V for vendetta is hilarious, since the author is a mental child who believed that England under Thatcher was the height authoritarian tyranny. He may have been the first "literally Hitler" example out in the wild.
Rorschach was also clearly the only character with an unfailing sense of justice lol and was willing to die because he refused to compromise with evil.
Exactly. Dr. Manhattan's entire philosophy of "the global good" and the ends justifying the means is explicitly rejected in the foundational principles of American government.
I always saw him as the villain. A creature whose transcendence to godhood deprived him of the fundamental understanding of the human experience that should have made this obvious to him.
I know Moore intended Watchmen to be a critique of the US/Russian arms race and threat of nuclear war, but I'm free to take the lessons and meaning I want from his work.
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis of "The Death of the Author" but I don't know anything about Alan Moore--and while the critique of cold-war ideology is fairly clear, there was a second theme in there that maybe he didn't mean about the dehumanizing element of power and how the more powerful an individual becomes, the more calculating and ammoral as well. Dr Manhattan is definitely not a heroic character. His declaration of godhood is, in the end, impotent.
There's nothing wrong with imagining the themes of a work to be whatever you choose... so long as you're not given the great responsibility to adapt that work to a new audience.
This is very interesting! Popular perceptions of the French Revolution and reality have a vast gulf between them.
Monarchy as a form of government is not inherently centralized or not. It can be extremely decentralized, as under high feudalism in the 11th century in France - where lords were de facto independent and some even banned the king from traveling through their fiefs. Or it can be extremely centralized, as the Bourbon monarchy after the restoration in 1814 was, because obviously it did not dismantle the increased power that the Revolution bequeathed it.
The ancien regime did not fall because it was too strong, or too centralized, but because it was too weak. It could not force the nobles to give up their tax exempt status (which is what led to the summoning of the Estates General in 1789), as they shouted tyranny whenever the monarchy tried to reform (see the Maupoue coup), and it had to respect a patchwork of varying privileges and statuses by region. So it was unable to fully exploit the enormous resources in France.
The revolution swept all of that away. All local institutions, privileges and immunities were abolished. All local states were abolished, and France got its modern form with departements - which intentionally did not track regional lines as they wanted to destroy regional loyalties - which prefects appointed from Paris to implement the center's wishes. And considering the fact that they beheaded anyone who got in their way, they got their way. So that was very centralized.
If you are American, the best comparison would be if a given Congress illegally seized power from the executive, and then proceeded to abolish all states, state constitutions, state laws, and drew new, arbitrary lines, appointed officials for these areas and passed laws from Washington for all these areas.
I wouldn't say "trick', because the urban poor (the so called sans coulottes) and the peasants participated in at least parts of the revolution. (And the whole fact that we speak of 'a' Revolution is a bit of a misnomer, because it was a long period and some historians claim there were actually 4 separate revolutions.)
But the Third Estate that seized power in name of the 'nation' did consist of almost exclusively middle and upper class people - mostly officeholders, lawyers, magistrates. They also did some stuff that benefited the common people (land redistribution, abolition of guilds), but their methods were extremely centralized and quite tyrannical.
The one thing that people should understand about creatives - they are adept at being able to pull loose threads together to create a vision of reality that is very possible, but have no ability to see what is going on right in front of their own faces.
It is a left brain/right brain thing - from a more esoteric standpoint, a feminine/masculine dilemma.
Hideo Kojima is another good example of a creative that predicted the future well in advance, but is shilling for the system that he warned against back in 2002 in MGS2.
'Member how, in V for Vendetta, the totalitarian government seized control because everyone was living in fear due to a global plague and needed someone to protect them?
They also deliberately chose to put red I the center, and even switched it on at the last moment. The 'pregame' with Tucker showed a live feed of the two marines taking their posts, and the lighting was white.
Chances are she did not. She might have more power than Joe, but that ain't saying much. She's at best a puppet handler, it's not like she's the mastermind.
Perhaps a reimagining of the Gnostic heresy, that the roles of God and the Tempter in the Garden of Eden were inverted, and the Jews as described in the Old Testament were following a deceiver who sought to deprive them of knowledge, rather than seeking true knowledge?
V for vendetta is hilarious, since the author is a mental child who believed that England under Thatcher was the height authoritarian tyranny. He may have been the first "literally Hitler" example out in the wild.
It was a decent book, it's just that Moore's childish political understanding made him mix up which side would be the one seizing power.
Alan "I wrote Rorschach to be a racist psychopath, why do people think he is the most heroic character?" Moore?
Rorschach was also clearly the only character with an unfailing sense of justice lol and was willing to die because he refused to compromise with evil.
Exactly. Dr. Manhattan's entire philosophy of "the global good" and the ends justifying the means is explicitly rejected in the foundational principles of American government.
I always saw him as the villain. A creature whose transcendence to godhood deprived him of the fundamental understanding of the human experience that should have made this obvious to him.
I know Moore intended Watchmen to be a critique of the US/Russian arms race and threat of nuclear war, but I'm free to take the lessons and meaning I want from his work.
I don't necessarily agree with the thesis of "The Death of the Author" but I don't know anything about Alan Moore--and while the critique of cold-war ideology is fairly clear, there was a second theme in there that maybe he didn't mean about the dehumanizing element of power and how the more powerful an individual becomes, the more calculating and ammoral as well. Dr Manhattan is definitely not a heroic character. His declaration of godhood is, in the end, impotent.
