League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - Classic or Dud?

just read the black dossier. so great! had to force myself to read it all in sequence - long-ass, dry-ass text sections included - but it definitely pays off. the kerouac and wodehouse riffs were some of the best things in it.

wodehouse/lovecraft interlude is pretty funny. felt like the kerouac piece was interminable tho. which is part of the point probably

kerouac piece was completely impenetrable until i started reading it aloud to myself. did it in a mumbly, fast-talking fake dylan accent, and it became very easy to follow & enjoy. it's one of the funniest bits in the book, imo.

LoEG 2008 is pre-orderable, I see.

I just wish he'd done a few more Victorianian ones - seemed like such a rich vein to only use two slim volumes on.

Neat, you can peep the cover at Amazon.

Looks like Orlando with a laser sword, and is that Quatermain's head in the upper right?

kinda weak compared to previous covers imho

So, has anyone read the new book? Any spoiler-free comments on whether it's any better than previous two? I found 1910 and especially 1969 to be pretty meh, because they mostly just featured the main characters running through a cavalcade of various fictional references without affecting the plot that much, or having any real agency in general. After 1969, I'd much rather have read a new series about the life of Janni than continue with Mina & Alan's Increasingly Tired Adventures (even if this manner of distancing/estranging the reader was something that Moore actually intended). Is 2009 better in this regard?

I didn't think it was anything particularly special, but being Alan it's worth a read.

However, even though I keep reading them, I think each series has been a step down from the one before; so depending on how you rank what has come before you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I enjoyed it but think it may fall prey to the same things you mention. or at least as far as anybody not concerned might think.
has a lot of pictorial popular cultural references plus a possibly unexpected one that the plot possibly hinges on. though i guess that character did culturally proliferate through the years until it stopped having new product about it made, possibly still does.
has cameos by most of the Bonds and most of The Avengers girls too. plus Eastenders, Dr Whos etc in non-speaking appearances.

However, even though I keep reading them, I think each series has been a step down from the one before; so depending on how you rank what has come before you may want to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Sadly, this is how I feel about LoEG too: each new volume has been worse than the previous one. If only it had been Top 10 and not LoEG Moore chose to continue after America's Best Comics folded, it felt like the former still had some great story potential in it. Or was it because of ownership issues that he was only able to take LoEG to a new publisher?

I don't know, I have enjoyed Century quite a bit - maybe because of being British? There are a great many references to touchstones of my childhood - Dandy, Victor, Battle etc, various TV things - so maybe I'm just the target audience.

I thought this barrelled along at a fair rate and although I didn't particularly care for the notion of SPOILER being the bad guy I thought it was as well handled as it could have been and after what could have happened following 1969 he actually didn't bear much resemblance to SPOILER at all. I quite liked SPOILER turning up too, although it's clear (to me at least) that it's just another facet of SPOILER.

Jess Nevins has included some of my points in his latest update.

http://jessnevins.com/annotations/2009annotations.html

I loved this one (though not quite as much as 1969, at least on first read), and am enjoying the Mindless Ones' annotations.

If only it had been Top 10 and not LoEG Moore chose to continue after America's Best Comics folded, it felt like the former still had some great story potential in it. Or was it because of ownership issues that he was only able to take LoEG to a new publisher?

Yes, Moore and O'Neill own LOEG, which was originally a Homage book. All the ABC line were WFH. DC won't even let the other creators of Top Ten continue it.

any thoughts on the new one Nemo: Heart of Ice?

pretty fun, kind of slight. It did make me think that Moore's criticisms of mainstream superhero comics as being endless retreads of existing properties in service to the nostalgia of middle-aged men ring sort of hollow when that's basically what he's doing with LOEG. It's just that instead of using superheroes he uses figures from pulp literature.

I think League has been on a steady decline since the first volume. Nemo did nothing to change my mind. I had hoped they maybe these little sidetrips would reconnect with some of the magic that has gone out of the series of late but alas it wasn't to be.

:-( is it worth checking out at all?

Depends on how much you want to see Kevin draw Lovecraftian monsters. Otherwise I got nothing from it.

Compared to Top 10, it's just really bland work.

I like it fine, but I wouldn't claim it to be anything more than genre exercise + reference-spotting

O'Neill's style is not really ideally suited to Lovecraft imho

It did make me think that Moore's criticisms of mainstream superhero comics as being endless retreads of existing properties in service to the nostalgia of middle-aged men ring sort of hollow when that's basically what he's doing with LOEG. It's just that instead of using superheroes he uses figures from pulp literature.

