Is Guy Fawkes an admirable figure?

[Mr. Excellent]

I ask because the masks are popular amongst activist types, including OWS. And since the fifth of November is nearly upon us, it seems an appropriate time to ask if Fawkes is someone the Occupy supporters would really wish to evoke.

My own understanding is that Fawkes objected (reasonably) to the poor treatment of Catholics in England, but there's no particular reason to believe he was any sort of figure of tolerance - Fawkes' preferred regime may simply have switched the repression from Catholics to Protestants.

[MichaelEmouse]

The people who wear it do not wear it in the name of Fawkes but in the name of Anonymous. Anonymous members do not wear it because they think highly of Fawkes, they wear it because it looked cool in V for Vendetta and because it has become an Anonymous symbol.

[scr4]

The masks are a reference to V for Vendetta, not to the original Guy Fawkes.

[Kobal2]

And even then, they're more about the aesthetics of V for Vendetta (most specifically, the final scene of the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-gHVGOoE48&feature=related), which is not in the book) than the specifics of the V character & his ideology. The mask is to be understood as a symbol of spontaneous unity in defiance. Also of looking wicked cool.

[Sage Rat]

At the time Guy Fawkes was alive, the Catholic Protestant wars were ongoing and it was a major point of contention throughout the continent and in England. Fawkes sided with Catholicism and wanted to see it restored in Britain.

I'm sure he had some amount of grievance against the government, but if Catholics had been put into power like he wanted, Protestants would probably have the same grievances against the new government. What he wanted was for everyone to hold the same religious views as himself, not to give the common man more voice, to get rid of a corrupt king, or anything else of that sort.

Say that Romney, through whatever means, was elected the Vice President after the next election. If a group of Mormons tried to assassinate the President, so that Romney would get the job and establish Mormonism as the state religion, that would be about the closest modern equivalent to the Gunpowder Plot. Personally, I'd vote that that's not overly admirable.

[Smapti]

As stated above, the use of the mask has more to do with V For Vendetta and the idea of freedom through anonymity than it does with the actual Guy Fawkes, who I imagine most American liberals would have little use for.

[Kobal2]

Eh, I don't know that they wouldn't.
I mean, sure, the historical cause the historical man championed was undeniably inconsequential bullshit masquerading as something of import. Most political causes are.
But taken as a symbol, he's still one guy who was prepared to fight the entire government "alone", and pursue his ideas to the bitter end. That's always a popular archetype, even when the ideas themselves are forgotten or completely ignored. (which IIRC is why V chose to adopt his likeness in the first place - as a committed anarchist, I sort of doubt V would have cared much for the aims of the Gunpowder Plot). Sort of like Guevarra - agree with his ideas & methods or don't, I'd wager most of the people who bear his mug on their T-shirts don't even know thing one about them -- but you can't deny he was one charismatic and driven motherfucker, and the iconic pic is pretty powerful even in a vacuum. It just oozes "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me", doesn't it ?

But this all makes the use of the masks today pretty darn meta, when you think about it: real-life symbols for a concept born from the visuals of a film based on a man who used it as a symbol for another concept, which itself had precious little to do with the original purpose of that symbol which was intended as the crude, mocking caricature of a real-life nobody who achieved nothing. Worn ironically.
In the immortal words of the philosopher Reeves: woah.

[SanVito]

But taken as a symbol, he's still one guy who was prepared to fight the entire government "alone", and pursue his ideas to the bitter end.

This is incorrect. Guy Fawkes was a hired gun of a plot organised by a group of young Catholic noblemen - there were ten conspirators in all. If he were alive today, he would be the equivalent of a traitorous mercenary (he fought in the Spanish army, our big enemy) and terrorist. He's like an American muslim going to fight with the insurgents in Afghanistan against the US army, then being recruited by extremists to set off a bomb in Washington. Not a very admirable figure at all. He is only remembered over the other conspirators because he was the one caught guarding the gunpowder.

[njtt]

Guy Fawkes was not the instigator or leader of the gunpowder plot anyway. Quite the reverse: he was the low guy on the totem pole, the prole whom the aristocratic plotters recruited to take the real, physical risks for them, the patsy. The chief plotter was Robert Catesby.

Ideologically, in wanting to destroy the current (relatively tolerant by the standards of the time) government, they were probably closer to the Tea Party than OWS or Anonymous (although not very close to any modern ideology, really).

