Rhetorical Analysis on V's Speech (2)

“Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.”

V… the terrorist, the threat, the mysterious… the saint. A man disguised with the face of Guy Fawkes determined to reach London‘s “silent and obedient” citizens and to “remind this country of what it has forgotten.” His victim? None other than the infamous Parliament and government of London. V launches his debut when he broadcasts his plan and ultimate goal on the city’s emergency channel. He preaches with obvious class and mannerism to his wide-eyed audience, even apologizing for his “interruption.” V gracefully pries open the eyes of London’s people to reality. Conformists with their mouths practically sewn shut by the totalitarian government transform into fully-aware followers of V within a matter of seconds. V plainly states his intentions to “end that silence” that the citizens have fallen victim to. V means to end the troubling issue of tyranny and convinces others to want to do the same all by simply telling them what they needed to be told all along.

Naturally, to see a creepy guy in a mask on your own home television, is a bit overwhelming. How do the people of London know that he is to be trusted and seen as someone with credibility? Why should they even listen to V? He breaks the ice, claiming that he is an ordinary “bloke” and that he, too, can enjoy the routine and repetition of everyday life.

V goes on to say how some are oppressing their ability to speak. He suspects that even while he is speaking, men with guns are soon to come to stop him from doing so. Why such oppression over speech? V answers using evidence saying that society has come to using the “truncheon” rather than conversation. No is going to come talk V out of his intentions; they’re going to force him to abort his mission. V comes straightforward and asks the ultimate question. “There’s something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?”

V eventually brings morals by forensics into his argument. “Cruelty and injustice” now floods the city of London. Who’s fault is it that it has come to this? The blame is on none other than the people of London. They are the guilty ones. V’s tone turns ominous attempting to draw fear with a Pathos mode out of those who are more accountable than others.
Pathos, once again as V appeals to the emotions of the people. He almost attempts to establish innocence within his audience, saying that their fear was inevitable with all the social issues that have arisen. A forensic argument, indeed, that could convince those watching that it was not entirely their fault.

V reveals his ultimate goal within the last sentences of his speech. He sought an end to the silence by making an act of destruction the previous night. He reminds the citizens that they are able to speak, able to make decisions, and able to establish their own POVs. He once again appeals to the emotions of the people by saying they should act as they feel they should act.

After all, the decision is ultimately theirs to make isn’t it?