― Donkamole Marvin (Shakey Mo Collier),

OTM -- he's a fine one to talk, etc.

Moore's criticisms of mainstream superhero comics as being endless retreads of existing properties in service to the nostalgia of middle-aged men

None of these non-original characters (iirc? Maybe Tom Swift in the text pieces?) have been in LoEG before, so it's far from endless. And can you cite his specific criticisms?

I think Shakey was talking about this Moore interview, particularly these two comments:

It’s the paucity of imagination. I was noticing that DC seems to have based one of its latest crossovers (Blackest Night) in Green Lantern based on a couple of eight-page stories that I did 25 or 30 years ago. I would have thought that would seem kind of desperate and humiliating, When I have said in interviews that it doesn’t look like the American comic book industry has had an idea of its own in the past 20 or 30 years, I was just being mean. I didn’t expect the companies concerned to more or less say, “Yeah, he’s right. Let’s see if we can find another one of his stories from 30 years ago to turn into some spectacular saga.” It’s tragic. The comics that I read as a kid that inspired me were full of ideas. They didn’t need some upstart from England to come over there and tell them how to do comics. They’d got plenty of ideas of their own. But these days, I increasingly get a sense of the comics industry going through my trashcan like raccoons in the dead of the night.

...

But, the people running the industry have taken it down a blind alley, and it’s largely because they don’t have any ideas of their own. There’s no vision of the way that comics could be done. That’s why they have to rely upon peoples’ visions from the past. It’s like a lot of contemporary pop music. It contents itself with recycling the great sounds of the 1960s, 1970s, and increasingly, the 1980s. People today deserve good useful stories. We deserve art that is of our time. We don’t deserve this endless recycling of a particularly nice beat or sound effect of the 1960s. Yes, the past is there to plunder. A lot of the ideas of the past were discarded before they should have been. They’ve still got an awful lot of life left in them. But, don’t make that an exercise in retrospection. Pick up those ideas and do something new with them. Make them shine again. But, I think that it’s been a long time since the comics industry had any talent that was capable of doing that. The talent it did have that was capable of doing that, it either worked them to death or alienated them. I tend to see the people who run the comics industry as being largely like some variety of tapeworm or some other parasite. But, they’re not very good at it. Any self-respecting tapeworm or parasite never kills the host. That is number one on the parasite’s list of dos and don’ts—don’t kill the host. I very seriously doubt whether the comics industry as we know it is going to be here in even five years’ time. Like I said, this could have been avoided if there’d ever been an investment of genuine new ideas and energy, rather than this lazy sort of complacent approach of simply saying, “Oh, we can take these old ideas and recycle them endlessly. The audience doesn’t know any different.” I think the audience has demonstrated that they do know differently, by voting with their feet.

But Moore doesn't really say it's bad to recycle old ideas (how could he, when most of his own major works are based on pre-existing characters/stories?), just that it's bad if you don't do "something new" with them. Though to be honest, LoEG hasn't been particularly good with the "something new" part either.

yes that is the interview I was thinking of thx Tuomas

bought it. gonna read tonight. i like the way it's set in 1925, so technically you could read it inbetween 1910 and the Dossier.

afaict it has little to no bearing on any of the other books

O'Neill's art just gets worse and worse with each volume. Look back at the earlier stuff, and it looks like he at least took his time. I've just read 1969 and it's just.. really bad, and basic. The 1977 part is slightly better. Moore deserves an artist as good as Dave Gibbons to actually do any justice to his scripts.. I am unsure of whether I'll trudge along to 2009 and Nemo, hopefully the art gets a BIT better??

Have you ever liked O'Neill's art?

[ b) have you ever liked his art drawn for colour?]

O'Neill is a great artist, I'd say his art more cartoonish at the same time as Moore's script gets stupider, though I have no idea whether this was a conscious choice on O'Neill's part, or whether he just got more lazy. (The more cartoonish bits in Century remind me of his 80s style in Nemesis the Warlock, which looked great in that comic, but not necessarily in LoEG.) Still, there are parts of Century that are only carried by the art; for example, the final battle in 2009 is pretty meh, but O'Neill's rendition of SPOILER still looks awesome.

OK, it's true that I haven't seen much of his work before LOEG, but found it was adequate and workable for LOEG I & II and pretty amateur in Black Dossier and Century. There must be hundreds of other artists that can do a better job. Hell, what is Rick Veitch doing these days? John Totleben? Eddie Campbell? I guess O'Neill is just not to my taste...