"Death of the author" is code for "I don't care what the author meant--it offends ME, therefore it is evil."
It is death to creativity.
There's nothing wrong with imagining the themes of a work to be whatever you choose... so long as you're not given the great responsibility to adapt that work to a new audience.
Manhattan is basically a cautionary tale about mankind losing its collective humanity due to technology
Did he really say that?
There was nothing that indicated that as far as I know.
Something something HBO series. Which he fully supported.
Watchmen is so fucking boring, I tried watching it 3 times and fell asleep by 45mins every single time.
Alan "My ideal Batman story is where Joker's wife has a miscarriage and then he molests the Gordons" Moore.
Quite rich. Isn't the V character supposed to be an anarchist? Literally the opposite of the centralizing tyrants of the French Revolution.
Though they did threaten to bomb the building housing the National Assembly if the Girondins were not removed, so I guess he just loves mayhem.
Wait, what? Centralizing tyrants?
Isn't a monarchy the definition of centralized power, and the revolution was ending that?
Or did you mean the ones revolting were centralizing tyrants?
This is very interesting! Popular perceptions of the French Revolution and reality have a vast gulf between them.
Monarchy as a form of government is not inherently centralized or not. It can be extremely decentralized, as under high feudalism in the 11th century in France - where lords were de facto independent and some even banned the king from traveling through their fiefs. Or it can be extremely centralized, as the Bourbon monarchy after the restoration in 1814 was, because obviously it did not dismantle the increased power that the Revolution bequeathed it.
The ancien regime did not fall because it was too strong, or too centralized, but because it was too weak. It could not force the nobles to give up their tax exempt status (which is what led to the summoning of the Estates General in 1789), as they shouted tyranny whenever the monarchy tried to reform (see the Maupoue coup), and it had to respect a patchwork of varying privileges and statuses by region. So it was unable to fully exploit the enormous resources in France.
The revolution swept all of that away. All local institutions, privileges and immunities were abolished. All local states were abolished, and France got its modern form with departements - which intentionally did not track regional lines as they wanted to destroy regional loyalties - which prefects appointed from Paris to implement the center's wishes. And considering the fact that they beheaded anyone who got in their way, they got their way. So that was very centralized.
If you are American, the best comparison would be if a given Congress illegally seized power from the executive, and then proceeded to abolish all states, state constitutions, state laws, and drew new, arbitrary lines, appointed officials for these areas and passed laws from Washington for all these areas.
I have no dog in that fight, but thank you for the info.
So the French Revolution was a rich man's trick?
I wouldn't say "trick', because the urban poor (the so called sans coulottes) and the peasants participated in at least parts of the revolution. (And the whole fact that we speak of 'a' Revolution is a bit of a misnomer, because it was a long period and some historians claim there were actually 4 separate revolutions.)
But the Third Estate that seized power in name of the 'nation' did consist of almost exclusively middle and upper class people - mostly officeholders, lawyers, magistrates. They also did some stuff that benefited the common people (land redistribution, abolition of guilds), but their methods were extremely centralized and quite tyrannical.
I was quoting the title of the documentary "Everything is a Rich Man's Trick," which is worth looking into.
But again, thank you.
Do you just know nothing about the French Revolution?
I haven't been in school in over 20 years. I'm not a history buff. I appreciate Antonio for filling me in.
The one thing that people should understand about creatives - they are adept at being able to pull loose threads together to create a vision of reality that is very possible, but have no ability to see what is going on right in front of their own faces.
It is a left brain/right brain thing - from a more esoteric standpoint, a feminine/masculine dilemma.
Hideo Kojima is another good example of a creative that predicted the future well in advance, but is shilling for the system that he warned against back in 2002 in MGS2.
'Member how, in V for Vendetta, the totalitarian government seized control because everyone was living in fear due to a global plague and needed someone to protect them?
Isn't fiction crazy?
A false plague that was manufactured? I DO remember!
And freedom fighters were labeled as terrorists? I seem to recall that.
They also deliberately chose to put red I the center, and even switched it on at the last moment. The 'pregame' with Tucker showed a live feed of the two marines taking their posts, and the lighting was white.
America should have never shied away from the eagle iconography. Let's bring it back for Emperor Brandon the Uniter.
All hail, Bran the Broken.
Jill was wearing something that looked sort of military-esque, as she led the puppet to the podium, and made sure he didn't wander off.
Wait 'till you find out what was going on in Woodrow Wilson's later years.
Chances are she did not. She might have more power than Joe, but that ain't saying much. She's at best a puppet handler, it's not like she's the mastermind.
The difference is what it takes to get rid of them
In the film, it was a master plan to create instability, rouse the masses and cause all that rule by fear completely ineffective
Here, I could have a kid with freshly washed hair on the other side of a steep incline and job's done.
Passes the sniff test
Leftist motto:
Red & Black are Judeo-Satanist colors.
What is Judeo-Satanisim?
Perhaps a reimagining of the Gnostic heresy, that the roles of God and the Tempter in the Garden of Eden were inverted, and the Jews as described in the Old Testament were following a deceiver who sought to deprive them of knowledge, rather than seeking true knowledge?
I'm disappointed that Brandon is doing a better job at being a fascist than Trump