not require subjugation, willing or otherwise. As he explains to Evey when she asks if the chaos of the ongoing riot they are witnessing is anarchy, “Anarchy means “without leaders”; not “without order.”’ (Moore 195) He believes that it is possible for human society to flourish without leaders or hierarchical structures, and that this society would be orderly not because of the top-down structures that keep them in place, but because of the people who create it from the bottom up. The aim of this dissertation, therefore, is to analyse the ways in which the comic portrays power structures and relationships between key characters, and the extent to which it displays the relative benefits of the power structures (or lack thereof) inherent to fascism and anarchy. To fully explore the role of power and relationships throughout V for Vendetta, this dissertation will be structured around the recommended method analysing power relationships put forward by Michel Foucault in his work The Subject and Power, first published in 1982. In it, Foucault describes five points that must be established in order to correctly analyse the way that relationships generate power. The first is the concept of the system of differentiations, that is those differences between actors, be they legislative or legal, traditional, economic, or so forth, which, “permits one to act upon the actions of others[.]” That is to say, the differences between people, such as unequal wealth or unequal enforcement of laws, that are necessary for power imbalance, and which are used to reinforce imbalance. As Foucault describes it, “every relationship of power puts into operation differences that are, at the same time, 10 its conditions and its results” (Foucault 344). To Foucault, then, differentiation in power is the means by which one exercises one’s will over another, and also the ends to which the power is exercised; by exercising power over another, one reinforces the existing power structure, and deepens the power imbalance between the two actors. The second point is the types of objectives that are being pursued by the actor when they bring their will to bear upon another person. To what end do they direct their power, why do they seek to command another person or people? In typical power relationships, objectives are often profits for oneself, developing or maintaining privileges, or gaining and keeping control over people or objects of value. The third point is the instrumental modes in use by the actor, that is, what are the means that are in use in order to create and reinforce the power relationship. There are many means that may be used to exercise power; among them are violence or the threat of violence, the creation and enforcement of rules or legislation, or the creation and maintenance of economic disparity. The fourth point is the forms of institutionalization used by the actor. What institutions do they use or rely upon as part of their exercise of power, and which justify their power. This can range from the very formal, such as the state and its legislation, to economic institutions, to the relatively informal structure of cultural or subcultural traditions, the hierarchy of the family, or even fashion. The fifth and final point is the degree of rationalization, addressing the actual outcomes of the attempt to wield power. Are the instruments in use proving effective, and do they suit the ends they are being directed towards? Does their value in terms of producing the desired effect outweigh the cost to the actor? Using these five points of analysis, it will be possible to fully explore each individual character, their place in the hierarchical power structure, and the ways in 13 husband, she is unprepared for her newfound freedom from his rule, and her life is subsequently cast into chaos as she struggles to make sense of her new ability to choose for herself. She finds herself trapped in a downward spiral as she continues to seek a way to exist on her own while still, knowingly or not, capitulating to the existing power structures. Like Evey she attempts to rebel against and ultimately overthrow the system, in her case by assassinating Adam Susan. However, she is not properly prepared for this struggle, and she is consumed by the chaos of revolution and unable to weather these changes or to fully embrace her new independence; her attempted subversion is less successful and less complete, and she is captured and most likely executed. On the other end of the spectrum, the next chapter will focus on the character of Helen Heyer, the wife of another member of the inner party. An abusive and dominating tyrant who controls her weak-willed husband with an iron fist, Heyer uses her connection to power as a way to further her own ambitions and to amass more power and influence for herself. She is the classic image of the corrupt kleptocrat, manipulating and abusing the hierarchical system in which she lives in order to benefit herself and only herself, with her actions contributing to the detriment and suffering of those around her. Her ultimate loss of power and subsequent downfall parallels the downfall of her rigidly structured society: when there is no longer a hierarchy to manipulate, she is powerless; when the system collapses she is left to the mercy of the rioting populace. The next chapter focuses on Eric Finch, the previously referenced head of Norsefire’s investigative wing, referred to as the Nose. Though he shares none of the convictions or politics of his party, he nonetheless passively perpetuates and enables 14 the governmental powers and controls imposed on his fellow citizens. When he ultimately goes against the will of the government by continuing to pursue V, he nonetheless does so within the strictures imposed by the government, and to further the government’s ends. Neither completely free nor completely bound by the hierarchy in which he lives, the government’s collapse finally releases him from the bonds that he was unable to fully escape while it still existed. He is therefore in many ways the average person, not fully dedicated to the government, but too passive and comfortable to subvert it by himself, and requiring violent revolution to be begun and largely carried out on his behalf in order for him to finally lay claim to the liberty that awaits him. Finally, this dissertation will consider the character of Valerie Page, a lesbian and actress who was imprisoned in one of the government’s concentration camp due her sexuality, and who ultimately died there as a result of the experimentation that was carried out upon her. Before dying she was able to pass a note to V, which was part of the impetus that set him on his course of anarchy. Ostensibly a victim of society, Valerie subverts this role and escapes the hierarchical system not by acting upon it outwardly, as most subversive characters do, but instead by looking within herself and rejecting the hold that society has over her. Embracing her difference and her choices, she declares herself to be, and dies, free. Each of these seven characters experience and interact with power in very different ways. Throughout the graphic novel, several of them are seen growing and changing as a result of the influence others have over them, and as the system and their own spheres and abilities of influence are altered. Through a consideration of each of these characters, this dissertation will seek to understand the ways in which 15 power is created and used in a hierarchical sociesty, how it can affect the trajectory of a character’s life and the ways it impacts upon their relationships to others and to the society in which they live. By bringing to bear Michel Foucault’s theories about power relationships, this dissertation will reflect upon the power dynamics at play throughout V for Vendetta. 18 the essay Seduction of the Innocent by psychiatrist Frederic Wertham. This essay stirred up concern and moral panic over the potential effect that violence in comic books could have on the psyche of the public, particularly on the young children who often consumed them most. The ensuing public outrage and backlash led to the advent of the Comics Code Authority, a regulatory body that was created by the publishers in order to avoid government censorship, allowing the companies to self-police their own comics with a series of extremely restrictive rules that heavily censored the content of the stories, the so-called Comics Code. Without Comics Code adherence, it was impossible for creators to publish under the auspices of any of the major companies. As a result of the implementation of the Code and its constraints on what could be published, authors were forced to write more outlandish or buffoonish plots to compensate for the sudden lack of violence; this goofiness and unseriousness came to typify this era of comics, which came to be known as the Silver Age. Because of this rapid change in subject matter and shift in tone to a general silliness, comics became known as being a medium “for children”, a label that they still carry to this day. (Tychinski) To escape the censorious reach of the Comics Code, many creators refused to produce work for traditional publishing houses, and turned instead to self-publishing as a new venue through which to present their true artistic visions. (Rothschild XIII) The comics that were published in this way were referred to as “underground comics,” and represented a significant phase in the overall development of the graphic novel, helping to establish many of the traditions and styles, both in terms of the art and writing, that are in use to this day. In The Graphic Novel: an Introduction, Jan Beatens and Hugo Frey explain that “underground comics invented formats and contents for 19 future graphic novels” (Beatens 59), while Sean Carleton argues in Drawn to Change: Comics and Critical Consciousness that the “mainstream resurgence in the late 1970s” was built on the “relative success of the underground movement[.]” (Carleton 155) Without this period in comic book history, it is unlikely that the modern comic book landscape would look as it does now. As noted, the Seventies saw a massive resurgence in mainstream comics of “longer and […] more serious engagements with historical and contemporary political issues.” (Carleton 156) This marked the beginning of the Bronze Age of Comics, and, starting from this point, comics underwent a marked darkening in terms of both tone and acceptable plot lines and character arcs, with many authors choosing to confront serious political and social issues, such as drug addiction, racism, poverty, and corruption. