Why should it matter who V is? Over the years, I have received dozens of e-mails from people who think they have the answer, or think that I have the answer. This implies that V must be someone we've already met, even though there's no hard evidence in the novel to suggest this. I think it speaks far more to the reader's state of mind as to why they believe V must be someone than to anything Moore or Lloyd have intended. Regardless of who someone theorizes V to be, the underlying assumption is that the identity of V--the person behind the mask--actually matters, that it somehow would add a weight of meaning or understanding to the story.

The truth is V's identity, though multi-layered, is clearly established from the beginning of the novel. Save for Prothero's interrogation and Evey's imprisonment, V only appears in the guise of Guy Fawkes, the 16th century radical who was willing to go to extreme lengths for his beliefs. This description certainly fits V. Like Fawkes, V has unwavering conviction in his beliefs, and is willing to go to every length to see that the current rule is abolished. In this respect, V and Fawkes are revolutionary kinsmen. But it is a mistake to simply see V as a literal modern-day Fawkes. It's not Guy Fawkes himself that V wishes to be, but what Fawkes represents: rebellion. Strip away the context of Fawkes and his conspirators and what you have is rebellion at its most pure form: rebellion against government, against religion, against ideology.

But V isn't just about rebellion. He may look like Fawkes, but he is far greater than him. To understand that, take a look at V's name. "V". It's not even a name at all--it's a letter. Its meaning and purpose changes depending on the context it's used in; it is, in every sense of the phrase, a place to start. Moore reminds us of this fact by the ever-present wordplay found in his novel. Even the novel's title, V for Vendetta is a play on words; it's a twist on the famous World War II slogan, "V for victory". Every chapter title in the novel also begins with the letter "V".

The end result is the most obvious: V stands for many things. (V for "variable".) When V first introduced himself to Evey, he calls himself a villain (13). (V for "villain".) The description is appropriate, as V stands for the polar opposite of everything Norsefire represents. He is their enemy, and he knows this is his role, as Guy Fawkes was the villain in the eyes of King James and Protestant Church.

V is also for "five". At Larkhill, the concentration camp where V achieved his physical and psychological metamorphosis, he was kept in the fifth room, labeled with the roman numeral for five--"V". Adopting that symbol as his name, V pays respect to the forces that made him who he is. But on a larger scale, the V is now symbolic of all the people who were imprisoned and tortured by oppressors. (V for "victim".) By using his room number, V is a living symbol of all the casualties of Norsefire's genocide. Then there is Valerie's letter. ("V" for "Valerie".) Arguably the most important part of V's persona, it is this letter that transforms the person V was into V. "But it was my integrity that was important. Is that so selfish? . . . It's the very last inch of us, but within that inch we are free" (156). In a very real way, he becomes the physical embodiment of that one inch Valerie talks about. Valerie says "we must never lose it, or sell it, or give it away. We must never let them take it from us" (160). Beyond V's rebellious aims, he also reminds the populace about their identity, their integrity, that last inch of being that they had forgotten about: the freedom to be themselves, despite whatever anyone else tells them to do or be.

(To digress just a moment: there have been many people who think that V is in fact Valerie. This has always struck me as a disservice to the story. If Valerie were V, that would significantly diminish the emotional impact of her letter, not to mention make V extremely egotistical for creating a shrine dedicated to herself. Futhermore, both Prothero and Lilliman refer to V in the masculine once they realize who he is, and that alone should settle the question of V's gender.)

It's as if V, the person, becomes more than this menagerie of ideas. He becomes a force. He becomes an instrument through which he takes all these ideas and puts them into action, extracting his vengeance, pursuing his vendettas, preaching his values, until his vision is vindicated.

This is why Evey becomes V at the end of the story. (V for "Evey".) As an idea, as a force, the original V can only do so much. He can rebel against The System, he can awaken the value of Valerie's One Inch to the populace, but once that is achieved, he no longer has a purpose. So Evey steps in, picking up where V left off. She continues the cycle--as V adopted the guise of Guy Fawkes, Evey adopts the guise of V, continuing his spirit while becoming something more than he could ever have been. "I will not lead them. But I'll help them build. Help them create where I'll not help them kill. The age of killers is no more" (260). The first V was a killer, a destroyer, in both the figurative and literal sense. But the next V, Evey, will be a teacher, a builder.

The question of V's identity is a tantalizing one, but it is irrelevant. Evey understands this. She says: "If I take off that mask, something will go away forever, be diminished, because whoever you are isn't as big as the idea of you" (250). She is telling this to herself, but to the reader as well. What really matters isn't who V is, but what he has come to mean.

