Should I read V for Vendetta?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd, V for Vendetta explores the political extremes of fascism and anarchy. The main character is an enigma whose origins and state of mind are never fully disclosed. We see a human fighting against 'the man' for freedom, but committing violent atrocities to do so. In true Moore fashion there are no heroes and villains, only people going about their lives--a fact that the movie, although I found it good, missed entirely when they made V a hero.

The 2005 movie has introduced a new generation to the masked man, albeit an incorrect version of him. Hopefully as many as saw the movie have read the book, because although the stories are similar on the outside, they are fundamentally as different as night and day. Also, the Guy Fawkes masks (for those of us who live in America, Guy Fawkes is famous for attempting to blow up parliament with barrels of gunpowder several centuries ago) have made an appearance, being worn by protesters and activists the world over to preserve their anonymity while promoting their cause. Whether these people are the anarchists of the book or the freedom fighters of the movie isn't clear, but it is an interesting phenomenon.

Now the book is definitely a good read, but there are lots of words, so if you read comics because you hate to read a lot, than maybe this isn't for you. The story is also very political, and is a bit more controversial than the movie. In the movie there are good guys and bad guys, but the book is considerably more gray. So if you want a gritty dystopian political commentary, go ahead and read. If you want a simple story or the black and white of superhero comics, than look elsewhere.

I loved the movie (seeing as how much I've mentioned it in this opinion on the book should make that fact relatively obvious) but I dislike how it skewed my perceptions of the book. Their interpretation of V as a hero of the people really hindered my interpretation of his as a more neutral character. I love the books realistic depictions of fascism and anarchy. The old saying "Under Mussolini the trains ran on time, but nobody smiled" really show in a society where the people have peace but not freedom, and the negative effects of anarchy are seen in the crime and violence that explodes during the revolution. My favorite scene is when Evey realizes that V is more than the man behind the mask, but is the idea within the mask: it epitomizes the books use of people as representations of ideals. Those ideals of anarchy and fascism always circle each other in world politics, and V for Vendetta tries to get us to see them for what they really are when we decide under which banner to flock if any banner at all.

Should I read Wanted?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 2003

Written by Frank Millar and illustrated by J.G. Jones, The Sunday Times said that Wanted was Watchmen for supervillains. The Sunday Times also said that Outland was Star Wars for cowboys (I doubt many people will understand that joke, but let me tell you it is both witty and sarcastic). I wouldn't say Wanted is horrible, but it isn't good either. After I had put it down, I simply went on to another book. It didn't raise any real issues that applied to me, and while the introductory concept was interesting you can't make an entire book out of a premise. You need to finish the rest of the story at some point in there. Going back to the Watchmen comment, let me just say this: Watchmen was written in 1986 and is still one of the most relevant works of fiction on the market; Wanted was written 17 years later and was barely relevant then.

Wanted has garnered some attention as mentioned above, but it became much more mainstream last summer when a movie was released with the same name. Some would say the movie was based on the book, but just because the main character shares a name and they both revolve around daddy issues of some kind does not a faithful translation make. The movie is entirely different: different plot, new characters, and better writing (at least it doesn't take itself as seriously as the comic does).

Now, as I said before, the book wasn't unreadable. But I feel I needed to come down extra hard because of all those fans who worship the ground the book walks on. It is filled with violence, sex, and swearing. It is very sophomoric in it's humor, with such award winning characters as a man made entirely of feces or a villainous phallus that forces it's "wielder" to perform his evil deeds. So, if you're looking for an inspiring or revolutionary work, or are considering reading it because you liked the movie, don't read it. If you're looking for a sophomoric book filled with the aforementioned sex, swearing, and violence (which, hey, everybody wants that every once in a while) than go ahead-I'd just recommend borrowing it until you know for sure you want to buy it.

Now, here's the deal: the problem I see with the book is that there is really no empathy or motivation for the horrible things the characters do in the book. They are merely a bunch of sociopaths doing evil deeds for evils sake- it doesn't even have the whole "non-anti-hero" satire that I love Lobo for. As Tycho from Penny Arcade put it, America isn't ready for a protagonist who is an unrepentant rapist. They try to give the characters some human attributes and make Wesley seem somewhat human, but it is too little to late, and completely contradicted by the last page in the book. I personally hated it when Wesley started getting his revenge: there's a line about how his super power is "killing people" and how that makes him the most bad of the bad. My question is, if that power allows him to kill all these villains solo, how come his dad never did the same thing to the heroes? It seems like Frank Millar had his Mary Sue, and it ruined the story. It does have its good moments, though. The only scene in the entire book that is memorable to me is when the Professor describes the rise of the villains. It seems to be the only part that was taken seriously during writing, and the panel with, as I like to call him, "non-superman" sitting and looking out the window is the only part that elicited an emotional reaction from me. Maybe if Wanted had run a bit longer the exposition would have come, but as is I think it suffers from being an incomplete work that had potential to actually be the Watchmen of supervillains.

Should I read Watchmen?

The long and short of it: Yes.
When was it made: 1986

Written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, Watchmen is by far the best serious graphic novel I have ever read (my personal favorite overall is Bone, but that's neither here nor there). It deals with issues that are still incredibly relevant in today's society, showing that great works have the ability to be timeless regardless of medium. I started reading it skeptically, sure that it would join the stacks of books through which I thumb to feel trendy but have never read entirely, but soon found that the book had swept me up into its world and had rendered me unable to put it down until I had finished it. By soon, of course, I mean eight hours later, the first time I managed to look up from the page.

The book has received considerable hype due to the movie of the same name being released this past winter, but the movie does not even come close to replacing the book, but it follows too closely to be a standalone product. If anything, the movie is a companion to the book, simplifying certain scenes or clarifying meanings with the use of full body language and vocal tones.

The fact remains, though, that this is a comic book. If you hate superhero comics (a pox upon you, sir or madam), be comforted to know that this is quite a different style. The characters behave more like normal people than denizens of the DC or Marvel universes, and superpowers are rare. If you enjoy character development and love a detailed story, this is for you. If you want tons of thoughtless action and dislike extensive reading, you may want to look elsewhere.

My favorite character is the Comedian (I'll wait-it must be shocking to find someone who isn't a blind devotee of Rorschach). Not because of who he is, but what he represents, and how well he represents it. Maybe that's just me being a, to quote Yahtzee Croshaw, "literary fag," but I love how this simple characters is the embodiment of such a profound message. However, the moment that sticks with me the most is from one of the world expanding expositional pieces found at the end of each chapter. "...I never said 'The superman exists and he's American'.[sic] What I said was 'God exists, and he's American'.[sic] If that statement starts to chill you after a couple of moments' consideration, then don't be alarmed. A feeling of intense and crushing religious terror at the concept indicates only that you are still sane. " I love this line because it is a summary statement for the issue at the core of Watchmen, and it would be remiss of you to not experience it for yourself.