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that, in this climate of growing seriousness, the term “graphic novel” began to gain traction with a small group of artists during this period, as it did not carry with it the previously mentioned stigmatic connotation that was attached to the word “comics”. These advocate artists included creators such as Richard Corben, Jim Steranko, and George Metzger, who, in 1976, put the term “graphic novel” in the introduction, on the cover, or as a subtitle on their respective works; (Beatens 61) in 1974, Jack Katz described his series The First Kingdom as “the first graphic novel”; (Katz) and in 1978, Will Eisner used the term as a subtitle to his A Contract with God, erroneously believing himself to be the first creator to use it. By the early 1980s it was an accepted term in the comic book community, but was not known outside of this circle. It was not until Art Spiegelman’s Maus (published as a collected work for the first time in 1986) that the term “graphic novel” made its way from the niche comic community into the popular lexicon, as his 20 combined biographical/autobiographical retelling of his father’s historical account of civil life as a Jew in Poland before and during the Second World War, and of the horrors of Auschwitz, caught the attention of comic fans and the general public alike. (Carleton 157) The term “graphic novel” is not without its detractors, however, one of the most prominent among them being Alan Moore himself. In an interview with Barry Kavanagh to the website Blather, he explained that in his opinion “[i]t’s a marketing term” that “just came to mean “expensive comic book”” and that it has its “roots in the need to dissemble and justify [reading and enjoying comic books],” and thus “exude[s] a sense of desperation, a gnawing hunger to be accepted.” (Kavanagh) In the Sandman Companion, Neil Gaiman, another well-respected comic book author, responded to the claim that he writes graphic novels rather than comic books by saying that he “felt like someone who’d been informed that she wasn’t actually a hooker; that in fact she was a lady of the evening.”(Bender 6) Finally, Giles Coren, a writer for The Times, said the use of the term is a way to give comic books an air of pretension, as “to call them graphic novels is to presume that the novel in in some way ‘higher’ than the karmicbwurk (comic book), and that only by being thought as a sort of novel can it be understood as an art form.” (Coren) While these objections are valid and convincing, and it does seem that the line between “graphic novel” and “comic book” is, for all intents and purposes, a distinction without a difference, still for the sake of clarity this dissertation will refer to V for Vendetta as a “graphic novel.” This nomenclature will be used with the understanding, however, that the term can be, and indeed is to be, read interchangeably with the term “comic book,” and that the only real difference between the two is their size and style of presentation, with the former 23 V Very little is known about the man who calls himself V. All that is known for certain is that he was probably raised in England, and was certainly present when the bombs fell and the war began. After the war he was identified by Norsefire as a social undesirable-- his “crime,” whether it was his race, his religion, his sexuality, his politics, or any other element of himself, is as unknown as his name-- and was incarcerated at the Larkhill Resettlement Camp, one of the concentration camps run by the government as part of their campaign against minority groups and dissidents. There, he was the subject of medical experimentation, which enhanced his body and intellect while also rendering him insane. Driven by a new purpose, he managed to orchestrate the destruction of the camp and escape it, travelling to London where he began his terroristic plot to bring down the government and to return the people of England to a state of anarchy. Cunning and manipulative, he manages to undermine the political and social structure of Britain over the course of a year, successfully overthrowing the government. He dies in the midst of the death throes the old world order, passing his mantle on to his protégé Evey. Before proceeding to discuss V's position in the power structure, it is worth considering his visual representation in the graphic novel. He is almost never shown without his mask, and, when he is, his face is covered by shadows (Moore 9, 83). It follows that he is incapable of displaying any facial expression other than the one pictured on the mask he is wearing in that moment. As a way to circumvent this problem, David Lloyd uses shadows and different perspectives to convey what 24 emotion V is feeling in any given panel. For example, on page 19, the panel focuses in closely on his face, making the smile of his mask almost disappear while he talks of how culture has been eradicated, and of how instead of music now there is only "his master's voice. Every hour on the hour[,]" emphasizing his anger and disgust at the situation. On page 29, on the other hand, his smile is clearly visible as he comforts Evey, displaying a softer side to the immovable mask. His usual costume-- the mask that he wears and the style of clothing he is almost always depicted in-- is a homage to Guy Fawkes, an English Catholic who was one of the members of the plot to bomb the British Parliament as part of an attempt to assassinate the king. This is confirmed in a message from David Lloyd to Alan Moore; I was thinking, why don't we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those papier mâche 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 the Parliament! (Moore 272) A similar sentiment is shown in V's speech to the country in the Prologue to Book 3, The Land of Do-as-You-Please, in which he describes Guy Fawkes as "a great citizen" who "made a most significant contribution to our common culture[;]" (Moore 187) that is, he attempted to subvert a government he did not agree with by using his own means, which is an example of liberty in action, even if it was an attempt to instate absolute monarchy in the United Kingdom. This chosen way of presenting himself highlights V’s revolutionary spirit, and his desire to destroy what is in order to make way for a new way of governing. While he typically wears Guy Fawkes' face, he 25 switches masks depending on the occasion. This is seen, for example, when he dresses as Mr. Punch, an extremely popular and well-known character from traditional British theatre culture, to meet with Lewis Prothero. This may be seen as V simply interpreting another role and playing a different sort of character, in this case taking on not the role of revolutionary but that of the comical and violent storyteller, as part of his interactions with Prothero, which largely involve reminding Prothero of the story of their shared history. This considered use of his appearance for storytelling is evidenced by his explanation to Evey, while partially quoting William Shakespeare, that, "all the world's a stage. And everything else is vaudeville." (Moore 31) For V, then, his appearance is an element of the performative nature of the way that he interacts with and enforces his will over others. Moving on to consider the rigid power dynamics of Norsefire’s Britain, V might be said to be a powerless character, in the traditional sense of the hierarchical structure, as he holds no formal position of power, and has none of the traditional benefits of such a position to support him or his goals. Certainly just a few years before the beginning of the graphic novel he was amongst the most disenfranchised of its citizens, being an interned prisoner at a concentration camp, subject to dehumanising and dangerous medical experimentation, as well as a total loss of liberty and bodily autonomy. However, throughout the story he is one of the most powerful characters, in that he is the one who appears most able to bring his will to bear on others. Unlike the other characters in the story, V stands outside of the hierarchical system throughout his time in the graphic novel, refusing to submit to it or to allow it to control him. He is able to do this by slipping the bonds of personhood and taking on an identity not as a person, but as an idea. Throughout the graphic novel he emphasizes 28 seeks a society which needs no leader, indeed, one in which he himself cannot even live. Instead, he uses what power he has, power that has been largely adopted and stolen from the system or from traditional sources of power, to reinforce the idea that there is no need for a hierarchical system, that there is no need for the power imbalance, that all of those who think themselves beneath him should instead see themselves as equal, both to himself and to everyone else in society, and so be free. This destruction of the hierarchical power structure does subserve another goal, that of seeking revenge on his tormentors, an end to which he works tirelessly in the early segments of the graphic novel, however his primary efforts are directed at freedom for the people. This objective, the goal of letting the people make their own choices and do as they wish, is best exemplified in the way that he does not lead the riots that ultimately destroy the government, nor does he personally execute Adam Susan. Instead, he sets the people free to make the choice to riot, as he sets Rosemary Almond free to make the choice to assassinate Susan. V’s incitement of the people encapsulated the idea that, Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort. Self-activity is the means by which the creativity, initiative, imagination and critical thought of those subjected to authority can be developed. It is the means by which society can be changed. (Anarchist FAQ) V is all too aware that simply destroying the system on his own, without preparing or involving the people in this decision or action, and then becoming its next leader will only create the same problems. It will result in the same dependencies that the people 29 have always had on leaders to make their choices for them, and nothing will change and nothing will improve. He wields his power then to only one objective, and only one purpose: liberty, the freedom of every person to choose for themselves. By letting the people decide what they wish to do with the system in which they live, V makes it clear that his only aim with his power is to destroy the system as it exists, and to give his power away. V carries out and enforces his objective in three major ways throughout the graphic novel, these being violence, speech, and systems of surveillance. Perhaps the most obvious of his intruments is his use of arms and the threat of arms. V wields terroristic violence, and the threat of such violence, throughout the graphic novel; indeed, his first appearance is a violent attack on several members of the police force, and he follows this almost immediately by destroying