ETA: Beaten to it by SanVito. :mad:

[DrFidelius]

And even then, they're more about the aesthetics of V for Vendetta (most specifically, the final scene of the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-gHVGOoE48&feature=related), which is not in the book) than the specifics of the V character & his ideology. The mask is to be understood as a symbol of spontaneous unity in defiance. Also of looking wicked cool.

I have thought that the difference in endings between the movie and the book represent another British / American division.
Book: V is dead, long live V! The symbol is taken up by an heir and the legacy continues. Sort of a royal succession.
Movie: We have all learned to be V. The ideals are immortal because we all share them, they are not embodied in one person.

(And that is the extent of my literary criticism for this month.)

[BrainGlutton]

Rats bite
Bees sting
Bullets strike
And tigers spring
While love whispers
Money talks
But Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes
Must burn!

Penny for the Guy
Penny for the Guy
Penny for the poor ol' penniless Guy
Roast him, toast him
We're gonna burn him
Roast him, toast him
Watch him fry!

-- Leon Rosselson

[SanVito]

Remember remember
The fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot

[MrDibble]

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Naah, not admirable.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

[kayaker]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

You're thinking of the other one.

[MichaelEmouse]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

But just how do you feel about him?

[BrainGlutton]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

An AH scenario just occurred to me where that works, and all England's dissenters and sincere Protestants of all kinds flee to the colonies, and the American Revolution comes early . . .

[coremelt]

I've always been amused that the V for Vendetta movie came out 1 year after the london underground bombings and portrays the good guy as a revolutionary that blows up parliament house by a bomb in the underground.
Imagine the response in the US if a british film was released 1 year after 911 that portrayed a fictional US future fascist state that a revolutionary destroyed by flying a plane into the white house?
(I actually like V for Vendetta, both the book and the movie, and I was in London going to work when the underground bombings happen... I just find the cultural differences somewhat intriguing...)

And yeah the masks look cool, but both the Real Guy Fawkes and V in V for Vendetta are not really who I think OWS should be evoking as a role model.

[Captain Amazing]

An AH scenario just occurred to me where that works, and all England's dissenters and sincere Protestants of all kinds flee to the colonies, and the American Revolution comes early . . .

I don't think it would have worked, even if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded. England was, by that point, too Protestant. As bad as the anti-Catholic backlash was after the failed plot, it would have been even worse, had it succeeded.

I agree with Ronald Hutton here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/gunpowder_hutton_01.shtml

[Simplicio]

I've always been amused that the V for Vendetta movie came out 1 year after the london underground bombings and portrays the good guy as a revolutionary that blows up parliament house by a bomb in the underground.
Imagine the response in the US if a british film was released 1 year after 911 that portrayed a fictional US future fascist state that a revolutionary destroyed by flying a plane into the white house?


The film was actually pushed back most of a year from its original Nov 5 2005 release date (Guy Fawkes day, obviously), so it wasn't nearly as close as it could've been.

But in anycase, a US film studio filmed the X-files movie depicting the gov't complicit in a plot to blow up a Texas federal building two years after the Oklahoma City bombing, and in that case they were filming after the actual terror attack, and so couldn't plead ignorance on what the scenes significance would be given recent events. So we seem to be alright with movies that recall terrorist attacks on our own soil to.

[Sage Rat]

I've always been amused that the V for Vendetta movie came out 1 year after the london underground bombings and portrays the good guy as a revolutionary that blows up parliament house by a bomb in the underground.
Imagine the response in the US if a british film was released 1 year after 911 that portrayed a fictional US future fascist state that a revolutionary destroyed by flying a plane into the white house?
(I actually like V for Vendetta, both the book and the movie, and I was in London going to work when the underground bombings happen... I just find the cultural differences somewhat intriguing...)
That Brits like to blow themselves up, and have done so regularly for the last couple of centuries is indeed a cultural difference, but I'm not sure that I'd talk that one up as a good thing.

[amanset]

The film was actually pushed back most of a year from its original Nov 5 2005 release date (Guy Fawkes day, obviously), so it wasn't nearly as close as it could've been.

But in anycase, a US film studio filmed the X-files movie depicting the gov't complicit in a plot to blow up a Texas federal building two years after the Oklahoma City bombing, and in that case they were filming after the actual terror attack, and so couldn't plead ignorance on what the scenes significance would be given recent events. So we seem to be alright with movies that recall terrorist attacks on our own soil to.

Indeed and that bombing was far closer in scale to the London ones (didn't it still kill 2-3 times more people?). September 11th was just on a whole different level of mental so it really isn't a fair comparison.

