Snappleshacks wrote:
By looking at their track record...
Did you even read past this point in my post?

I immediately pointed to one Stanley Lieber (aka Stan Lee) whose track record gave no indication he was about to revolutionize comic books when he was asked to write FF # 1. And I also mentioned Steve Ditko whose track record gave no indication he was capable of co-creating something as popular and enduring as Spider-Man.

And how about writers who aren't even known today? Alan Moore was an unknown at one time. How do you know that there will never be any writer capable of taking Moore's characters and creating great stories with them?

I am arguing that writers should have the same chance at Moore's characters that Moore was given with other people's characters.

Matthew McCallum wrote:
That seems to suggest that track record isn't always an accurate measure...
Thank you.


fubarthepanda wrote:
But Moore isn't writing "Sherlock Holmes", just as he isn't writing sequels to "Dracula" or the "Invisible Man".  LOEG -- like Lost Girls -- uses pre-existing characters in order to deconstruct popular preconceptions and mythologies.
And Moore also took other preexisting characters - like Superman - and just wrote stories about them.

This may also sound like blasphemy but I don't find LoEG to be either "transformative" or a "deconstruction of popular mythology." It was a very clever idea to cobble together some classic literary figures into a (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) super-hero team. That's all. It's brilliantly done! It's wonderfully written! I will keep purchasing their adventures as long as Mr. Moore continues to write them, but it's not much different (on a foundational level) from any well-written super-hero team book of the modern era.

Clever? Yes. Well-written? Superbly so!  Transformative? Not so much.  Deconstruction? Not as I understand the term.


fubarthepanda wrote:
...has nothing to do with what Moore was talking about.
Here may be the problem. No one has posted exactly what Moore said. Somebody paraphrased what they thought was Moore's opinion. I responded to that paraphrase.

Would you be so kind as to post Moore's exact words? Perhaps he has been maligned by being misquoted.