the Houses of Parliament. (Moore 11-14) Violence is a well-known method of catalyzing revolution and galvanizing others to rebel that is typical of anarchism, as it is an aspect of their doctrine of the “propaganda of the deed,” a way of expressing anarchistic ideals and encouraging others to adopt them (Merriman, 63). Like the anarchists of the past, V wields violence both as a means of destroying symbols of the system, and as a way of drawing the attention of the people. V ﾆﾐﾗ┘ゲ デｴ;デが さデｴW ;ﾐ;ヴIｴｷゲデ ヴevolution is about SWゲデヴﾗ┞ｷﾐｪ ゲデヴ┌Iデ┌ヴWゲが ﾐﾗデ ヮWﾗヮﾉWざ ふAﾐ;ヴIｴｷゲデ FAQぶが ;ﾐS ゲﾗ ｴW ;Iデ┌;ﾉﾉ┞ ﾆｷﾉﾉゲ ヴWﾉ;デｷ┗Wﾉ┞ few people, typically murdering only those who he must, or those who he views as too corrupted to be able to change. He relies upon, and destroys, traditional ideas and images because he knows that by destroying them he can show people that the old ways, the old symbols, do not have to hold forever, and that the people can endure without the structures, and symbolically the systems, they have been raised to believe 30 must exist. His use of violence is entirely instrumental, carried out in order to establish the power relationship between himself and society that he needs in order to set the people free. Though violence plays a large role in his campaign, it if far from the only method that he uses. V is noted by many other characters to be a magnetic and charismatic speaker, and he takes several opportunities to express his ideals with individuals and with the population as a whole. In A Vocational Viewpoint he speaks directly to the people, laying out his critiques of the system and of their complacencym and urging them to draw upon their individual power and rise up against their oppressors, saying, We’ve had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed them! You who gave them the power to make your decisions for you! [...] You could have stopped them. All you had to say was “no.” [...] You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at that time you are unwilling to make a go of it... you’re fired. (Moore 116- 118) By connecting with the people in this instance through literal speech, he begins to draw their attention to the fragility and the imbalance of the society that surrounds them. He performs similarly in future instances, using his attacks on people and institutions as a form of “speech” through which he lays out his ideas. In this way, V is able to spread his message, to entrench his image in the minds of the people, and to affect their actions. 33 them to further his goals, it is in full awareness that he will use them to destroy themselves. His goal is formlessness, the death of the institution, and the freedom from structure, from hierarchy, from the repressive rules that a social structure inevitably produces. V is perhaps one of the most successful characters when it comes to the effectiveness of the instruments he uses and institutions he wields in order to drive those around him, and indeed all of society, towards his ultimate goal. His use of multiple instruments and institutions falls directly in line with his objective of generating chaos in order to push society over the brink, and he was able to topple the government and to effectively prevent a similar government from taking hold in the near future, thus fulfilling his one objective. His actions do have a great personal cost to him—he dies in order that his plans may be fulfilled. However, this is a cost that he pays willingly, even gladly, and so this seems to be, to V, a rational choice in the furtherance of his goals. 34 Adam Susan Adam Susan is the dictator of the United Kingdom, and the primary antagonist of the graphic novel. The leader of the fascist Norsefire party, he is a man of exceedingly strict morals and unbending views about society and how it should be run. A socially inept and deeply disturbed man, he is obsessed by his need to protect his country, not only from the horrors of war and chaos, but also from the creeping societal rot that he sees as caused by people who do not conform to his vision of the perfect Britain, one that is white, heterosexual, and Christian. Domineering and ruthless, he exercises his will over the people with the help of his supercomputer, Fate, and through the assistance of his sprawling governmental institutions. Throughout the graphic novel he is seen attempting to grapple with the increasingly chaotic situation and rising tensions brought about by V’s anarchistic campaign, ultimately resulting in his assassination at the hands of one of his former party members, Rosemary Almond. In Adam Susan’s case, the system of differentiations by which he gains the ability to act upon the wills and actions of others are not quite clear. By the time he appears in the comic he is well entrenched in power, and very little is shown to the reader to tell them how he got there. In his own words he describes himself as, “a man, like any other man[,]” who “sit[s] here within [his] cage and [he is] but a servant.” (Moore 37-38) To Susan, then, there is no inherent difference of power between him and his subjects that would allow him to have any amount of control over them. What does differentiate him from the others is the fact that he has access to the 35 supercomputer Fate, through which he is able to observe and control the daily happenings in the country. His access to Fate is not something that is unique to him in and of itself, and others could use Fate if they were allowed, however it is an access that is jealously guarded by Susan. How it was that he gained sole control over Fate, however, remains unclear, and Fate itself is something of a mystery throughout the graphic novel. The closest to an explanation that is given as to why he has possession of Fate can be gathered from a few small pieces of information that are scattered through the text. The first fragment comes from Evey in her retelling of the events that led to Norsefire taking control of the country; she recalls that they, “got together with some of the big corporations that had survived[,]” (Moore 28), potentially leading to the conclusion that the supercomputer was created by those corporations, and then given by them to the party as a means of support to aid in their conquest. The second piece of information comes from Helen Heyer in the chapter Vectors, when, talking about Susan, she mentions that he used to be “chief constable[;]” (Moore 225) in other words, he was never part of a corporation, but most likely instead always a member of Norsefire, which means he does not control Fate because he created it, but because he was given it. This still does not explain why he was chosen to access it above the others in the group. The one assumption that can be made is that he was granted such a privilege because he was the leader of the political group. This, however leads to a circular argument, namely that Susan has access to Fate because he is the leader, and he is the leader of Norsefire because he has access to Fate. To understand Susan’s position and the power that he holds, we must then look beyond Fate. Before Fate was in the equation, it is necessary that he had to be a leader 38 used to monitor and spy on the population, even inside their own homes. The Mouth oversees the state propaganda machine, with the Voice of Fate – an hourly news bulletin – playing a large role in their propaganda efforts. Finally, the Finger is more akin to secret paramilitary police, who enforce the rules and laws of the state with violence. The leader, therefore, exercises his control through surveillance, propaganda, and threats of arms, with those who disobey his rules being sent to concentration camps. This amount of repressive power over the population is rationalized in his monologue, where he says; I will not hear talk of freedom. I will not hear talk of individual liberty. They are luxuries. I do not believe in luxuries. The war put paid to luxury. The war put paid to freedom. The only freedom left to my people is the freedom to starve. The freedom to die, the freedom to live in a world of chaos. Should I allow them that freedom? I think not. I think not. (Moore 38) In other words, the necessity to overcome the desperate situation into which the country was plunged following the nuclear fallout superseded the right of the people to freedom and liberty. This is the first of the means by which Susan enforces his will, an aspect of the fascism that is his form of institutionalization. However, Susan’s power is not only a wholly negative, repressive thing. While many aspects of his power are harmful for his people, and certainly his rule as a whole is negative overall, there are aspects to it that the people clearly find comforting or positive, as they still allow themselves to be ruled. Indeed, while their society is intensely controlling and the people must live in fear of their government, it still offers 39 them some benefits. For example, and perhaps most obvious, it offers them some sense of stability and structure, something which numerous characters, particularly Finch, reflect on as being particularly valuable after the constant turmoil and upset of the previous years. Susan, like many repressive leaders, seems to ascribe quite heavily to the doctrine of bread and circuses to appease the masses. He is in control of the food supply for the entire country, and it is through him that they are fed. Further, through the Mouth, Susan disseminates all manner of frivolous entertainment, such as Storm Saxon, to keep the people entertained and docile. He also allows, or at least does not stomp out, the sexually charged nightclubs like the Kit Kat Keller, further means of entertaining the masses. In these ways he keeps the public comfortable, docile, and ultimately complacent. After all, what does the average citizen, who has no particular traits that the government might seek to target and eliminate, care about the threat of the Fingermen, so long as they will be fed, so long as the trains will run on time? What reason do they have to rebel, to retract the authority to rule them that they granted to Susan, and to Norsefire, so long ago? This falls in line with further theorizing by Foucault, who said; “[…] it seems to me now that the notion of repression is quite inadequate for capturing what is precisely the productive aspect of power. […] If power were never anything but repressive, if it never did anything but to say no, do you really think one would be brought to obey it? What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a force that says no; it also traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network that runs through the 40 whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression.” (Foucault 120) While Susan’s government is ultimately repressive, and undoubtedly violent, it