[Erdosain]

While the film was an American production, its director was Australian, the source material was British, most of the main cast were Australian/British, and the whole thing was filmed in London before the 7/7 bombings. I suppose they could have declined to release it in Britain, but that would have been a bit silly.

[Revenant Threshold]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch. Really, clericalist belongs on the list with those other things?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

An AH scenario just occurred to me where that works, and all England's dissenters and sincere Protestants of all kinds flee to the colonies, and the American Revolution comes early . . .

There is a timeline about that: http://www.clockworksky.net/puritan_world/ah_pw_top.html

Really, clericalist belongs on the list with those other things?

Clericalism is a form of theocracy like the Iranian regime, hardly pleasant.

[Farmer Jane]

I have the mask as my FB photo right now, but that's more because of the movie, not for actual Guy Fawkes day. I saw the casual link and I can't help but to think, "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November" every 5 November, so I put it up. Every time I see the movie I'm blown away about how much I (still) like it. I'm the type who doesn't usually watch movies more than once. I get the differences between the two and how one capitalized on the other, but I still gave a nod.

This is one of the few times I'm looking like I'm showing solidarity with the OWS movement, since I'm 99.9 per cent sure those masks will show up in the U.S. today. (It's not that I don't support their larger claims, but it has become so splintered. A local leader was just arrested for setting a fire that caused $10m of damage in Fort Collins.)

[Revenant Threshold]

Clericalism is a form of theocracy like the Iranian regime, hardly pleasant. Like the Iranian regime in what ways?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Like the Iranian regime in what ways?

Arguably worse since while Iran tolerates "People of the Book" a clericalist England would like France and Spain have supppressed all Protestant sects.

[An Gadaí]

I liked the film but found it philosophically very dubious.

[Revenant Threshold]

Arguably worse since while Iran tolerates "People of the Book" a clericalist England would like France and Spain have supppressed all Protestant sects. Uh, with respect, why exactly is that better, except for Protestants? If that's your meaning, fair enough, but speaking as an athiest i'm not entirely sure i'd declare that a group that oppressed everyone excluding me was much better than a group that oppressed everyone including me. They're still oppressive, even if i'm personally off the hook.

Anyway, I was under the impression that "clericalism" had a broader meaning than simply that which you ascribe to that particular movement and that particular time.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Uh, with respect, why exactly is that better, except for Protestants? If that's your meaning, fair enough, but speaking as an athiest i'm not entirely sure i'd declare that a group that oppressed everyone excluding me was much better than a group that oppressed everyone including me. They're still oppressive, even if i'm personally off the hook.

Catholics were tolerated in Britain and there were plenty of men with even more unorthodox opinions (like Sir Isaac Newton).

Anyway, I was under the impression that "clericalism" had a broader meaning than simply that which you ascribe to that particular movement and that particular time.

In a pejorative manner, "clericalism" is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

[Revenant Threshold]

Catholics were tolerated in Britain and there were plenty of men with even more unorthodox opinions (like Sir Isaac Newton). "Tolerated" covers a pretty wide range of meanings; to this day, legislation exists such that a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic may not take the throne, for example. And it's worth pointing out that English (and British) history covers a pretty wide range of both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant (and anti-everyone, at some point) events.

Beyond that, I don't believe that works as a response. Your claim was that a clericalist England is worse than Iran, because at the least Iran has levels of tolerance for "People of the Book" where clericalist England would have liked to see oppressed Protestants in Europe. They're both oppressive. That you would personally not have been oppressed is, i'm sure, very attractive, but it doesn't mean they're nicer because you would be ignored to do your thing while they could oppress someone else. It doesn't make them better, unless you consider non-Protestants and non-People of the Book to be less worrisome if oppressed, and I certainly wouldn't think that of you. In a pejorative manner, "clericalism" is often used to denote an ecclesiolatry approach to issues beyond the church by either clergy or their supporters while the term has also been applied in a pejorative manner to describe the cronyism and cloistered political environs of the Church—mainly in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Right. I don't see any mentions of England during that time there. Or England at all, in fact. Or of oppression of Protestants.

[Sri Theo]

to this day, legislation exists such that a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic may not take the throne, for example.

Not any more!

[Revenant Threshold]

Not any more! Really? Neat. I always assumed it would be one of those things that only went away when the next-in-line fell in love with a Catholic, or something direct like that.

Still, it lasted for a good while.

[Captain Amazing]

Catholics were tolerated in Britain and there were plenty of men with even more unorthodox opinions (like Sir Isaac Newton).

