Alan Moore!

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

Slightly baffling local hissy fit!

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/News/Northampton-News/Alan-Moore-tells-Northamptonshire-County-Council-I-will-never-trust-you-again-20140424083019.htm

heart is in the right place but he's being a little naive here

Why is this a 'hissy fit'? Think he's perfectly entitled to withdraw his services (presumably given for free) if he thinks the powers-that-be are acting like dicks.

man, tom strong is so so great. so fun and inventive and light in the best possible way. it should get more respect.

(this is unrelated to the news item above)

it totally rules! i wandered away when Moore stopped writing them though

ya i never read that far

Yeah for the first two books Tom Strong is p much my ideal of a super/pure fun/smart comic. Top 10 is up there, too. And Promethea ws great for his esoteric side, esp the final vols tying up the wandering plod it'd become, ie. basically the boring "erotic" stuff he's focused on since kinda sucks

I discovered the existence/amazingness of the ABC stuff (incl League of Gentlemen, which I bought/loved first of all) cos it ws all fairly new/ongoing just as i got back into comics in my late 20s, so it still seems weird to me his work ws so recently a+ and now such a chore

i love top 10 too. and league is one of my favourites (at least the first two TPs). he just is an unapproachable god of comixdom when he's at his best. i don't think anyone compares.

what i love about tom strong is that it's really really smart, "compressed" in the classic ILC sense, but done with such a light touch, never feels at all heavy-handed or serious, and that may be my favourite combo of qualities in art

agree that the initial spate of ABC stuff is all great (I am also fond of a bunch of stuff in the Tomorrow Stories, Jack B. Quick etc.). It is refreshing how simple and straightforward Tom Tomorrow is, there's really not a ton of dialogue or exposition, everything is very compact.

http://electricomics.net/

Electricomics will be a 32-page showcase with four very different original titles:

Big Nemo – set in the 1930s, Alan Moore revisits Winsor McCay’s most popular hero

Cabaret Amygdala – modernist horror from writer Peter Hogan (Terra Obscura)

Red Horse – on the anniversary of the beginning of World War One, Garth Ennis (Preacher, The Boys) and Danish artist Peter Snejbjerg (World War X) take us back to the trenches

Sway – a slick new time travel science fiction story from Leah Moore and John Reppion (Sherlock Holmes – The Liverpool Demon, 2000 AD)

hate ennis but the rest sound at least intriguing

More playing with other people's toys. Oh joy.

With no artist attached. To three out of four titles. This is... not a good way to launch?

More playing with other people's toys. Oh joy.

haha yeah I thought this too. Is the character of Little Nemo public domain yet?

xp the "big nemo" thing especially feels particularly well minded in moore's work already... and how do you improve on Veitch's take quite frankly?

nemo's been public domain for a long time:
https://archive.org/details/LittleNemo1905-1914ByWinsorMccay

u+k link there btw as that contains hi-res scans of ten years of the strip for free download