also creates; it creates stability, jobs, food, entertainment. This is the second of the means by which Susan’s will is enforced on the people, the second expression of his particular form of institutionalization. Considering this theory of relationship dynamics as power, in many ways Susan is one of the most trapped of all the characters in the graphic novel, because he is completely subject to the will of the people. After all, it is only by the collective will of the governed that he is in the position that he is, for the people have agreed to cede their power to him. He is in an exceptionally tenuous position, for if the governed should refuse to accept his authority, then his authority no longer exists. Indeed, as V systematically subverts his people and they grow to question and reject his control over them, his control over the country, Fate, of even himself, wanes dramatically. It is only by being accepted as leader that Adam Susan is able to exercise any amount of control, or to pursue any goals. Without the acceptance of the governed, even his most powerful weapon, Fate, is meaningless. The supercomputer Fate is central to the structure and perpetuation of the Norsefire government, it is necessary to describe Adam Susan’s relationship with it. As a machine, it would be impossible to declare it a “free subject” as Foucault intended it, for it cannot choose how to act, and thus cannot choose to accept or reject Susan’s authority; in this sense, Fate is a slave to Susan, and cannot truly be considered as existing within the power structure of Norsefire’s society. Logically speaking, the supercomputer is nothing other than a means by which Susan controls 43 control of their lives and their futures, away from the grasp of the leader and put it instead into the hands of the people. Now that it has been established that Fate exemplifies providence itself, it is necessary to determine which one between it and Adam Susan is the authority in this power relation. A cursory glance at the chapter Versions would seem to imply a simple answer to this question: Susan continuously refers to himself as “her slave,” and states over and over that he worships it. (Moore 38) This would suggest that Fate, while not sentient or able to choose for itself in any meaningful way, is in control of their relationship, a status quo that seems categorically impossible. However, in that same chapter, when he says that “she” has touched him, it is in fact he who presses the button to turn Fate on. (Moore 38) It is also he who authorizes Finch to access the computer, (Moore 63) and, in general, he is the one who uses it as a way to control the country. In every instance, the only actor in the situation is Susan; Fate is always passively manipulated. No matter how much he insists to the contrary or how loudly he proclaims his devotion to her vicissitudes, it is Susan who is the figure of authority. It is to make it easier for him to control fate, the fate of the nation and of its people, that it has been given the form of the computer as it is depicted in the graphic novel; and it is in order to pursue his objectives, namely that of the survival of the country and of its people, that it is used. Susan controls Fate, and he wants to control fate, but he couches his desires in terms of worship because, as his constant references to God and the divine proves, he needs to have something greater than himself, something that he is able to point back to as the ultimate moral arbiter, something upon which he can depend to justify his every action and thought. He needs this plausible deniability with himself, this sense 44 that his power is only an extension of the power granted to him by something greater, something that knows and will act toward the best ends (or, at least, what he views as the best ends). He is enamoured of the idea that Fate has blessed his actions, and that he is able to do what he does because Fate allows it. However, he is still ultimately the one in power over this greater being. After all, it isn’t Fate that places these ideas in his head, or Fate that tells him what to do with its power. It is only him. Susan’s efforts to control both Fate and fate are ultimately subverted, however, and his empire is smashed to ruins around him. For as much as he talks about Fate being in control, it is clear that Susan wants Fate to submit to him, to love him, as he puts it, and to be in his control. He wields Fate as his tool throughout the graphic novel, but is never able to gain what he truly desires, the too-human ability to submit, to submit ones will or ones self to another. This is what Susan’s desire for Fate’s love speaks of, his need to possess it utterly, and so control it. However he never controls Fate fully, and ultimately it is taken from him by V, who hacks into it and manipulates it for his own ends, destroying Susan’s government and ultimately his mind. If we return to the theories of Foucault we may say that while Fate is in effect a slave, in the end it was able in some way (through V’s machinations) to escape, to resist and refuse Susan’s commands. In this way Fate becomes a sort of free subject, and rejects the rule of fascism, thus reinforcing the idea of the hierarchical power structure as a relationship, and one that is composed and reinforced by the choices made by the governed. Without Fate’s passive consent to be governed, Susan had nothing. Susan’s ultimately futile desire to possess and dominate Fate is emblematic of a greater symbolic point: the human incapacity to control the course of fate. For as hard as he works to capture it and to hold it, Fate easily slips through his grasp, eluding 45 him. For all the power that he has and all the methods that he uses to enforce and wield it, his efforts are ultimately ineffective, as they are unable to truly capture the randomness of life. It is not possible for any person, whoever they are or however powerful they are, to control the whole course of all human lives, a few human lives, or even, indeed, their own life. All people are, to some extent, acted upon by outside forces, and however much they act upon others, those others also act upon them. This is very clear for Adam Susan, who works hard to dominate those around him, but who is ultimately wholly reliant on those same others to prop him up and to serve him. This reliance on his belief that he can truly completely govern those who he relies upon, including his reliance on Fate, is what dooms him. The concept of fate, like the computer Fate, is not a being, and not able to choose to submit itself to the will of any person, and so it cannot exist within a hierarchical power structure. It cannot be governed and it cannot be directed; any attempt to do so will only lead to ruin. 48 more aware, than she. Early in their association she makes a play at making decisions for herself, saying to V, I mean, part of me just wants to stay in here forever and never have to go outside and face what’s going on... but that’s not right, is it? That’s not taking responsibility for myself, like what you said. (Moore 43) Despite this espousal of her belief in the importance of personal responsibility, in truth Evey seems to be seeking merely to have V tell her what to do, emphasized by the way that she explicitly states at the end of the quote that she is merely parroting his views. This emphasizes the instability of her position and her relative powerlessness in her relationship with V at this point, for, [a] person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks and acts from his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say and do. (Meltzer, 2) At this point in her life, Evey has no truth upon which to stand, no internal strength to draw upon with which she might support her decisions or her actions. Indeed, she does not freely choose what role she takes in V’s plan or to what end she is used, once again finding herself used as a pawn by someone more powerful than her, directed to do something that she does not want to and regrets doing afterwards. Despite this, even as angry and upset as she is in the immediate aftermath of Bishop Lilliman’s murder, she still seeks to submit herself to V, as emphasized by part of her tirade, where she says, “V, I didn’t know you were going to kill him! Killing’s wrong. Isn’t it?” Even at this moment of outrage, she simply asks to be told that it is not, and 49 would presumably accept and internalize his answer if he told her it was not. Shortly thereafter V abandons her, and she immediately seeks and receives the comforting mastery of Gordon Dietrich, a member of the criminal underworld, and a man many years her senior, who holds power over her in terms of social and traditional systems, and also as a result of the fact that he is in an economically more stable and powerful place than she is. She accepts his control over her, and the power differential in their relationship, because it provides her with the stability and the freedom from choice and responsibility that she seeks. After she is tortured by V, which is not only pain in the literal sense but also the symbolic pain of revolution, Evey undergoes a shift in her relationships to others and to the world that is not unlike the one experienced by V during his time in Larkhill. Like V, Evey becomes aware of the prison that she has been living in all her life, the prison of the hierarchical power system, with its extreme differentials of power. Also like V she chooses to reject that system, to move beyond it and to take full and genuine control over her life and living in the land of do-as-you-please. I is important to note that, though V helped to push her along her journey, Evey ultimately freely shoes to take this final step to liberate herself, choosing to embrace death and die free rather than to submit to the will of what she believes to be the government any further, stating, when she is offered one final chance to capitulate, “[t]hank you... but I’d rather die behind the chemical sheds.” (Moore 162) This yet again reinforces and reiterates a central anarchist theory, which holds that, “[l]iberty by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort.” (Anarchist FAQ) By rejecting her chains in this way, Evey refuses to cede control of herself to any systems, and in her relationships with others begins to see herself as an equal whose choices are just as valid as any other’s. This 50 is best displayed in the way that she handles V’s offer to get revenge on her behalf against Alistair Harper, the man who murdered Dietrich. Where once she might have simply acquiesced to V and allowed him to carry out his planned murder, she instead refuses him, declining to pluck the rose meant for Harper and instead urging V to, “let it grow.” (Moore 177). At the beginning of the graphic