They weren't really. That was part of the reason that Catesby planned the plot in the first place. He had hoped that James, when he became king, would be tolerant of Catholics, and turned to the plot when it turned out that that wasn't going to happen.

I mean, it was illegal for a Catholic priest to even set foot on English soil, and any priest or those sheltering a priest would be arrested and imprisoned or even executed. The goal of the conspirators wasn't to inflict a theocracy or anything. It was to make the monarch Catholic again, which probably would have led to some persecution of Protestants, but they wanted to put Elizabeth in charge, not the Pope.

[Kobal2]

I have thought that the difference in endings between the movie and the book represent another British / American division.
Book: V is dead, long live V! The symbol is taken up by an heir and the legacy continues. Sort of a royal succession.
Movie: We have all learned to be V. The ideals are immortal because we all share them, they are not embodied in one person.


Eh, I'd say it's more of a difference in goals.

Book-V's entire purpose is to stick it to the people who brutalized him by destroying their entire system. The destruction is his endgame, whatever comes next he leaves to whoever wants it, he doesn't really think or care about that part because it doesn't matter to him. So it's up to the people to whom such things matter. Textbook anarchist.
The fact that Evey takes up the mantle after his death is more of an afterthought he hadn't anticipated when he first came up with his plan. The entire series of events boils down to an extended duel of wills (curbstomp, really) between him and the leader of Norsefire. V is most definitely not every man, quite the opposite: he's the übermensch, risen above and transcending humanity. Ultimately, he wears a mask because who he was before is not important, he's become something else entirely now. The mask sets him apart.

Film-V wants to motivate the people to rise up and put things back like they were before. Everything he does is framed in terms of what message it sends to the proles, his combat becomes an extended media happening and marketing strategy. And, yes, the latter is very American, this idea that the original form government had was idyllic and everything since has been a fall from Eden, as it were. Ultimately, he wears a mask because who he is is not important, he's just an agent of the will of the people. The mask negates his individuality.

This dichotomy is made the most apparent when V hijacks the TV studio for his broadcast to London. The core message of Book-V's speech is "You all suck. You've always sucked. This is all on you, sheeple, don't you understand that ? Either change, or fuck all o' y'all.", while Film-V's is "Some very bad men have hijacked our country from us. But we all know we're really the good guys at heart, so let's take it back together ! Hurray !"

Then again, I might be full of shit* - it's been ages since I've read V for Vendetta :D. I should really do it again sometime.

* or more full of shit that the average literary critic, at any rate.

[RetroVertigo]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

In your worldview, does Catholic = Clericalist ?

[Bookkeeper]

Not any more!

While there has been approval in principle for change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_proposals_to_change_the_rules_of_royal_succession_in_the_Commonwealth_realms), legislation to actually make the change has not yet been drafted, much less put into law.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

"Tolerated" covers a pretty wide range of meanings; to this day, legislation exists such that a Catholic or someone married to a Catholic may not take the throne, for example. And it's worth pointing out that English (and British) history covers a pretty wide range of both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant (and anti-everyone, at some point) events.

Beyond that, I don't believe that works as a response. Your claim was that a clericalist England is worse than Iran, because at the least Iran has levels of tolerance for "People of the Book" where clericalist England would have liked to see oppressed Protestants in Europe. They're both oppressive. That you would personally not have been oppressed is, i'm sure, very attractive, but it doesn't mean they're nicer because you would be ignored to do your thing while they could oppress someone else. It doesn't make them better, unless you consider non-Protestants and non-People of the Book to be less worrisome if oppressed, and I certainly wouldn't think that of you. Right. I don't see any mentions of England during that time there. Or England at all, in fact. Or of oppression of Protestants.

Certainly I don't think that. However while the French (far more tolerant than the Spanish) were sending Huguenots to the galleys, the English largely let Catholics free to worship although they were denied political rights. Do I approve of that? No, but one is less repugnant than the other.

They weren't really. That was part of the reason that Catesby planned the plot in the first place. He had hoped that James, when he became king, would be tolerant of Catholics, and turned to the plot when it turned out that that wasn't going to happen.

I mean, it was illegal for a Catholic priest to even set foot on English soil, and any priest or those sheltering a priest would be arrested and imprisoned or even executed. The goal of the conspirators wasn't to inflict a theocracy or anything. It was to make the monarch Catholic again, which probably would have led to some persecution of Protestants, but they wanted to put Elizabeth in charge, not the Pope.

