Questions on V for Vendetta (Part 2)

We learn from the interview with the Chief Investigator, Mr. Finch, that Larkhill is a detention facility where they kept the “usual undesirables.” Is V an undesirable? Gordon Dietrich seems to think that he is an undesirable too, but why? Is Evey an undesirable? We learn that her parents were undesirables – they were black bagged by Creedy’s fingermen. What does it really mean to be an “undesirable?” And what are the consequences of having this label?

--

In this installment, we see Evey reveal her backstory to V. In particular she says,

I’m the one that’s sorry. Sorry I’m not a stronger person. Sorry I’m not like my parents. I wish I was but… I’m not.  I wish I wasn’t afraid all the time but… I am. I know this is rather screwed up, believe me, I know better than most, which is why I wanted to ask if there was anything I can do to help make it right. Please let me know.

But later on, we find out that she was just going to use her participation as an opportunity to escape. Was she just lying then? Is she really more content not being like her parents? Did she never actually see herself as helping out V in his cause?

--

We learn something more about V in this installment too. His personal motto was apparently: Vi veri universum vivus vici or “By the power of truth, I while living, have conquered the universe.” How to we see truth motivating V’s actions? How does his motto inform us about the title V for Vendetta?

--

So far, we have seen V kill three people: Lewis Prothero, Reverend Lilliman, and Delia Surridge. All three of them played significant roles in Larkhill, but they are also visible figureheads in England. Does V have a strategy or rhetoric for killing these people? What about these people’s backstory and current roles can we consider as contributing to V’s decision to eliminate them?

--

Mr. Finch gets a hold of Delia Surridge’s journal from where he learns a few things about Larkhill that he couldn’t learn elsewhere. When he informs Chancellor Sutler that he thinks V wants the truth about Larkhill revealed, this is what the Chancellor says: 

Am I to understand that you have read this document inspector? ... Has anyone else read it? … Then let me make this perfectly clear to you: The contents of this document are a matter of national security, constituting an assault on the character of several important Party members, as well as a blatant violation of the articles of allegiance. As the authenticity of this document cannot be verified, it could be an elaborate forgery created by the terrorist, as easily as it could be the deranged fantasy of a former party member who resigned for psychological reasons. Any discussion of this document or its contents will be regarded at the very least an act of sedition if not a willful act of treason… You would do well, Inspector, to put it out of your mind.

Is this a suppression of the truth or an attempt to stifle a lie? Who decides what is true anyway? And better yet, who should decide what is true?