novel, Evey pursues only one type of objective: survival. At this point, she is interested only in remaining alive, in remaining safe and fed and preferably taken care of and protected by somebody else, with no concern for others or for society as a whole. As such, her objectives may be said to be somewhat selfish: when she acts upon the wills of others, it is to seek her personal betterment, or at least to prevent detriment. As she grows and changes throughout the course of the graphic novel, however, so too do her objectives change. During her associations with V, and afterwards while living with Dietrich, Evey slowly grows towards an awareness that she should perhaps be interacting with society and others in a meaningful way, reflecting to Dietrich, “We shouldn’t have to live like this. Should we?” (Moore 130) This displays her trend towards a broader objective, social reform. However, her progress is halted by Dietrich’s murder, and Evey returns to a basic and selfish objective, seeking revenge against the murderer, Alistair Harper. She is prevented from killing Harper only by the intervention of V. After she has the bars of her cage revealed to her, Evey finds herself, like V, to be standing outside of the hierarchical system, and to no longer have traditional objectives. Rather, she seeks to carry on V’s plan to overthrow the system and show the citizens of the UK that they do not have to go on living as they are, that they are equal and they do not need a system to define or command them. In this sense, then, her objective is to free the people and destroy the need for a system of power to exist at all. 53 immediate gratification, and closer to a symbolic ideal. To this end she comes to exemplify the idea that, in adhering to her beliefs and wielding the instruments at her disposal to aid those beliefs, “whatever the situation [s]he may be in, [s]he always knows what [s]he must say and do. [Sh]e may fall, but [s]he cannot bring shame upon [her]self or [her] causes.” (Meltzer 2) Her physical representation greatly changes throughout the graphic novel, developing with her as she grows. When, at the beginning, Evey is oppressed and dominated by the economic and political systems that surround her, she is depicted as a teenager with a very youthful appearance. Her eyes are particularly overdrawn, looking slightly bigger than the rest of her face, as if to underline her fear and sadness when she is looking at herself in the mirror before prostituting herself for the first time, (Moore 10) or her surprise when V saves her from the Fingermen (Moore 12). In this first section, she has long hair and childlike expressions, being even able to pass as a much younger teen with Lilliman; (Moore 47) she looks, in other words, like the powerless child she is and feels. Her relationships to even the most informal forms of institutions are extremely weak and broken: she has no family remaining, and no subculture to attach herself to. Her very identity and her relationship to herself is incredibly tenuous, as she has allowed the government to inculcate in her the identity of a victim, taking on the submissive stance of accepting others’ views as her own with minimal persuading. As V says, “[t]hey made you into a victim, Evey. They made you a statistic. But that’s not the real you. That’s not who you are inside.” (Moore 29) As her relationship with V first, and Gordon afterwards, grows-- alongside and at pace with her awareness of the unfairness of the power imbalances inherent in the 54 fascist state—Evey's appearances loses some of its youthful looks and becomes more adult. That is especially seen in the way her eyes are drawn, as they are much smaller than in the first volume. The most obvious example of this can be found on page 123; like page 10, the reader gets to see her reflection in the mirror, but this time her eyes are not overdrawn, she is not wearing poorly applied make-up, and she looks much more composed as she lies about not thinking of V anymore. This transformation is momentarily reverted on page 137, in which she is sitting on the stairs of Gordon's house, staring at his corpse and thinking back to some moments of her past life where she felt especially powerless, like when her mother died, her father was arrested, and when V abandoned her outside of the Shadow Gallery. In this page, her hair is dishevelled, her eyes are wide open, and her face is drawn as rounder than usual- an expedient, the last one, usually used to make drawn characters look younger. Afterwards, during her nightmare, she is drawn as she was when she was offered to Lilliman: her hair is worn in braids, and her pink dress with ribbons is another way to make her look especially childlike. (Moore 143-147) She undergoes a radical change in the prison built by V. There her hair is shaven, and she becomes increasingly more emaciated as time goes on. The shadows on her body exaggerate her wrinkles, making her look much older; her clothes cover her form, making her look androgynous. (Moore 162) This is done to show the physical and mental suffering she is going through, as the shadows exasperate her facial expressions, making her rage look almost beast-like and transforming her face into a mask of suffering (Moore 170). However, this also shows how her identity, until now connected to the role of victim, has been slowly stripped away from her, culminating in the scene on the rooftop where she stands, naked, under the rain, awakening a new self. (Moore 173) 55 From then on, she grows physically stronger. Her hair is still short, the expression on her face more decisive. She is completely in control of herself, and when she looks at herself in the mirror one last time, she has the same unnatural smile of the Guy Fawkes's mask, symbolizing her becoming the new V. (Moore 250) 58 that takes.” (Moore 105-106) During their relationship, she clung to him despite his violence and cruelty, because it offered her a sense of stability and support in the world. Reflecting upon their relationship and how she felt about him and how she feels without him, she says, You’re gone, Derek... and I’m alone. ... And Derek, where I am, it’s cold and dark and it’s frightening. And this world is so dangerous. You’re naked in the rain. Everything’s been taken away...all the security and the warmth and the shelter. [...] I thought about you, Derek. About having sex and the fighting and the drink and I really did love you. You were my lifeline. I was stuck at home. You connected me to the world, and I’m still clutching at you. Even though you’re broken and I’m adrift... (Moore 102-104) For Rosemary, this relationship was painful, but it was what she knew, and she saw it as a shelter, as protection from the world. Because of their relationship, she has no job and no support network outside of Derek. The form their power relationship takes is the institution of the traditional family, with Derek, the husband, as head of the family, and Rosemary as the submissive wife. There are several ways in which Rosemary has power exercised over her by her husband, the first, and most subtle, being the previously mentioned economic abuse. Rosemary reveals, in the chapter Various Valentines, that before they had gotten marries she had worked at a bank (Moore 205). While it is likely that the reason that she stopped working was the beginning of the nuclear war, it is very plausible that she never went back to work because her husband prevented her from doing so, a common method of control that would have forced her to depend on him financially. The most obvious way in which she is controlled, however, is the verbal, emotional and physical 59 abuse that Derek directs at her regularly. When, in the chapter Violence, she begs Derek to communicate with her, he slaps her, bruising her cheek and throwing her to the ground (Moore 66). Later on in Venom, he points his gun at her while she is in bed and pulls the trigger, saying, when it does not go off, “Don’t worry, Rose. I didn’t load it. Not tonight.” (Moore 71) He also withholds sex from her as a means of punishing her, and then he blames it on her, saying “it’s nothing to do with me. Maybe if you took the time to make yourself more attractive… oh, get out of my sight.” (Moore 66) As just shown, the instrumental modes by which Rosemary is controlled are self- explanatory. It is not totally clear, however, how effective those measures are. At the beginning of the graphic novel, the Almonds seem to have reached a sort of equilibrium; Derek has an almost complete control over his wife, while Rosemary is able to survive. While the relationship is definitely abusive, they both seem to have achieved the objectives they are pursuing through their power dynamic. With that said, it is very likely that Derek’s threat is not just psychological torture, but actual escalation that would have eventually led him to actually kill Rosemary, destroying the power structure created between them. Nonetheless, that is conjecture, as soon after his threat Derek is killed. In Venom, Derek dies by V’s hands, leaving Rosemary without her torturer. This should logically lead to her freedom, but it instead starts her on a self-destructive spiral that slowly breaks her spirit, a change in her personality that is reflected in the art, as her facial expressions become more and more flat and empty as time goes on. Her objective remains the same, namely survival, but as a subordinate she cannot think of herself without a figure of authority that can grant her what she seeks. When she talks 60 of her husband’s death, Rosemary tends to refer to him as a protective cover, and of herself as being now naked. This is shown for example in Various Valentines when she says, “you [Derek] died and left me bare in front of strangers[,]” or in Veil when she describes mourning as akin to being “naked in the rain.” (Moore 102) This choice of words is especially interesting when considering how Evey feels following V’s torture and consequent awakening. She tells him that she feels scared and, most importantly, cold, to which he responds by saying “[t]he door of the cage is open, Evey. All that you feel is the wind from outside.” (Moore 171) Soon after she stands naked in the rain, a final act that is symbolic of sealing her transformation. Similarly, Eric Finch refers to V’s actions as him taking the metaphorical lid off of people’s feelings about the war, (Moore 252) and when he accepts his new self he does so by standing naked in the nature, embracing the world outside the cage of society. At this point in her life, Rosemary has been given the chance to step out of the prison that surrounds her and become free. By killing Derek, V has opened the door to her cage, intentionally or not. However, while Evey and Finch embrace this hypothetical outside world, Rosemary