And Catholic monarchs generally due to various factors were more intolerant of Protestants than visa versa. For example Elizabeth I did execute Catholics but largely for trying to assassinate her rather than just for practicing Catholicism. In addition Catholic monarchs were more absolutist-it should be noted the first countries with religious tolerance and parliamentary government in modern times were largely Protestant-UK, Netherlands etc.

[Revenant Threshold]

Certainly I don't think that. However while the French (far more tolerant than the Spanish) were sending Huguenots to the galleys, the English largely let Catholics free to worship although they were denied political rights. Do I approve of that? No, but one is less repugnant than the other. It wasn't your comparison of the French vs. the English that I was calling problematic, it was your comparison of a hypothetical clericalist England vs. Iran. Your claim was that such an English regime would have liked to see suppressed Protestants, while Iran would have tolerated them (as part of the People of the Book), therefore Iran is arguably better. My point is that it doesn't make you better simply because you oppress a smaller group of people. You're still oppressors.

[Bloody L]

I'm one of the people who agree that it doesn't have to do with the real Guy Fawkes but rather what it symbolized in V for Vendetta (particularly at the end of the film). I do own one of the masks, because I am a fan of the movie and it's message.

[Captain Amazing]

And Catholic monarchs generally due to various factors were more intolerant of Protestants than visa versa. For example Elizabeth I did execute Catholics but largely for trying to assassinate her rather than just for practicing Catholicism. In addition Catholic monarchs were more absolutist-it should be noted the first countries with religious tolerance and parliamentary government in modern times were largely Protestant-UK, Netherlands etc.

Tell that to Fathers Edmund Campion, Ralph Sherwin, and Alexander Briant who were hanged, drawn, and quartered in 1581 for nothing more than preaching Catholicism and denying the Queen was absolute in religious matters, or in fact, any of the so called "forty martyrs of England and Wales", who were put to death for their Catholicism, or the "eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales", also put to death for their Catholicism, or any Catholic in Ireland affected by the Penal Laws, which said Catholics couldn't hold office, go to universities, serve in the armed forces, vote, buy land, own horses, adopt children, teach school, or be a priest.

There was a good deal of intolerance and persecution on both sides.

[An Gadaí]

I'm one of the people who agree that it doesn't have to do with the real Guy Fawkes but rather what it symbolized in V for Vendetta (particularly at the end of the film). I do own one of the masks, because I am a fan of the movie and it's message.

I'm curious, what's its message?

[gonzomax]

The people who wear it do not wear it in the name of Fawkes but in the name of Anonymous. Anonymous members do not wear it because they think highly of Fawkes, they wear it because it looked cool in V for Vendetta and because it has become an Anonymous symbol.

Many wear it or cloths over their faces because of the police using facial recognition software. They don't want the police to start a file on them.

[kevlaw]

I'm curious, what's its message?

The movie's message is that a tiny minority can rule over the majority using fear and propaganda...but only if the majority let them.

[Lobohan]

I'm curious, what's its message?The primary message is that Natalie Portman is still really hot, even when she's bald. But the secondary message I think he's getting at is that social change isn't brought about by one mutant with super-strength and knives. It's brought about by the mass and unity of a movement. At the end of the film, there are many thousands, or perhaps millions of people wearing their Fawkes masks in the streets, and the government structure in the film is terrified of the wide-spread uprising.

Of course this assumes the government isn't willing to start bombing its own civilians.

[Revenant Threshold]

Tell that to Fathers Edmund Campion, Ralph Sherwin, and Alexander Briant who were hanged, drawn, and quartered in 1581 for nothing more than preaching Catholicism and denying the Queen was absolute in religious matters, or in fact, any of the so called "forty martyrs of England and Wales", who were put to death for their Catholicism, or the "eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales", also put to death for their Catholicism, or any Catholic in Ireland affected by the Penal Laws, which said Catholics couldn't hold office, go to universities, serve in the armed forces, vote, buy land, own horses, adopt children, teach school, or be a priest.

There was a good deal of intolerance and persecution on both sides. Worth noting that Catholics get part of their bad rap for those times from the fact that the Protestants eventually "won", at least when it comes to Britain. They got to write the history.

[villa]

No he was a clericalist traitor who desired to suppress the Reformation in England and assassinate the monarch.

So I'm confused. Clericalist is bad. Wanted to assassinate the monarch is good. Do you like this guy or not - you are sending mixed messages.

