Snappleshacks wrote:
videofarmer wrote: "Addressing the contention that there haven't been any great comics or any creators good enough to handle Moore's characters in a worthy manner"

I'm afraid you keep missing the point. The issue isn't whether the current crop of writers is good. The issue is whether they're pushing forward the way Moore did when he arrived on the scene (and still does today, to a somewhat lesser extent) and/or writing with the same level of sophistication. The answer to that has to be no. Here's your list:

Strangers In Paradise
100%
Heavy Liquid
Batman Year 100
Truth: Red, White & Black
Inhumans
Cap: Theater of War
Criminal
Incognito
Essex County
Surrogates
The Homeland Directive
Scarlet
Goldfish
Jinx
Torso
Ocean
Orbiter
Ministry of Space
Kabuki
Midnight Nation
Nightly News
Scalped

How are any of these remotely in the same league as Promethea or V for Vendetta in terms of literature? To say nothing of Watchmen, a work so accomplished it was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 best novels in the English language. Bendis/Brubaker are writing (very good) pastiche; Ellis writes (sometimes very good) pulp potboilers; Strangers in Paradise would be utterly unremarkable if shown on the CW instead of published in comic book form. Satrapi is reporting; Vaughn writes the equivalent of popcorn movies; Thompson is skilled with a brush but has nothing to say.

Of the books you list, Black Hole is an interesting case, and arguably Morrison's We3. I would class these as lesser demigods in the pantheon but still worthy of serious cultural consideration. But it's still some distance between that and From Hell, a masterwork worthy of discussion alongside 20th century novels by people like Fitzgerald and Woolf. In many ways that's the fundamental divide for Moore; he's a writer of that calibre working in a medium better known for men with socks on their heads punching each other. And arguably he's the only person we have like that (I say arguably because the usual suspects - Spiegelman etc - haven't produced anything of note beyond the usual candidates). Certainly any book on the list above is going to be laughed out of a proper literature discussion, although Satrapi would probably get a look in for topicality.

I don't disagree you're listing good books, but there's a difference between a good movie and something by Kubrick/Lynch etc. That's the Moore distinction, and I don't think he's wrong to criticize the current state of the industry in this respect. These guys aren't writing the next Watchmen - not even close. They're not putting out Lost Girls alongside The Killing Joke. There's nothing out there to suggest Watchmen 2 wouldn't be an exercise in nostalgia, let alone worthy of sitting alongside the first one in a literature class. He's essentially watching the inexorable advance of slash-and-burn agriculture and saying, "Hey, not in my forest you don't." But then again, we live in an age where half the people who bought Watchmen seem to think Rorshach and the Comedian would made cool action figures.

"Just because Alan Moore won't read any of their books doesn't mean you can't."

Nobody is saying there aren't good books out there, or that the books you like aren't any good. I don't think anybody is saying anything like that. Instead, they're trying to contextualize Moore's comments for you. I don't like all of his books, but he's operating on another level entirely to pretty much everybody else in the industry. The only other person to come close is Grant Morrison, and aside from a few bits like We3 it feels like he's given up on trying to reach the same level since partway through New X Men.
I think your assessment of Vaughan is a tad harsh. Have you read Pride of Baghdad? I don't think I'm missing the point, I just don't agree with your position. I already stated that I don't believe every book can be revolutionary, the conditions have to be ripe. I don't think most of Moore's books are revolutionary. Most are just well-crafted, finely layered, very nuanced and extremely good. No form of art constantly pushes out masterpieces, but it doesn't mean current artists aren't trying. I have to concede that Moore has the right to control his creations, but as skillful as he is, I dislike him running down creators simply for not having his talent. He's made it to the top of the tower and is firing down at the people who are trying to climb it (whether they have the hope of making it up or not). It is still boiling down to believing Moore has a right to use other people's characters because his stories are good (worthy of literary consideration, transformative, in need of the specific characters to make his points, however you want to say the stories are good) and other people should not use existing characters because their stories are not as good. Or are you not saying that anymore and we're now just talking about how many comics are worthy of literary note? I think the ratio of good, bad and revolutionary prose writers is about the same as good, bad and revolutionary comics writers given the numbers. I know you're not saying that those writers who aren't consistently exceptional shouldn't be writing at all, so I assume you are saying they shouldn't be writing other creators characters (Moore's in particular)?


Last Edited By: videofarmer Aug 9 11 10:43 PM. Edited 1 times.