White and V for Vendetta

I noticed in the section titled "Behind the Painted Smile" at the end of V for Vendetta, Lloyd writes that they knew there would be three books comprising the story. "The first sets up his world. The second, "This Vicious Cabaret," explores the supporting characters in greater depth and centres for the most part on Evie Hammond. The third book, tentatively titled "The Land of Do-As-You-Please," draws all of these desparate threads into what we hope will be a satisfactory climax." These three sections give readers a beginning, middle, and end and create the narrative arc that White proposes in the article we read for class. The arc is the means by which the authors are then choosing what to include and what to exclude. For example, we are not told why the war was fought but it doesn't really matter because the war does not fall into the three sections (narrative arc chosen by the authors).



I also noticed that the three sections could be loosely described as appearing in the same form that persuasive speeches/essays appear. The introduction of V also works to introduce the problem (the current government). The second section's focus on Evie then works to explain why the current government is bad (cannot live freely) and the last section poses a solution (take control of own freedom of choice). (Notice, that I am not saying the book says anarchy is the solution.) In the last section (page 187), V tells the people that they have three days of freedom. For three days they will not be watched or listened to. He tells the people of London, " 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law."

I took these points (three persuasive sections, narrative arc, and V telling the people to Do-As-They-Please) and tried to figure what the artists were getting at. I came up with this sort of theory.... Could it mean that the authors are really just encouraging free thinking? Telling us to think, but not telling us how to think? They choose what to include (White) and that choice involves character traits that make V problematic (like his torture of Evie) and choose not to include things that would clear up the story (like whether anarchy really was the solution or whether it was a means by which to attain a solution). Since when V gives people back their freedom he tells them to simply act (not how to act as in "hey guys you're free, go bomb parliament!"), and since the authors have not made a cleam committment to anarchy as politically viable.... then are they simply providing a means for us to create our own thoughts? Are they giving us a situation full of problems and opinions so that we would try to create our own? Is that why the narrative arc stops when it does? Does this explain why they don't include another section showing whether or not anarchy solves London's problems? (If they did, it would mean they are promoting anarchy not necessarily inspiring ideas.) Is this why they took a character that is already thought of in one manner(Guy Fawkes), and created him into something else? I propose that the answer is yes. The book is created to persuade people to use their ability think freely, not tell them how to think. (This could also explain why everyone recieves different ideas/messages from the book.)