finds it bleak and frightening. As she says in her monologue in Veil, […] when you’re a widow, the world looks different. You step through a curtain and you’re in a place where people treat you differently. A bleak place. [...] And Derek, where I am, it’s cold and it’s dark and it’s frightening. And this world is so dangerous. You’re naked in the rain. Everything’s been taken away… all the security and the warmth and the shelter… and you’ll try any refuge. […] All the world you understood has gone and everywhere looks sinister and different. You’re fumbling in the dark… and then you make contact. […] ...and it might not be pleasant, and you might be repulsed and draw back from it, no, 63 Helen Heyer A manipulative and domineering member of the inner party by virtue of her marriage to the leader of the Eye, Helen Heyer is excluded from any position of real power by her gender, due to the party’s prevailing attitude of misogyny. Exceptionally ambitious, cunning, and ruthless, she exploits and controls those around her, particularly her husband Conrad, in order to gain and maintain power for herself. Her manoeuvring is partially responsible for the collapse of the government, as she actively works to displace certain party members with those who are loyal to her, and wages a campaign to destabilize Susan’s rule when she sees that he is losing his grip. Despite her extensive and carefully plotted plans, she is ultimately displaced from power by the fall of the government, and left destitute in the streets of a burning, ruined London. In one of his dialogues with Evey expounding on the nature of the societal structures in which they live, V describes the only interpersonal relationships that it is possible for any person to have in an authoritarian (and thus a hierarchical) society thusly; Authority allows two roles: the torturer and the tortured; twists people into joyless mannequins that fear and hate, while culture plunges into the abyss. Authority deforms the rearing of their children, makes a cockfight of their love… (Moore 199) In other words, a hierarchical society requires that there is a leader and a follower, a controller and the one whom they control, and by living in such a society 64 human beings, and thereby their relationships, inevitably also conform to this pattern of interrelation. It may be said, then, that all relationships are inherently abusive, as such relationships are defined by the need of one partner to completely control the other,1 in contrast to a healthy relationship which finds both partners on an equal footing.2 It is certainly not a coincidence that this conversation in the graphic novel immediately follows after a private scene between Helen Heyer and her husband Conrad, a member of the Norsefire government. A seemingly intimate scene in the bathroom, it features Helen ordering her husband to towel her off after she takes a bath, a casual assertion of her dominance over him, and her ability to command him to act in a demeaning way. Throughout their interaction she is extremely condescending towards him, constantly belittling him and his achievements, saying, for example, “I suppose I shall have to do everything, as usual” and describing him as a “quite a successful young man” whose personal and professional successes are “entirely due to [her] efforts”. (Moore 199) This scene provides just one example of the constant barrage of emotional abuse that Helen puts her husband through in every one of their interactions throughout the graphic novel. In her first appearance she interrupts her husband mid- sentence by exhorting him to not “be such a bloody bore[,]” then humiliates him in front of his friends and colleagues by reducing his job as head of surveillance for the government—a department colloquially referred to as the Eye-- to “professional peeping tom,” calling him “England’s highest-paid voyeur.” She adds further insult to injury by saying that he wants to go home to “watch what the neighbours do after Sunday lunch, rather than do anything ourselves, of course[,]” further humiliating him 65 as punishment for his extremely timid attempts to interject and stop the conversation before she can insult him any further. (Moore 45-46) Though she implies that Conrad is disinterested in anything other than voyeurism, and that this lack of interest is fuelling their nonexistent sex life, it soon becomes clear that it is actually Helen who withholds sex as a means of controlling and punishing her husband where she sees fit. This is shown in the chapter Vectors, during which Conrad attempts to initiate intercourse. Helen rejects him quickly and cruelly, pushing him away and telling him that she might be willing to have sex with him in the future, when he becomes leader of the country. In this way Helen displays her willingness to manipulate everything she has at her disposal in order to completely dominate her husband and control him to her own ends, a typical expression of abuse in intimate partner relationships. Indeed, Helen displays a clear pattern of using sex as a tool of manipulation and control throughout the graphic novel. She withholds it from Conrad, offering it to him as a promised reward should he do what she wants, as above, and also uses it as another weapon in here arsenal of weapons to belittle and demean him, and thus further reinforce the complete emotional control she has over him; it is hinted that she is purposefully coquettish and flirtatious with other men in front of him specifically to humiliate him. This is seen in The Vision, when she flirts with Derek Almond in front of Conrad and Almond’s wife, Rosemary, treating him as a dashing man of danger whose life and work are “dreadfully exciting” and asking Rosemary if she is “glad [she’s] got such a ruthless, implacable brute for a husband,” before turning around and insulting her own husband in the same breath. (Moore 46) She displays this same mercenary attitude in her approach to sexuality in her interactions with Alistair Harper, a Scottish gangster who works for the secret police. She initiates a 68 the real decisions… backed up by your muscle, obviously. (Moore 228) This quote not only perfectly encapsulates how she regards her husband, but also the way she sees Harper fitting into her plotting, namely as her “muscle.” At this point in the graphic novel Harper had been hired by Creedy in order to help replenish the forces of the Finger, the secret police force who had been working overtime in order to combat the chaos and disorder into which the country had been plunged in the wake of V’s efforts at destabilization. Harper accepted a bribe from Helen to betray Creedy, along with her promise to make him the head of the Finger when she takes control of the government through her husband. Her use of Harper in this way is yet another advancement of her grand plot to rule the country, as it is shown that in the event of the Leader’s death the leader of the paramilitary force of the country will take control until such time as a permanent replacement is found. Harper’s place in her plotting, and her unsentimental use of him as a tool to further her own ends rather than as a person, is firmly revealed after his death at the hands of her husband. As Conrad lies dying she shouts at him, saying, “Christ, I had it planned. I had it all planned!” (Moore 256), revealing that even at the moment of her discovery of his death she harbours no sadness or regret for the loss of her co-conspirator and lover, but only anger at finding that his place in the plan has been left suddenly and unexpectedly vacant. In a similar way to Adam Susan, Helen Heyer’s downfall comes as a result of the actions of someone she had considered subordinate and almost beneath her notice or attention, spurred by the destabilizing influence of V. Once again V takes on the symbolic position of the entropy of life, in this case revealing to Conrad that his wife 69 is cheating on him with another man. Unlike Susan, however, she is not betrayed by her victim; instead, she is undone by his faithfulness and loyalty to her. Conrad’s subsequent actions are, in his own words, an attempt to show her that he is the “best man[,]” and another desperate effort to please her. Though her control over him is total, and though her position as leader in their dyad is not threatened, she is still unable to achieve her objectives, and she ends the graphic novel broken and powerless. Through her character and her relationships, Moore addresses and demonstrates two key themes. The first is the natural inability of people to control every aspect of life, and particularly to control other people, and that any such attempt at total control will eventually cause even the most powerful and domineering authority to ultimately crumble. The second, displayed when Helen refuses to help the mortally wounded Conrad, leaving him to bleed to death on the floor as punishment for his failure, is that being a faithful follower is no guarantee of survival, as in a hierarchical society the one who is at the bottom of the ladder is at the complete mercy of those above them at the top. There is a final lesson to learn from Helen, and one that is unconnected to her relationship with her husband, but rather explores her place in the grander system. At the very end of the graphic novel, when the country has fallen into complete and violent chaos, its government unseated and control dispersed to the people, Helen is encountered by Eric Finch in a group of men, where she is implied to be offering sex in exchange for food.4 When she notices Finch she immediately attempts to latch onto him, telling him that, “[t]ogether, we can salvage something. This mob aren’t much, but given time we could build a small army. We could restore order.” (Moore 265) 70 However, he refuses to join with her, and abandons her bereft and powerless and at the hands of the rioting populace, effectively stripping her of the only means of control she has ever known. In this way Moore demonstrates the ultimate truth that authority is nothing without followers. 