Alan Moore!

Astounding Weird Penises

uh.jpg

I'm assuming that's either the worst or best thing he's ever written.

iirc it's his tumblr

Bojeffries allegedly quite similar to Henry Kuttner's 'Hogben' short stories, tho' I've never read the latter

in comics everything IS derivative of everything else

Not sure why this is more true of comics than any other form, and am v. sure it's not entirely accurate, either.

i should t0rrent 7 soldiers sometime... unless someone here has a cbr/cbz they'd like to hook a fella up with?

I like 7 Soldiers a lot altho there is some typical Gmoz inscrutability/handwaviness of various details

Not sure why this is more true of comics than any other form, and am v. sure it's not entirely accurate, either.

Yeah what I was thinking of there is the tendency of companies to imitate and knock off each others' characters - constantly vying for market share with similar offerings based on what whoever's currently on top is doing. The recent book on Marvel history does a great job of highlighting this.

I mean you could say sure every industry does this - electronics, automobiles, processed food, whatever - but even if it's a commonplace it should still be kept in mind, I think

Should also be kept in mind that the American superhero comic book does not equal the whole of comics

Fair point - thinking of the big stuff here

Just found the Killing Joke script - fantastic stuff tho man, he seriously needed a new printer or typewriter or something

Read the end just to see if there were any hints about the recent interpretation that Batman kills the Joker at the end. I don't get that here, but that last scene with the joke is still pretty chilling in script form.

And dear god his typewriter was awful, thank god for PCs and word processors

that could well be a 15th-generation photocopy, or a carbon.


From Hell is derivative as fuck (as historical fiction is, by definition)

ehh, I don't know that "doing lots of deliberate research on a subject" is on the same level as "filing the serial numbers off Plastic Man."

and half of those are adaptations he made from other works of his or that he didn't have much to do with

uh?

Big Numbers - conceived, written, designed and published by Moore / painted by Sienkiewicz

The Birth Caul - conceived, written and performed by Moore / music written with and performed by Perkins and J (even the CD of this one is off the desk from the performance). unless you're saying that because it's autobiographical he's being derivative of his life?

Voice Of The Fire - 100% solo by Moore, including devising an entire grammar for one chapter. 2 chapters based on real ppl iirc but again I'd call that more like "research" than "derivative" (plus one autobio sequence)

The Moon And Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre Of Marvels - conceived by Moore and J, written and performed by Moore, music written and performed by Perkins and J

Act Of Faith - written by Moore, directed by Jenkins

A Small Killing - written by Moore, painted by Zarate. again, you have to posit that the (very slight!) autobiographical elements are derivative to make this stick

Dodgem Logic - conceived and funded and published and co-edited by and written for by Moore. yeah, lots of other contributors were in it, but many if not most were directly commissioned by him.

The Highbury Working - conceived, written and performed by Moore / music written with and recorded by Perkins.

Astounding Weird Penises - written and drawn by Moore. homage elements to both undergrounds and 50s horror comics, but it's not trading on either wholesale

Madame October - no publishing credits or other detail on the CD, but it's at the very least sung by Moore, and Tom Hall's the only other credited person

Jimmy's End - written (and funded iirc?) by Moore, directed by Jenkins

Snakes & Ladders - conceived, written and performed by Moore / music written with and recorded by Perkins.

Candid Chit-Chats With Cartoon Kit-Cats - as I noted, includes parodies of existing characters, but since he also includes Maxwell, give him a partial pass? co-drawn and (at least co-)written by Moore, co-drawn by Gebbie. can't remember if the lettering looks like hers or his, or a mix.

Unearthing - uh even if you are arguing that he didn't have much to do with the adaptation, he still wrote the entirety of the original text as published. biographical though if you're arguing that.

This Is Information - is commentary on real actual events in the real world, but I think it's cheap to call that derivative. do you have specific things to call out as bring ripped off in this? (written by Moore, drawn by Gebbie, probably coloured by someone else, idrc)

Outbreaks Of Violets - the text is all by Moore, and as far as anyone seems to know he suggested or requested or gave directions for the pictures too? I don't actually have a copy obv.

Angel Passage - conceived, written and performed by Moore / music written with and recorded by Perkins.

if you think any of the poems are rip-offs or adaptations of his own work, you'll have to list them specifically - I've only been home for three days and might not get my stuff out of storage for years if I can get away with it. (I left the Moore CDs in shelves at home, hence checking on Mme Oct.)

{ah I've looked down and seen how crooked the alignment gets on some Killing Joke pages, nvm)

All I was saying was that many of those works were conceived and realized as non-comics, and that the adaptations were more on his collaborators like Eddie Campbell than on him.

But thanks for the breakdowns of what each work is - many I've never heard of let alone seen.

