Analyzing the Historical Setting in Novel V for Vendatta Essay

Analyzing the Historical Setting in Novel V for Vendatta - Essay Example The novel, thus, by charting the future of the world, talks about the future as something that is not a mystery. However, the novel was written keeping in mind the political currents of the present and as such, a historical analysis of the novel should include the details of the present as well as it is intended for the audience of the present. The novel V for Vendetta talks of a future when the political centre of the world has shifted back to Britain. The country however, experiences one of the worst regimes that it has ever done so. Moore depicts a society where people do not act as a result of a regime that punishes any form of criticism that is leveled against it. Apart from this, it also does not value the lives of its own citizens highly. This can be seen from the past of the character of V. The major and immediate reason for the transformation of who was once a normal citizen of Britain to the masked character V is the use of his body for experiments that were carried out by the party Norsefire that ruled Britain. The leader of this party employs brutal methods to suppress revolution or any other form of dissent arising from the masses. The novel seeks to parody the future that it expected for Britain from the 1980s to the 1990s. The age that the novel expects is one that has many diseases and monopolized drug firms. To summarize this, one may say that the world that the Moore seems to be envisioning is one that is dystopic- a world where the monopoly over the production of a drug would lead to political power. In this world, the very basic fears of mankind are employed to create vote banks. One of the most brutal methods that the party Norsefire employs is one where the citizens of the country are constantly under surveillance. These fears regarding a lack of privacy surged during the time that the concept for this novel was developed and also during the time that the novel was published. The publication of the novel was during a period when people wer e worried about the intrusion into their lives by governing agencies. This took the government to the level of an omnipotent power that had knowledge of everything and thus the power to do anything. Coupled with this, the novel depicts the government to have the power to invent the very few drugs that had the power to cure certain diseases. During the eighties, the scare that was related to AIDS had started and this could be one of the reasons as to why the novel portrays a world that is gripped by a fear of diseases that are incurable. Apart from this, the aspect of the monopoly of the government shows the fears that people of the modern age have about the fact that the government seems to be an all-powerful organization. By the time the eighties had arrived, people had in many parts of the world become disillusioned with the concept of democracy and the fact that power was something that existed everywhere. This made accountability impossible and a citizen of any democracy wouldnà ¢â‚¬â„¢t be able to know where the power of the society was invested in. As a result of this, a monopoly that a government would have in an area such as healthcare would be disastrous as it would invest the government with a power that is limitless. Another aspect of the people who constitute modern society that the eighties had accepted was the fact that multiculturalism was a way of life that was irrevocable. The art of this age demonstrates the growing resentment

How Western Civilization is shaped by what historians call 'others', Essay

How Western Civilization is shaped by what historians call 'others', - Essay Example Conquering new regions necessitated the formulation of new ways to hold the vast empires together. Machiavelli expounded upon how the rulers should incorporate the newly acquitted territories comprising of people belonging to distinct regions, usually having high expectations from the new ruler. According to Machiavelli’s views, newly acquired territories and foreign states can be regarded as the ‘other’. Machiavelli states that these states can be divided between principalities and republics and in ‘The Prince’, he elaborates on principalities. According to him, principalities can be divided between hereditary principalities and new principalities, with the former being the ones formerly ruled by the ruler’s ancestors, while the new being the new ones acquired or added to current state by the ruler.1He further states that it is easier to rule hereditary principalities because the society is already accustomed to the rule. However, in case of a new principality, the ruler has to be shrewd so that the people do not revolt against him, when he fails to fulfill all their expectations as a new ruler. Machiavelli proposes that a ruler should suppress such a revolt and then punish the conspirators severely in order to set an example and inhibit future revolts2. Machiavelli regards the upholding of a new principality as more difficult because if a ruler is unable to fully conform to their expectation, then people take up arms against him. It is much easier to rule a new principality, if people share the same language, culture and customs. The prince could assassinate the old ruler’s family and introduce new taxes and if he ensure that society’s prevalent customs and norms are upheld, people will not revolt. In new territories with strong linguistic and cultural differences, a ruler must live there to ensure the local rulers don’t revolt and foster close ties with the subjects. He could also form colonies whi ch would be cheaper than to have a widespread military existence, which may induce a revolt as well. However, it would negatively affect the poor and distant populations, but because they are unable to revolt, they should be crushed. Consequently, most people would ally with the prince and the rest will fear him. To support his argument, he gives the example of Louis X113. In order to maintain his presence in a foreign region, a prince must not only subjugate the people, but remain the strongest one and ensure no neighboring power takes over. He must suppress the strong powers and by default the weaker ones would ally with him and his will remain the most dominant state in the region. Princes must also be wary of new problems that could turn into a serious issue and must undertake preemptive measures.4 In newly acquired territories that were previously free, it is better for a prince to completely destroy, so that no threat of revolt remains, as otherwise traditional ties due to sha red history of freedom will propel them to revolt5. However, in a territory that was previously ruled by a prince, once the old ruler is killed, there is no threat of revolt as people are accustomed to blindly obey the ruler. In addition, a new ruler must strive to depend on his own prowess, rather than passively relying on fortune. Such a ruler is more successful in maintain order and introducing a new set of rules, as he uses force and accomplishes his goals6. According to Machiavelli, a prince chosen by nobles or people must strive to foster