73 available to the police force, his role also allows him to use the services of both the Eyes and Ears, which affords him almost total surveillance of the population. An example of this can be seen in the chapter Virtue Victorious, in which he is able to reconstruct Bishop Lilliman’s last moments thanks to a recording given to him by Brian Etheridge, leader of the Ears (Moore 59-62). The final tool at his disposal during the story is Fate itself, which grants access to all possible records and information available to the whole of the government and its agencies in Norsefire’s England. However, this particular instrumental mode is not usually at his disposal; as he explains to the medical examiner, “the leader’s authorized an extension link for me” because of the exceptional circumstances of V’s actions (Moore 63). Nonetheless, the fact he can be granted this privilege puts him ahead of most of the population, adding to his power over others. The question is, then, is the enormous amount of power he possesses sufficient to achieve what he wants? At a first glance, the answer would appear to be yes. The fact that the leader respects his investigative abilities so much naturally leads to the conclusion that Finch is, in fact, very capable in what he does, and since his job is to maintain order and investigate crime, it should follow that he manages that brilliantly. However, the graphic novel shows a different story. His main objective is to understand and capture V; he fails. He is supposed to interrogate Prothero after he has been released following a session of mental torture conducted by V; Finch only manages to get the clue about "room number five" out of him, and only by accident. (Moore 42) He is not the one who comes up with the idea that V might come from the Roman number V, which is the piece of evidence that, in his own words, "cracked" the case. (Moore 69) He sets off to save Delia Surridge, the last of V's victims, and 74 fails to prevent her death. His position as a high level authority in the government, and all the power that comes with it is, by and large, absolutely useless when he attempts to apply it. The turning point of his entire character comes in the chapter Vestiges, in which he decides to visit what is left of Larkhill Resettlement Camp and take the hallucinogen LSD while there in an effort to try and understand V's origins, because, as he says of V, "he was drugged too, locked away to die, and he reached some understanding." (Moore 215) Before this chapter, Finch has always been drawn as a composed, clean-shaven man, always wearing a clean shirt and tie under his trench coat and often seen smoking a pipe. (Moore 58) By the beginning of Vestiges, which follows all of his above listed failures and the gradual worsening of the social and political situation in England, he is growing stubble and appears more dishevelled, showing in this way his slow loss of control. (Moore 211) This gradual change abruptly accelerates once he takes LSD and his journey of self-discovery begins, as one of the first things that happen is that his clothes turn into a stereotypical black- and-white prisoner's uniform. (Moore 212) This happens as he tries to leave the camp and the exit moves far away from him, effectively trapping him in the camp. While this occurs he thinks, "I'm trapped in a job that disturbs me, but I can't tell anyone. I'm so alone..." (Moore 212) As previously stated, his job is his position as head of the Nose, implying that he feels trapped in his role as an authority, i.e. a torturer. Further evidence of this is shown when he starts hallucinating about all of the minorities that have been killed by the regime he has aided, and whose deaths he was therefore complicit in. 75 Oh Jesus, I've missed you. I've missed your voices and your walk, your food, your clothes, your dyed pink hair. […] Say you saw beyond my uniform. Please say you knew I cared. I... [the hallucinations start to leave] Wait... wait! Where are you going? Please... please don't leave me. We treated you so badly, all the hateful things we printed, did and said... but please. Please don't despise us. We were stupid. We were kids. We didn't know. Come back. Oh please come back. I love you. (Moore 213) He pleads with them to assure him that, even though he was one of their oppressors, they knew he cared, begs them to stay with him and to forgive him for what he has done as a party member; in other words, he desperately asks them to absolve him from the overwhelming guilt he feels as a result of the position he holds. The scene moves on, and he next finds himself thrown in jail. His internal monologue continues; "how did I get here, to this stinking place: my job, my life; my conscience; my prison..." (Moore 215) Again, he refers to his job as something that holds him captive, an imposition on his choices and his conscience, something stifling that forces him to act against his own better judgement. Even though he is one of the torturers, he resents his role. However, in his desperation, he finally understands how he can free himself from it. I look at this mad pattern, but where are the answers? Who imprisoned me here? Who keeps me here? Who can release me? Who's controlling and constraining my life, except... me? (Moore 215) 78 appearance or to their character, but rather to the simple fact that they are fellow human beings. By making the reader fall in love with Valerie despite not knowing her face, Moore and Lloyd intend to inspire that feeling of brotherhood that should be part of an ideal society. As an openly homosexual woman in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the United Kingdom, Valerie was in an incredibly precarious position in terms of the traditional hierarchical structure in which she lived, and from the outside looking in she appears to be perhaps one of the least powerful characters portrayed in the series. Within Foucault’s system of differentiations she is substantially disadvantaged due to the strong traditional societal disapproval for her sexuality, and is doubly disadvantaged by her sex, whose subordinate position in society is heavily reinforced by Norsefire’s misogynistic doctrines. In her relationship with others, and with society broadly, Valerie is almost always the objectively weaker of the two parties, and her subordinate position is reinforced constantly throughout her life. When she comes out to her parents as a young woman in 1976 she is disowned and thrown out of her home; when Norsefire comes to power in 1992 her partner is kidnapped and tortured, and Valerie herself is interned in a concentration camp and subjected to horrific treatment. Here the power of the state to control her is absolute, her bodily autonomy is taken from her, and she is eventually killed, all aspects of the state’s superordinate position over her, a reinforcement and manifestation of the extremity of their power differential. Despite all of this, however, despite her apparent powerlessness, and despite finding herself in unimaginably bleak conditions, Valerie remains unbowed. Her entire life is a tapestry of quiet resistance to the status quo, of refusal to allow others 79 to have power over her fundamental sense of self, over her own mind. Before the rise of Norsefire, it is the heteronormativity of society that attempts to control her. When her parents tried to punish her for who she was, and so change her into a socially acceptable puppet, she refused to accept this imposition onto her fundamental self, and she left home rather than bend to their wishes. Pursuing her dreams, she finds work as an actress, and becomes romantically involved with another woman, living the life that she wants to live. After Norsefire’s rise to power the fascist state seeks to create strength through unity, and unity only through the destruction of anything perceived as “other.” Per Lewis Prothero in Vaudeville, who explains, “we had to do what we did. All the darkies, the nancy boys and the beatniks… it was us or them” (Moore 33), it is clear that Valerie’s very otherness was perceived as threatening, as a societal ill that needed to be stamped out. Rather than repudiate that part of herself she embraces it, and goes to her death remaining true to herself, maintaining that sliver of self, that awareness that, so long as she believes herself to be free, she will never be powerless. As she herself explains in her autobiography, I shall die here. Every inch of me shall perish... except one. An inch. It’s small and it’s fragile and it’s the only thing in the world that’s worth having. We must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us. [...] I know every inch of this cell. This cell knows every inch of me. Except one. (Moore 160) Though she is powerless to any observer, though her life is taken from her by those who stand above her in society, Valerie refuses to be a subject of the hierarchical system of power. Throughout her life she acts only upon herself, and makes no attempts to enforce her will on anyone else, pursues no objective but to live her best life at peace in and with herself. 80 Valerie repeatedly steps outside of the system, constantly rejecting its goals and its pressures, and cultivating freedom within herself. She does not exercise power in the traditional way, for she has precious little to wield throughout her life. Instead, her exercise of power is a conscious refusal to cede her sense of self, her ideals, to others. Her control of herself remains absolute, that maintenance of her final inch of self the instrument by which she overthrows the hierarchical system. Anarchist theory holds that, To be dominated by another is to be denied the chance to think and act for oneself, which is the only way to grow and develop one’s individuality. Domination also stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. (Anarchist FAQ) With this in mind, one might theorize that, for all her powerlessness, for all that she suffers and all that she loses, Valerie is never truly dominated by the hierarchical power structure of her society. Her rejection of conformity is absolute even to the end, and her hold on her individuality and personal responsibility is equally powerful. In this way Valerie acts against the state, and against all those who would oppose her, threatening no force, seeking not to dominate or enforce her will onto others, but merely to coexist, to be allowed to govern herself, to choose what she does and who she loves. Valerie’s ability to live as she wishes, to choose for herself, is impinged upon not only because of the greater repressiveness of society, whose weight falls equally upon all its subjects, but also because of who she is, as a person. Though she has no power to utilize institutions herself, they are brought against her heavily throughout her life. Before she leaves home she is the subject of heteronormative repression, based upon 83 Conclusion When asked about V for Vendetta, Alan Moore explains that his aim was to take "two extremes of the human political spectrum [Fascism and Anarchism] and set them against each other […] just to see what works[,]" that is, to compare and contrast the means and ends of each political system and see which, if either, can win the approval of the masses (The Beat). Though a self-admitted anarchist himself, who believes that “anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice[,]” (Killjoy 42) within the story itself Moore resists the urge to take a side (The Beat). While the fascistic society that was enforced by Norsefire was bleak and