I can't imagine any of those guys pulling of the more grotesque stuff in the comics, like the mutant animals of vol. 2, in the same sort "horrific yet sympathetic" way O'Neill did. Okay, maybe Veitch, but definitely not Campbell or Totleben, not even Gibbons. IMO O'Neill was the perfect artist for the series, he could do the detailed panels required for easter eggs and trainspotting, but he also has this horror comic style lineage of exaggeration and macabre, which was also required for the series, since it has plenty of pulpy stuff that calls for that sort of stylization. Campbell's dry line or Gibbon's mannered style wouldn't fit LoEG at all, there's a reason why Moore did it with O'Neill.

I'm saddened to see Kevin slagged off in this thread since he's been the only reason to even give it a vague glance since volume 1. Moore disappeared up his own ass crack and left O'Neill to try to do something interesting with whatever seeped out.

have you ever liked his art drawn for colour?

i remember seeing the originals for the first few issues of marshall law, and they were absolutely gorgeous - o'neil is a wonderful colourist of his own work, even if his peak (imho) remains the first series of nemesis, drawn and course in black and white.

Yeah, Nemesis was the series that was most perfectly fitted for his "detailed grotesque" style, it still looks gorgeous. After that, has he drawn any other series that would call for equally surreal art?

it's not really "grotesque", but have you read metalzoic?

Kev's terrific, but yeah I'd agree the Century books aren't up to his usual standard. The lettering too.

(Obvs he's no slouch even ia bad day, mind)

Ok I agree with Tuomas's statements re: Totleben, Gibbons, and Campbell; they would not have been optimal artists for LOEG. I'd like to know why indeed Moore chose O'Neill... He could just as easily chosen different artists for 1898, 1910, '58, '69, '77, 2009. Imagine the 1969 book in a Ditko or Sal Buscema style, or the 2009 done ironically 'superhero' by some new DC guy.... and I'm sure there's enough old Vertigo artists loafing around to cover the other years...

i love o'neill's art in the first loeg. i've never seen any of his other stuff, has he mostly done british comics?

he literally got banned by the Comics Code Authority because his art made them queasy

the vast majority of Marshall Law was published in America though

He could just as easily chosen different artists for

O'Neill is the co-creator and co-owner and a collaborative partner on LoEG

The final part of this interview has Moore discussing why he chose O'Neill for LOEG.
http://youtu.be/qtDphCDULeQ?t=4m12s
IMO the Hyde he does here is very slapdash and cartoonish, but, OK, I guess this is the style that Moore wanted, Victorian caricature

what's wrong w/ 'cartoonish'?

also, elephant in the room here is that the pool of ppl willing to work w/ alan moore, or who alan is prepared to work w/, has narrowed considerably over time...

is he hard to work with?

that's a difficult question to answer, really. i know some artists don't like or want the incredible level of detail that moore puts into his scripts - but many more would still leap at the chance to work w/ him. and most artists who have worked w/ alan have generally done well career-wise, finance-wise etc.

i think it's more that alan is a man of v strong principles and convictions, which of course don't always accord w/ those of his collaborators. i'm sure i'm not betraying any confidences when i say that the number of artists he has fallen out w/ - dave gibbons, david lloyd, steve bissette, alan davis etc - certainly gives one pause for thought, never mind all the publishers or editors. but again, i'm sure there are plenty of ppl who have worked w/ alan that would do so again, happily.

to be clear, in general i'm on alan moore's side when it comes to his battles w/ DC or Marvel or Hollywood, and think that his principles on the whole are worth defending and supporting.

i feel like i faintly remember an anecdote about the script for v for vendetta, there was a panel in which he describes v or maybe finch with their back to the reader, with a smile on their face - like as an example of how maddening his descriptions could be

yeah but

Despite Moore's detailed scripts, his panel descriptions would often end with the note "If that doesn't work for you, do what works best"

i'm sure i'm not betraying any confidences when i say that the number of artists he has fallen out w/ - dave gibbons, david lloyd, steve bissette, alan davis etc - certainly gives one pause for thought, never mind all the publishers or editors.

I knew about the others, but what's the story with Moore and Lloyd? Did they have a feud over the V for Vendetta movie or something?

something like that:

"I'm not expecting to have very much to do with David Lloyd in the future."

iirc gene colan was going to draw an issue of swamp thing - which would've been a perfect fit - but only wanted to work marvel-style (ie from a brief plot outline), which is obv the antithesis of the moore method, so sadly it never happened.