FYI, y'all, Marvel is finally kicking off the reprints of Moore's Marvel/Miracleman starting today.

but they can't mention Moore's name for some reason?

He asked them not to.

Yup. That old crank!

"The Original Writer"

I hope Marvel has come up with a pseudonymous writer credit that makes Moore regret being such a grump. Gumdrop McSprinkletits or somesuch.

nah it's what I said

All I was saying was that many of those works were conceived and realized as non-comics, and that the adaptations were more on his collaborators like Eddie Campbell than on him.

But thanks for the breakdowns of what each work is - many I've never heard of let alone seen.

"I've never heard of this, but it's totally derivative!"

Everything I listed was an original work from the last 25 years, not an adaptation of an earlier thing btw.

Not all of them were originally comics! That's what I've been saying. Don't be thick.

And they represent a minor percentage of his comic output over those years.

But whatever, you win.

Welcome home, by the way. Hope your months abroad were as truly wonderful as they seemed from here. An amazing thing to witness from afar.

I’m not sure derivative-ness is a problem with Moore – that presupposes a work that’s reverential (e.g. Top 10) can’t also be highly original (Top 10 again).

I think it’s only his very recent work that’s been actually derivative (e.g. LOEG after the second miniseries, the gross Cthulu stuff) in the sense that they’re clearly inferior retreads of his own work.

Also he’s suffering from the Dave Sim problem, where Alan Moore the fiction writer and Alan Moore the grumbly twat in interviews get more and more similar.

I wasn't saying that the ones that weren't originally comics were ever not comics! Part of my point is that plenty of his output, often the stuff he is most serious about, has been in prose and performance and film and other work. (Some of the prose that I didn't list mines Lovecraft, but I've not read that because zzzz.)

[& cheers, yeah, it was indeed great!]

hope Marvel has come up with a pseudonymous writer credit that makes Moore regret being such a grump

yeah, how dare a freelance writer not give a shit about Disney profits

unpaid freelance writer

so Marvel actually got the rights back after all huh. man I haven't read all those in at least 15 years (my brother has the copies we bought as teenagers)

I dont know how all this stuff works out but some people have said that the Marvelman creator (I think he is dead, so maybe his family then) would be profitting from this; some people thought leaving his name on it would benefit the family more because of better sales from Moore's name.

pinning that on moore is some bullshit imo

first i've heard of that theory. how many of these MM fans really care about Mick Anglo?

afaik the Anglo estate are only getting royalties at all because Alan Moore gave over his share of the pie to them, so fuck 'some people'

I've just heard about that Mick Anglo thing, I really dont know about the specifics of who gets paid for what; so I dont have a stance on the matter, I just wanted to bring up that aspect.

I havent read a whole load of Alan Moore. I am fond of him but not enough to label myself a fan. But it does bother me the way people seem to attack him. I've often been tempted to defend him but since I'm not familiar with enough of his work and cant be bothered getting into these big arguments I tend to let it go and remind myself that people are constantly saying unfair things everywhere on the internet and I need to focus on my priorities instead.

I think for whatever reason (perhaps his outsider appearance, the occultist stuff and his status in comics that has expanded into a status within literature in general) people really have it in for him and it seems like this dislike overwhelms a lot of the attempts at critiquing him. Although I mostly agree with him, there are complaints that could be made.

I dont know why people have such trouble with the idea of him using rape as a major recurring element. Would he get away with this if he was a woman with more overt feminist leanings?
Is this the same as people who didnt like the violence in 12 Years A slave or very realistic war films? Because in that article above there was someone's lousy argument that his work doesnt need to reflect how horrible the real world is.

I think it's totally reasonable to criticize how well he pulls off the depiction of rape; some people will admit that dealing with rape on a regular basis is risky for anyone and you will never please everyone with how responsibly (or irresponsibly) you depict it.
I've seen lengthy arguments disagreeing on those depictions based on some ambiguous or subtle scenes. Which I always think should bring up the question of how the artist delivers the scenes. It is true that Moore writes extremely specific scripts, but given that people argue over nuances of the scenes, the artist should carry a lot of the repsponsibility too. But gung ho Moore haters never bring up the artist, which leads me to believe that this is usually more about bringing down a big guy than it is about people who really care about the way rape is depicted. I've seen similar arguments about G RR Martin.
I think if Moore and Martin werent so famous, the venom wouldnt be so strong, regardless of how large the audience was.

Tuomas- I know that it was more than a year ago you said it, but do you really believe rape shouldnt be depicted in horror stories? Because I'd say the opposite.
I've seen feminists say Polanski's Repulsion is an ideal example, which is remarkable considering Polanski's crimes and that he hates feminists.

you think rape should always be depicted in horror stories?

