V for Anonymous Part II: Alan Moore & the Selective View of History Feb.10.2012

On Saturday protests are planned across the world against Acta – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The treaty has become the focus of activists associated with the Anonymous hacking network because of concerns that it could undermine internet privacy and aid censorship.

First published in 1982, the comic series V for Vendetta charted a masked vigilante’s attempt to bring down a fascist British government and its complicit media. Many of the demonstrators are expected to wear masks based on the book’s central character.

Ahead of the protests, the BBC asked V for Vendetta’s writer, Alan Moore, for his thoughts on how his creation had become an inspiration and identity to Anonymous.

Viewpoint: V for Vendetta and the rise of Anonymous

It initially baffled me to learn that Alan Moore was thrilled that protestors had adopted the Guy Fawkes mask because it started with an interpretation of V that he hated. When Moore went to visit the Occupy protesters in London I couldn’t  help but feel embarrassed on behalf of the lad who to his face cited a scene from the movie as the reason for its popularity. I’m amazed Moore didn’t punch him. It only made sense after it became apparent that his selective world view has allowed him to take credit for it.

There is something undeniably striking about the sight of hundreds of masked individuals, indistinct from one and other with a unified purpose. The idea of protestors wearing a single mask as a symbol of unity is a great idea in principle but any credibility their cause may have is instantly undermined by the ignorance the choice of mask represents.

But unlike the protestors, Moore’s ignorance is wilful. In the same way he chooses to to disregard the origin of protestors in Guy Fawkes masks for the sake of feeling smug, he chooses to ignore the history of the Gunpowder Plot for the sake of his agenda. He outright states that Fawkes was the leader, the mastermind and a scapegoat. Two lies and one piece of wishful romanticism. He chooses to view the plot solely as being about freedom from oppression and disregards the whole picture: open Catholicism was illegal at the time but freedom from oppression was merely a by-product of the end goal; the freedom to oppress. The conspirators didn’t want Catholics to be free to worship, they wanted them to have absolute rule.

Moore has always struck me as a man who shares my Granny’s definition of oppression; someone who if an authority figure told him not to fall into a burning pit of lava would jump in and truth be told I found his article for the BBC to be distinctly shallow.

I’d always assumed that the characterisation of Moore’s V as a man who cares nothing for the human consequences of his actions, so long as he achieves his goal; a man who would likely make just as brutal and cruel a dictator as those he seeks to overthrow was intended to make us ask “who’s really worse?” – and that he actually knew who Guy Fawkes was – but of late I’m starting to think that he in fact views his creation as a clear cut hero. Which is kind of unsettling.

Is the world of legitimate protest really so devoid of worthy mascots that we have to rewrite history just to create one?

V for Anonymous: The Legacy of “Robyn Hode in Scherewode Stod” Nov.7.2011

“Robyn hode in Scherewode stod,
Hodud & hathud, hosut & schod.
Ffour and thuynti arrowus
he bar in hits hondus”

Historically we cannot be certain if there even was a Robin Hood or whether he was a construct of ballads and folklore. Real or myth, who was he? Was he a dispossessed aristocrat, was he a yeoman or was he just some dick head who robbed from rich and poor indiscriminately and kept it all for himself? Did he live under Edward III or Richard I? History says… meh, take your pick. Me personally, I like to think of him as a talking fox.

Nevertheless, everybody knows that he was a dispossessed aristocrat, robbing the rich to feed the poor, protecting the little people from the evil Prince John while good King Richard was off fighting his noble crusade.

We don’t talk about the fact that everybody was poor in the first place because good King Richard had all but bankrupted the country to fund operation kill-the-brown-people-and-take-their-land. Ever.

Indeed, today in Nottingham you can be nailed to a tree for merely suggesting that anything other than the latest version of the legend is true or that Robin of Loxley himself actually came from Yorkshire (Loxley is a suburb of Sheffield by the way).

That legend persists and anything from earlier folklore to historical evidence that suggests differently is disregarded.

Which brings me to 2006 and the Wachowski Brothers’ version of V for Vendetta. Naturally, it was shown on Nov 5th and a certain line of dialogue caught my attention:

More than 400 years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of government remain unknown to you, then I suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked.

The Guy Fawkes Mask has since become a symbol of freedom and protest, a symbol of standing up to an oppressive regime and it could be hypothesised that the above line in particular is more instrumental in this than the rest of the movie and the comic combined.

However, that symbolism is based on a lie. Or to put it less cynically it is a symbolism based on historical inaccuracies in film.

The real Guy Fawkes was far from the romanticised freedom fighter  portrayed on screen. The real Guy Fawkes was a religious extremist who’s end goal was to destabilise Britain and force the people under Catholic rule.

I think it’s safe to presume that protestors who adopt the Guy Fawkes mask don’t want to see their respective countries under the rule of the Catholic Church so it begs the question, why Guy Fawkes?

Hollywood has never been one to let historical accuracy get in the way of a good story but can that impact on the way audiences view the world? It would be nice to think that people don’t just take what they see in the movies at face value and that nobody actually believes it was the Americans who captured the Enigma machine or that First Officer William Murdoch of RMS Titanic murdered two passengers before committing suicide but I fear that’s a little too optimistic.

Do people wear the Guy Fawkes mask because they genuinely believe that what they saw in the movie was true or, as with Robin Hood, do they choose to disregard the motivation because the romanticism fits the agenda better?

Of course the third option is that it’s not about Guy Fawkes at all but about V. But then which V?

Like Fawkes, Alan Moore’s V is not the freedom fighter of the film. Moore’s V would certainly be an appropriate symbol for those who have made Raoul Moat into a folk hero or for the London rioters who saw the lives lost and homes destroyed during those nights as nothing more than collateral damage but he has little to no place in the relatively peaceful protests where he is also used. Moore’s V makes sense as a symbol for riot but not as a symbol for protest.

The only V that makes sense as a symbol for protest is the Wachowskis’ V and that’s a V born of bullshit. And what effect will that bullshit have on future generations? 400 years from now will we have forgotten the 20th and 21st Centuries and be protesting in Osama Bin Laden masks? Will the IRA be the heroes of future cinema?

And does the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in modern protest represent failing standards in education? I mean really, it’s primary school level stuff.

Page 1 of 11