Over the weekend I finished Alan Moore's V for Vendetta in preparation for the upcoming film. I read Moore's other classic series Watchmen over the course of the quarter, so I wasn't simply jumping on a media bandwagon.
They are two very different works, although both have the complexity and critical rigor that characterizes Moore's anti-heroes. Both are set in the "present that could be," although Vendetta, written during the mid-eighties, is a bit more projective (most of the action takes place over 1997-1998) then Watchmen's Cold War America.
What I am particularly curious about is how much the Wachowski's want to do with the plot and its potential for a more overtly situated (Bush America, 2006) political commentary. Part of Moore's genius, (and part of why, I suspect, he calls the current adaptation "rubbish") is that the character of Thatcher's Britain is rechanneled and recreated in the text, not simply critiqued. The effect: we see ourselves in Vendetta as much as we see the big, bad political machine--we can't just put the blame on the fascist "they" but are forced to come to terms with our own political and philosophical position.
It gets quite sticky. After all, V, the man behind the Guy Fawkes mask, is declared by the government to be a terrorist and I, for one, have to grudgingly agree with their claims. Moreover, his bombings and murders are the outworking of an articulate self-proclaimed commitment to anarchy--think Tyler Durden with a little less nihilism. V wants to make the world better for everyone, but his definition of better is far too radical for most of us to assent to.
And yet, I can't help but find his argument somewhat compelling. Not the compelling of soft lights and soothing music and sharp outfits we typically see in pop culture glosses that make bad guys seem good, but a real resonance with his project, an evocation of the question, barely whispered: "why can't the world be like that?"
Of course, the arguments of anarchists are adequately answered with a little more thought and reflection. But, like Marxism, that isn't to say that the values a character like V articulates aren't worth praising. There is something, after all, behind that mask, and the story makes us wonder what would happen if we took it off.
Posted by pjaussen at March 15, 2006 12:34 PM | TrackBackPaul,
Concerning Zizek's artical, apart from the last 2 paragraphs, which I thought were very good yet subtley patronizing...so subtle I don't beleive the author didn't catch it...ie Atheists can stand judge of all of us al bei ti fair judges!!
But the body of the artical I felt was naive to the point of being dangerous and very typical of the writings of the folks he was critical of (communists and other atheists). It is too soon to say either way but I believe atheism could well be the greatest legacy of Europe but in a sad and possibly horrible way. In fact I believe Hitler and the aweful legacy of WW2 is part of that legacy. Atheism is not the calm, objective judge and hope for society. It is as violenty antireligious and anti human as radical fundementalism is in any stripe.
I find Europes atheism pathetically sad. Just this week some neighbors came back from Fl and were dismayed at a German woman they met there. These folks are not religious...but they talked long to me about how this woman traveled for the last 2 years with an urn of her mothers ashes and was unprepared to deal with death and therefore life. I felt that this is a sad example of the hopelessness and emptiness of a secular society. I fear for all human societies because the material of which they are mead is tainted with sin. But I especially fear for those who lauch out proudly without any help form heaven and with utopian glee think all will be well with their superior way. Have we learned nothing from the 20th century? I still think Dostoyevsky was right.
Sorry for emoting. Keep bloging and challengin us. I love your blog. The article on V was helpful and insightful.
Dad
Posted by: Dad at March 17, 2006 09:25 AMDad, because I am somewhat familiar with Zizek's other writing (as maddening as it can be), I read his appeal for atheism not as a call for the abandonment of religion but for its protection.
That is to say, I think (with an emphasis on think) he is arguing that only an atheism in the public sphere can protect religion qua religion--a life practice and thought that comes from a belief in and relationship to the Divine. Without a certain practical atheism, religion becomes something else, always nudging itself into a place which would bring about its own destruction.
That, I believe, would be his argument (realize that this is a guy who has written an entire book on the value of the Christian heritage and why we shouldn't lose it). [Incidentally (and as student of mine pointed this out last quarter), the very Hegelian heritage which Z. relies upon has a tendency to be played out in these debates, that is to say, a logic of pure negation ("You can either be secular or religious, not both.")] Of course, it raises all of the other sticky problems: what if your religion claims that the practical atheism of the public sphere is, in fact, something to be attacked (ie, Islamic Fundamentalism, certain types of theonomy, etc.)? What about the religious impulse behind movements for social justice (Martin Luther King), and religion as a response to those gaps that the logic of commerce and law cannot think ("why should we care about Darfur?")? These questions are where Zizek falls short and your objections become really important.
Thanks for reading!
Posted by: paul at March 17, 2006 10:00 AM
Paul,
I beleive you are right about this author. I have read links that you have sent in the past to his writing and do very much like his work. Thanks for introducing him! If all atheism was marked by an appreciation for religious expression that would be great. But at the heart of "atheism" is a denial of God and very little patience for any God/talk or reference or presence in the public square anywhere. And it comes with an aggression and vehemence that is the hostility that the Bible refers to. A religious society can have freedom of religion. In fact I beleive that a trully Christian political ethic would be the strongest source of such freedom because it's authoritative writings emphatically state that it is not against flesh and blood and that it involves evangelism by preaching (casting down arguments) and good works (so let your light shine before men) not coersion. I fear atheism as a philosophy as much as anarchy because man becomes the standard and it has a centrifical force which leads to might makes right.
Just some thots. Thanks for making me think and acting as iron that hopefully is sharpening my dull iron!!
Posted by: Dad at March 21, 2006 08:48 AM