Sorry! Not always...
Just that it seems a good mode in which to treat a horrific subject matter. Perhaps some people think horror is just for shallow amusement and titilation; but there is no reason it should inherently trivialise any serious issue.

i am a big fan of Moore, but frankly his depictions of rape and general abuse of women... lacks nuance, to put it kindly, compared to the overall quality of his work. his artists are usually good; it's not just one thing, and it happens so often (The Killing Joke, Watchmen, Miracleman, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell, and so on and so on etc.) that you know he's ultimately responsible. the fact they he did a fairy tale "kiddie porn" thing with his future wife probably doesn't help this image.

Would you say the way he done it was clumsy and failed or more sinister than that?

I would say that it's a dramatic trope he leans on quite a bit (sort of like how Spike Lee always seems to require that someone die towards the end of a film) and that it's worth remarking upon. It's not that he handles it badly or is insensitive about it, I think that it's a narrative crutch he falls back on when he wants to emphasize just how horrible a character/humanity/the universe is

I can just picture him thinking "hmmm, need something traumatic here, what would be really appalling - OH I KNOW"

I feel like it goes beyond that, like I believe he has serious thoughts about rape and sexual violence. but it feels like his really mishandles the topic in the way he inserts it into his stories, in some cases as Shakey describes as overt SHOCKING evil, while in others it just feels.. off? LOEG in particular had a lot of these moments. Not actually related, but look at that Golleywog... his taste often becomes very questionable

Tuomas- I know that it was more than a year ago you said it, but do you really believe rape shouldnt be depicted in horror stories? Because I'd say the opposite.
I've seen feminists say Polanski's Repulsion is an ideal example, which is remarkable considering Polanski's crimes and that he hates feminists.

There are different ways to depict rape... Of course it can be depicted horror, as in any genre (except maybe comedy), but you have to very careful in how you do it, because unlike most other things shown in horror, rape and its threat is something that affects a large number of people in real life, so it's delicate subject to a lot of the readers. (And yeah, there are people who get horribly killed by psychos in real life too, but their number is much much lower than that of rape victims.) Also, because of the sexual aspect, making you rape scenes overtly long and explicit can make it feel like there's a titillation factor involved.

The rape scenes in Neonomicon goes on for several pages, way longer than would be necessary to depict what is going on an how horrible it is to the protagonist. They're also very graphic and detailed, which, again, feels unnecessary to me. I'm not saying Moore and Burrows actually get off on depicting rape, but it's certainly possible to get that impression, given the amount of loving detail they put into those scenes. Because of that I found the whole comic utterly disgusting. Yeah, the rape is important to the overall plot, I'm not saying it should've been omitted (though I didn't find the overall plot that impressive either, it's basically a Lovecraftian version of Rosemary's Baby), but Moore and Burrows could've shown a lot more discretion in depicting it.

the fact they he did a fairy tale "kiddie porn" thing with his future wife probably doesn't help this image.

Lost Girls is actually one of most obviously feminist comics by Moore, possibly because of Gebbie's involvement. There's a particularly powerful scene where one of the protagonists stands up to her would-be molester; if only his other works would deal with the subject in similar ways, I'd have no problem with them.

i'm curious about it, but don't want it on record that i've bought it / taken it out from the library in case the government comes after me
comics porn is a good thing IMO, but the underage/legal issues involved with that book were particularly unfortunate

The underage bit are only on a couple of pages, and they mostly just involve teens and preteens having consensual sex with each other. Yeah, sure, they're kinda dodgy, and could've been left out, but in this case it definitely seems Moore and Gebbie simply wanted to say that kids can be and are interested in sexual things, and it's okay for them to explore sexuality with each other. The powerful scene I mentioned above involves a much older guy trying to have his way with a teen girl, and it's very clearly stated this is not okay, and that it is totally different from those earlier scenes where the same girl had sex with other teenagers.

M. Rougeur, the hotel manager, fucks a 13-year-old chambermaid in Lost Girls.

I was in Waterstones last week and Lost Girls was displayed unsealed, very very prominently in the shop next to several Hobbit and other Tolkien things; in that way where it suggests the shop really wants you to see it. I was really surprised.
I was also surprised when I looked at Dave McKean's recent porn book, also unsealed and the stuff inside is surprisingly hardcore. I'm not sure if things are changing or if the staff really doesnt know what is inside these books. Because there are still plenty of parents who view the comics section as a childrens section that should be free of that content (Or that those books shouldnt be so easy to pick up).

they have lost girls at my local library and it's shelved with the regular graphic novels, the majority of which are mainstream books that get browsed by younger readers.

Anyone buy the latest Nemo spin-off? Looks like this one is all the German expressionist film characters like Caligari, Metropolis, Mabuse, etc. I love that stuff, but after the mediocre Cthulhu one I'd really only be getting it for O'Neill's take on those creations. Maybe I'll grab it on sale sometime.

It's $3.99 on Comixology if you read digital