My local town when I was a nipper had a huge torchlit procession for GF day. There were always two effigies to be burned: one of young Guido and the other of the Pope. Wonder if they still do that... It's probably illegal now.

[Bryan Ekers]

That Brits like to blow themselves up, and have done so regularly for the last couple of centuries is indeed a cultural difference, but I'm not sure that I'd talk that one up as a good thing.

I dunno if it's just me, but do most futuristic British dystopia fictions involve fascism? The only example offhand I can think of where the bugaboo was runaway communism was 1984. Since then, it's been mostly "American-style capitalism/racism/fundamentalism is coming to get us!" over and over. Geez, lighten up, Tommy....

[Revenant Threshold]

I dunno if it's just me, but do most futuristic British dystopia fictions involve fascism? The only example offhand I can think of where the bugaboo was runaway communism was 1984. Since then, it's been mostly "American-style capitalism/racism/fundamentalism is coming to get us!" over and over. Geez, lighten up, Tommy.... Judge Dredd is pretty damn fascistic, off the top of my head.

[Kobal2]

There is also this obscure comic about a guy who has some sort of mask related to a historical character of sorts... title's on the tip of my tongue... ;)

[villa]

I dunno if it's just me, but do most futuristic British dystopia fictions involve fascism? The only example offhand I can think of where the bugaboo was runaway communism was 1984. Since then, it's been mostly "American-style capitalism/racism/fundamentalism is coming to get us!" over and over. Geez, lighten up, Tommy....

Well we never wet ourselves over the "threat"of communism in the same way. And we had a bit of history, that was pretty formative to many of our writers where there was a significant danger out a fascist takeover.

During the height of the cold war, though, you could find fiction re commie takeovers. Golgotha by John Gardner springs to mind.

1984 wasn't really about the threat of communism , though. It was about totalitarianism, and Stalinism in particular.Orwell was a pretty hard core socialist himself.

[Kobal2]

Well we never wet ourselves over the "threat"of communism in the same way. And we had a bit of history, that was pretty formative to many of our writers where there was a significant danger out a fascist takeover.

Specifically the Thatcher years.
At the time Alan Moore wrote V he was genuinely scared that she would usher a thoroughly unpleasant era for the UK considering her popularity, her authoritarinism, and the fact it seemed she was all the more popular the more authoritarian she got. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

[villa]

Specifically the Thatcher years.
At the time Alan Moore wrote V he was genuinely scared that she would usher a thoroughly unpleasant era for the UK considering her popularity, her authoritarinism, and the fact it seemed she was all the more popular the more authoritarian she got. I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

Yeah the preface to V makes that clear. But I was talking a few years earlier.

[Bytegeist]

By the way, was Fawkes' mission a suicidal one? Was he there in the cellar to detonate the gunpowder by torch, expecting to die in the process — or did he have a fuse to light so that he could escape in time?

Better yet — did he have a digital detonator with red LED numbers, ticking down the seconds, with the authorities finding him just as the counter reached single digits?

[SanVito]

By the way, was Fawkes' mission a suicidal one? Was he there in the cellar to detonate the gunpowder by torch, expecting to die in the process — or did he have a fuse to light so that he could escape in time?

Better yet — did he have a digital detonator with red LED numbers, ticking down the seconds, with the authorities finding him just as the counter reached single digits?

Haha. It's been a while since I read The Gunpowder plot (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gunpowder-Plot-Terror-Faith-1605/dp/0753814013) but I 'think' he was there to guard and maybe light the fuse, but not to blow himself up.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

So I'm confused. Clericalist is bad. Wanted to assassinate the monarch is good. Do you like this guy or not - you are sending mixed messages.

My local town when I was a nipper had a huge torchlit procession for GF day. There were always two effigies to be burned: one of young Guido and the other of the Pope. Wonder if they still do that... It's probably illegal now.

I never said assassinating a monarch was good. :confused:

Tell that to Fathers Edmund Campion, Ralph Sherwin, and Alexander Briant who were hanged, drawn, and quartered in 1581 for nothing more than preaching Catholicism and denying the Queen was absolute in religious matters, or in fact, any of the so called "forty martyrs of England and Wales", who were put to death for their Catholicism, or the "eighty-five martyrs of England and Wales", also put to death for their Catholicism, or any Catholic in Ireland affected by the Penal Laws, which said Catholics couldn't hold office, go to universities, serve in the armed forces, vote, buy land, own horses, adopt children, teach school, or be a priest.

There was a good deal of intolerance and persecution on both sides.


I agree.