Matthew McCallum wrote:
fubarthepanda wrote:
BillyBatson4360 wrote:
There have been many brilliant books and movies that have used Sherlock Holmes since that character entered the public domain, but Sherlock Holmes is still the creation of Arthur Conan Doyle and much of what we love about his personality springs from Doyle. Ditto with many of the characters Moore uses in LoEG (including IIRC Doyle's Mycroft Holmes).

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.  This type of work can only be effective if you're somehow familiar with the concepts that are being deconstructed.  Just as Watchmen can only be effective if you're familiar with the standard super-hero archetypes.  Confusing deconstruction with the ongoing adventures of some character is mixing apples and oranges, and has nothing to do with what Moore was talking about.
What vexes me is that Alan Moore has a tremendous amount of talent, and the LOEG is a rich concept in its Wold Newton potential, but so much of the work reads like a multi-page version of that famous Wally Wood "Disney" poster. I don't know if Moore takes a perverse pleasure in defiling literary icons (minor though some may be), but it's a self indulgence that -- for me at least -- greatly impedes the enjoyment of the work and devalues the literary merit.
Hmmm, I don't think his intent was to "defile" literary icons -- he was basically deconstructing them which -- similar to the some of the characterizations in Watchmen -- were more disturbing then others.  But I also think some of the characters became stronger in the process, particularly Mina and Nemo, and, ultimately, Quartermain as well.  But the themes that Moore is pursuing in LOEG don't work if you don't have token familiarity (and subsequent preconceptions) with the central characters.