unrelentingly cruel, it is undoubtedly preferable to the unmitigated chaos that reigned following the nuclear war between Russia and the United States; as noble as V’s stated ideals about the pursuit of freedom and equality for all are, it is left unclear at the conclusion of the graphic novel if Britain is better off in the wake of the total collapse of its government. In Moore's words, "the central question is, is [V] right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this?" (The Beat) It is not, however, the aim or the purpose of this dissertation to answer such questions. Declaring V or his actions to be “right” implies a tacit declaration of anarchy as the most correct political theory, an argument somewhat beyond the scope of this piece. Instead, this dissertation has sought only to address the role that power plays in the graphic novel, and to illuminate the power structures and interplay that 84 exists in the actions and interactions of several of the major characters. In so doing, the political theories of Fascism and Anarchism have been reduced to their most basic components, namely to a system in which there is a rigid and unchanging power structure, and one in which there is no hierarchical power structure a t all; a system in which every relationship has an unbalanced power dynamic, and one where all people are equal. These power dynamics, while complicated even in the reasonably simplified universe of V for Vendetta, can also be reduced to their most basic elements by considering that in a hierarchical structure there are two roles possible: that of the leader, and that of the subordinate; that is, there is one who is in power, and one upon whom this power is exercised. As V describes it, “Authority allows two roles: the torturer and the tortured” (Moore 1999). This power dynamic is readily apparent throughout the graphic novel, and every character described and analysed within this dissertation have, for the most part, an assigned role to play within this dyadic power structure that they fill with varying degrees of willingness and alacrity. Through the characters of Valerie, Evey, and Rosemary, the role of the subordinate, or the tortured, is explored. Each of them is oppressed in a different way and by different others with whom they have unique relationships. In Valerie’s case, the control is held by society, which attempts to force her to become something that she is not. Evey, on the other hand, is subject to several masters: first controlled by an uncaring society that has made her into a victim, she next falls under the sway of V, and after him she seeks again to play the subordinate’s role with Gordon; though these relationships may not appear outwardly to be that of torturer and tortured, they are still a hierarchical structure in which she is the subordinate—though the person who 85 holds power over her is her protector, she has still given away her autonomy in exchange for protection, in exchange for someone to take the necessity of making choices for herself away from her. Finally, Rosemary’s place in the power structure is typical of the victimized partner in an abusive relationship, and most importantly reflective of the learned helplessness that comes from living in such a reality, and the tendency to continue to seek out such maladaptive relationships no matter how often one is hurt. Like Evey she also finds herself subordinate to several others, submitting herself to their control out of fear and uncertainty. Valerie dies free with her will and her sense of self unbroken, unbent by the forces that sought to shape her; Evey escapes the role that society has thrust upon her, seeking and creating her own power outside of the system altogether; Rosemary remains the perfectly conditioned victim, and when her first abuser is killed and she is set free, she struggles with self-determination and ultimately submits to other figures of power. On the other side of the coin, the characters of Adam Susan, Helen Heyer, and Eric Finch explore the role of the leader, or the torturer. Each of them wields and maintains power in vastly different contexts and over very different targets. In the case of Adam Susan, he tells himself that what he does is for the good of the country, which he believes that he loves. To him, absolute control over all things is an unavoidable outcropping of the necessity to maintain order, a belief that is best exemplified by his borderline worship of Fate, the computer that symbolizes providence in a tangible, logical form. His downfall ultimately comes as a result of the supercomputer’s enforced “betrayal,” symbolic of the simple reality of real life: it is not possible to control fate. In other words, absolute power and control exercised over others is unmaintainable in the long term, and the only possible outcome is, and 88 She does not intend to guide the country towards a stateless society, but just aid the population as they do so. That is certainly in line with Anarchist thought, but it requires the people to have shed not only the roles they have learnt to follow for generations, but also the idea that such roles are essential for society’s wellbeing. Following that, even if everybody has managed to free themselves from the belief that society can only thrive under an authority, there is still no evidence that the natural order that should naturally succeed a brief period of chaos will ever come. Even just looking at the characters who did manage to escape the cage of their imposed role gives no reassurance. V, the one who has destroyed the social system, dies, as did Valerie in the past. Finch survives, but looks to have no aim other than leave London, and no real mean to survive other than his own cunning. Only Evey’s story ends in a somewhat positive note, though that comes at the expenses of her identity as anything other than the new V. V for Vendetta does not provide answers. As previously stated, it does not because the question it asks is too complex for them, and also because neither Alan Moore nor David Lloyd want to preach their views onto the reader. In the latter’s introduction to the graphic novel, he outright states that the story is meant for “people who don’t switch off the News[,]” (Moore, 5) meaning readers who do not ignore the harsh reality of the world but instead face them with an analytical mind. With that said, however, perhaps another reason why it does not provide a definitive answer is because the authors did not have it. When they wrote V for Vendetta, they were worried about the future of their country, they were afraid for its present, and they were powerless to stop what was happening. In his introduction, Moore says; 89 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. (Moore 6) Perhaps, then, this is why the question V for Vendetta asks does not have an answer; because its England is "cold" and "mean spirited" just like Thatcher’s Britain, and just like Thatcher's Britain, it always threatens to return. 90 Bibliography Primary Sources • Moore, Alan. V for Vendetta. New York: DC Comics, 2009. Secondary Sources • Aughey, Arthur. The Politics of Northern Ireland: Beyond the Belfast Agreement. Psychology Press, 2005. • Beatens, Jan and Frey, Hugo. The Graphic Novel: an Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2015. • Boraas, Ed, McKay, Iain, Elkin, Gay, and Dave Neal. The Anarchist FAQ. The Anarchist FAQ Editorial Collective. 2009. • Brandigi, Eleonora. L'archeologia del graphic novel: Il romanzo al naturale e l'effetto Töpffer. Firenze: Firenze University Press. 2013. • Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man. New York: Charles Scribner’s and Sons, 1965. • Butler, Judith. “Critically Queer.” Eds. Paul du Gay, Jessica Evans and Peter Redman. Identity: A Reader. London: Sage, 2000. • Clark, J. Spencer. “Teaching Historical Agency: Explicitly Connecting Past and Present with Graphic Novels", Social Studies Research & Practice.2014. • Collings, Daniel, Seldon, Anthony. Britain Under Thatcher. New York:Routledge. 2013. • Dillon, Sheila. Representation of War in Ancient Rome. Cambridge University Press, 2006 • Appendices ◦ Excerpt from “Victim” in V for Vendetta – Backstory 93 LAST NIGHT... THOSE MEN, THEY WERE GOINGTO.., THEY SAID THEY'D 4/2< ME. AND YOU RESCUED ME. A NAME. YOU CAN CALL ME Ve WHAT SHALL | " my YOU RESCUED ME AND BROUGHT ME TO THIS FAN- TASTIC PLACE, AND IT'S SO SEAL TALL AND IT MAKES ME FEEL SO S4é AND...AND... AND | DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR MAME IS. MY NAME IS Ga IM MOSO0Y \ EVERYBODY 1S SPECIAL. B-BUT THERE'S NOTHING EVEY...EVEY 3 NOBODY SPECI“. ~ = EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY IS A TO TELL. (MONLY S/X- NOT LIKE YOu, HERO, A LOVER A FOOL,A | | TEEN. | HAVENTOONE ~ p VILLAIN, EVERYBODY. ANYTHING, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR STORY TO TELL. EVEN EVEY HAMMOND. | SHOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HEAR 5 YOU WERE BORN EVEY HAMMONO'S STORY. INL98L? Y-YES. IN SEPTEMBER. WE JUST ME AND MUM AND DAD. USED TO LIVE ON SHOOTERS | DIDN'T HAVE ANY BROTHERS HILL IN SOUTH LONDON. IT WAS OR SISTERS... DAD SAID HE NICE THERE. !-!'VE GOT A PHOTO-| | . 7 COULON'T AFFORD ANY MORE GRAPH IF YOU WANT TO SEE | THIS WAS DURING THE RECESSION OF THE EIGHTIES?  YEAH...\ DON'T RE- AND THE We, MEMBER MUCH ABOUT EVEN, DO you THAT... | KNOW DAD SAID REMEMBER THINGS DIDN'T GET MUCH THE WAR? BETTER WHEN CASQUE GOT INTO POWER... HE SAID THAT THE ONLY ELECTION PRO- MISE THAT THEY KEPT WAS GETTING RID OF THE AMERICAN M/SS/L ES THAT WERE STATIONED OVER HERE. "IT WAS HORRIBLE. NOBODY KNEW IF BRITAIN WOULD IURSE | DO. | WAS ONLY SEVEN BUT | RE- MEMBER WHEN THE NEWS CAME OVER THE RADIO. DAD KEPT TELLING MLM NOT TO WORRY. HE WAS 4 SCARED TO DEATH... IT WAS ABOUT POLAND AND THE @LUSS/ANS, WASN'T IT? AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY S10 HE'D USE THE BOMB IF THEY DIDN'T GET OUT. THAT'S WHAT CAD TOLD ME, GET BOMBED OR NOT. | REMEMBER MUM SAYING SARS “GUT BRITAIN D/DV7 GET BOMBED, NOT THE@E ANYMORE! THAT'S ALL SHE SAID. tt garte NOT THAT IT MADE MUCH D/<¥E@- ENCE. ALL THE BOMBS AND THINGS HAD DONE SOMETHING TO THE WE9- THER, SOMETHING S42 "| THOUGHT ABOUT LL THE LIONS MADE ME Cy. | WAS ONLY SEVEN. DATTA UTA PAWE YUE TEES a on = ‘WE COULD SEB RIGHT ACROSS LONDON: FROM THE BEDROOM WINDOW. IT WAS. NBARLY ALL UNDER WATER, THE THAMES: BARRIER HAD BURST. “THE SKY WAS ALL YELLOW AND BLACK. I'VE NEVER SEEN A Sky LIKE IT. DAD SAID LONDON - WAS FINISHED. HE WANTED TO TAKE MUM AND ME TO THE COUNTRY, MUM QND MB INTO THE BACK BED- ROOM. HE SAID HE WANTED TO SHOW US SOMETHING. "MUM WOULON'T GO, JUST AS WELL, | SUPPOSE. IT TURNED OUT THAT THE COUNTRYSIDE WAS WORSE THAN THE TOWNS, \ THE Wi THE CROPS, SEE7 AND THERE WAS NO FOOD COMING FROM EUROPE, BECAUSE - EUROPE HAD GONE. LIke AFRICA. ®