"I was going to go on from this point and tell you exactly who V really is, but I'm afraid I've run out of room. The only real hint I can give is that V isn't Evey's father, Whistler's mother, or Charley's aunt. Beyond that, I'm afraid you're on your own." --Alan Moore

V is a terrorist. It's easy to gloss over at first. After all, Norsefire is the pseduo-Nazi regime oppressing people and forcing them to do what they wanted; the ones torturing and killing people they consider unfit or undesirable. V is the only person who dares take them on, to say that they're wrong, and to free an entire populace that has been enslaved. In the opening chapters of the book, there is an enjoyable irony felt when Norsefire calls V a terrorist. After all, V is the good guy.

It can be easy to approve of V's actions; V is a fiction. The story, however entertaining or disappointing, is not real, and knowing that can make the action in the novel easier to accept. But his actions, his terrorism, mirrors the terrorism in the real world. If such terrorism is deplored in our world, why are their fictional counterparts acceptable?

Perhaps it's because we identity with V. V's philosophy seems in line with our philosophy. Democratic governments allow their populace the right to choose how they are governed, the freedom to choose. As people living in a democracy, we like having that freedom, and will defend it vigorously. Therefore, V is sympathetic, for he is fighting for a cause we, too, believe in. Furthermore, V's is likeable. His charisma shows through his speech patterns, his philosophy, his dry sense of humor, his flare for dramatics. All these qualities and viewpoints make him seem human and consequently it becomes easy to forget that for all his "just" motivations, he is utterly ruthless in their application.

Another possibility is the fact that, for all V's acts of terrorism, they are applied solely to those who are part of Norsefire; V attacks bad people, not innocents. He blows up Jordan Tower, but not the Kit Kat Keller. Unlike most terrorists that attack to inflict the widest amount of damage on the widest group of people, V methodically chooses his victims. There is not one person (save for Evey, whom I will discuss momentarily) that V directly harms that is not actively assisting, or complicit in furthering, Norsefire's agenda. By contrast, Norsefire has no qualms raiding, imprisoning, and murdering anyone they deem to be against them; who instituted countless concentration camps for the sole purpose of exterminating entire cultures and ethnicities.

But while few people may shed tears for Peter Creedy or Derek Almond, what of the countless clerks and assistants, working for Norsefire out of necessity rather than conviction, died when The Ear and The Mouth exploded? What of all the people wounded and killed during the riots? V accepts chaos as a necessary part of the process. But this process was chosen by V, who holds himself accountable to no one while punishing others who have done the same thing. Why is he afforded a luxury no one else in the novel is given?

What of Rose Almond, whose descent into depression and murder is carefully orchestrated by V? Considering he always proved to be three steps ahead of Norsefire, and only died because he allowed himself to die, surely he could have killed Susan and not get killed in the process. For a man who claimed to wish to bring people freedom from oppression, he purposely let Rose be smothered by it, and did nothing while it drove her over the edge. This that the act of a compassionate man?

Then there is Evey. Here is someone V supposedly loves, yet he tortures her physically and psychologically, bringing her to the breaking point. It's easy to be distracted by the emotional weight of Valerie's story, which is at the emotional core of Evey's incarceration, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the only way V could bring Evey back to his side was through actions that are classic brainwashing techniques. Evey clearly disagrees with V's strategy, it's why she leaves him in the first place. Only when she is tortured and manipulated into seeing V's point of view is she allowed back. If V's cause is just, his views correct, why does he have to resort to such extremes to convince people of this?

How can you reconcile V's terrorism? The only possible reasoning that makes sense is that the ends justify the means. That though V's actions are extreme, they are necessary. V, Finch, and Evey all arrive at their epiphany's after psychological torture. This indicates that such enlightenment cannot come without pain. This idea is repeated with the entire society: before V's better world can come to fruition, Norsefire must be destroyed, and that can only happen after society descends into violence, loss and hardship. If change is necessary, then so is the pain that comes with it.

Of course, this explanation only fits if you believe that the ends really do justify the means. Change may be painful, but V does more than let anarchy loose upon the world; he directs it, channels it, for his specific goal. Fate is literally subverted, which means the change and pain all the characters in Vendetta experience can be traced back to V and the terrorism he uses. Again, this may be justified if you believe V's goals warrant it, but the terrorism V employs is very much a part of our world. The fanaticism V displays is echoed in the fanaticism of terrorist groups around the globe. Does V's beliefs truly justify such terror, or do we believe that only because we agree his beliefs? To put it another way: would you accept V's actions if you removed his mask and found the face of Osama bin Laden underneath?