The End of V for Vendetta

The end of this was probably a million times better than the film. I really liked the way Moore left the status of the world hanging. It wasn't an "OH NO!" kind of cliffhanger ending like Watchmen. It had a sort of poetic closure similar to the end I liked so much in Blankets.

Finch walking down the road seems to parallel the silhouetted V walking out of the flames. The future is implied through that panel. It is uncertain, dark, dangerous, and maybe even worse than the past, but it solidifies that what V wanted was accomplished.

Finch's LSD trip, his descent into madness, into the insane head of V, was eye opening for him. I was confused then, that he killed V. I thought maybe he would see the face of his opponent and, not necessarily repent, but not riddle him with bullets. I'd be very curious what everyone else in the class thought about that...maybe I'm the only one?

Alan Moore...Moore like Alan Boore

That title's not entirely true, it just seemed like a fun way to start off the post. It was originally "alan moore, more like alan bore." But then I realized that 'more' could be spelled "Moore" and then it would be his last name. At that point though, I had to add the ... to give some space between the two uses of Moore (and to indicate a dramatic pause). But back to class stuff...

I have now read two of Moore's books, so I think I can talk about him in a quasi-general way. When reading him, I can't help but think of a saying a heard at some point in my education. It went "Focus on the soldier, not the war." This is in regards to storytelling. A more interesting piece is one that focuses on the individual instead of a larger conflict. For instance, if someone wanted to make a movie they could

-make a movie that focuses on two families struggle with changing times such as Guess Who's Coming to Dinner

or

-make a generalized overview of a dozen poorly connected racists that uses popular notions and stereotypes in an attempt to appear 'important' such as the movie Crash.

In this example, Guess Who is a great small scope story that at its center is a very important contemporary issue (how big issues affect individuals) whereas Crash is a presentation of a problem in its broadest sense. Guess Who is a more personalized and persuasive film.

With this, I feel Moore's work falls onto the Crash side of things. And this is the guy that made a facebook group called "No Seriously, Crash is a Horrible Movie" so that's not a good thing. Moore's work presents the problems of the Reagan-era Cold War by presenting... the Reagan-era Cold War but with SUPERHEROES! Oh My GOD! It's not a fictionalized, fascist version of England...IT's US!!! What can we do!?!

This especially comes out in the film adaptation, where we are basically told... hey, this is like the patriot act etc, put on masks and cause some ruckus.

Admittedly, big issues have to be tackled in a super hero-esque story but I feel that there should be some subtlty. Is that how you spell that, it looks weird... but yeah I think it's either insulting to the reader's intelligence by trying to persue a blatant political agenda or it's exploitive because it takes common beliefs and feelings and therefore makes the reader involved and think it's an important piece of work. Either way, not a huge fan.

But I do enjoy reading them, it's just I don't think we should let Alan Moore think he's as important as he'd like to think...

Art at its broadest

McCloud give a definition of his idea of art:

"Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn't grow out of either of our species' two basic instincts: survival and reproduction (164)."

Is that to say that a senseless act of murder is then an artistic gesture? Is that to say that rock bands forming simply to bag easy women cannot create art? It's true that art is all around, and many forms are often unappreciated, but I think there are some more guidelines than what was given.

Back to rock bands and easy lays, isn't reproduction, however subconscious, a huge part of art? The entire 'muse' system is based upon sexual desire. He/she inspires the artist to create beautiful songs, paintings, furniture, etc. Orchestral compositions, portraits, "Delilah" by the Plain White T's, these are all expressions of emotions and love. And what is love but an abstract notion applied to wanting to bang...which in turn is our evolutionary instinct to constantly want to procreate.

Plus, if you want to talk about comics, it seems that artists think about reproduction to a totally creepy degree. You don't have to look further than...

etc. to see that maybe those urges inspire a lot of creative work. Infer double entendre's as you see fit. But seriously, doing academic research on the X-Men led me to some really uncomfortable artwork...

SWEAT!

In Chapter Five of Understanding Comics, McCloud discusses the abstract symbols that have developed universally in comics. On 128 he discusses how the invisible become visible (i.e. stink lines). Two pages later, however, he illustrates my favorite cartooning symbol, the flying droplets of sweat.

This can be shown with an old cartoon I did for the Daily Illini (to the left)

Something like this is a standard way to present emotion in comics and cartoons but only because it has been used so often.

I spent the majority of my youth (including now) watching cartoons, drawing, and reading funny papers. To me it is as clear as day what is going on. But when this cartoon ran I had a couple friends ask me to explain something. Was there supposed to be a halo around the guy?' one asked. Another thought something was on the wall. When I said it was sweat, I only recieved blank stares.

That's the first time I had been confronted with totally cartoon-illiterate people. Needless to say I don't speak to them anymore. That's actually not true, I just have lost respect for them and ,accordingly, act very condescending when I'm around them.

Something so clear to me was completely foreign to my friends. I felt like them when I saw the snot? blood? shooting out of a guy's nose on page 131. I'd have no idea that represented 'lust.' Now I watched Dragon Ball Z and Gundam Wing after school back in late middle school/ early high school and I had those Imported Pokemon comics, but I had never seen that.

It goes to show how arbitrary these symbols are and how subjectivity their meanings can be. Everyone interprets things differently. For instance, I could write:

"Why don't you come over later."

The later is emphasized. Does this mean 'later' is said in a certain way? It could be said seductively, as if to imply a winking emoticon. On the flip side though, it could mean later, as in not now, I'm busy, I'm brushing you off. The italics could mean disdain and disinterest. NOT NOW, NOT SOON, MAYBE LATER. This is way AIM is a tough way to carry on a conversation.

But in conclusion, I wish sweat really did fly off your head when you were nervous and that exclamation points really did pop out your skull when you were shocked....

watchmen ripping off a classic?

The open panels of Watchmen put a bad taste in my mouth, and a very familiar one at that.

"the streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown."

The noir-ish telling of high morals as concieved through hate seemed very familiar with Travis Bickle's daily musings in the movie Taxi Driver:

"All the animals come out at night - whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

Like Bickle (DeNiro), Rorschach is an extremist nut with his own set of extreme and not totally accurate set of morals. Like Bickle you can see Rorschach's way of using his own form of justice. But also like Bickle's thoughts as told through voice over, Rorschach's scribblings seem like they're trying to be stinging and isolating but at the same time "interesting and full of meaning." The decent metaphor and dark feel made me inclined to not like the novel.

As the story moved however, I got more into it. I find it really interesting how unlikable and messed up these 'heroes' are. I like that one of their main adversaries are college demonstrators ("campus subversion" Ch. 2, pg. 10). It gives an interesting parellel universe (a la Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick) and it's pretty engaging.

Unlike Blankets though, the art is hardly as compelling as the writing and the story. There's something about the typical superhero/greek statue style that seems really overbearing and silly. This kind of stale art is a big part of the reason I stopped reading Super Hero comics so many years ago.

Don't dislike, just throwing out some grievances about "the greatest piece of popular fiction ever produced."