ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 13497
Aug 9 11 11:18 PM
Snappleshacks wrote:fubarthepanda wrote: In LOEG, Moore's taking well-known characters from Victorian literature and deconstructing the popular notion of them by layering real-world personality traits on them, no different then what he did in Lost Girls and Watchmen.LoEG becomes a fascinating look at fiction itself once we're past the first volume or so. What is the nature of fiction? How and why does it change over time? What does its evolution say about the audience and the changing perception of women and minorities? How does the medium affect the message? What happens to the trope of the comic book superhero group if it's transported outside its niche?
fubarthepanda wrote: In LOEG, Moore's taking well-known characters from Victorian literature and deconstructing the popular notion of them by layering real-world personality traits on them, no different then what he did in Lost Girls and Watchmen.
Posts: 1238
Aug 9 11 11:19 PM
Posts: 873
Aug 9 11 11:22 PM
Aug 9 11 11:25 PM
Void wrote: Thread's now giving me deja vu.
Aug 9 11 11:27 PM
Aug 9 11 11:30 PM
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.
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.
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).
Posts: 3031
Aug 10 11 12:51 AM
Posts: 2776
Aug 10 11 9:16 AM
Golden Age
Snappleshacks wrote:This seems to be the key quote from the interview cited above:"At the end of the day, if they haven’t got any properties that are valuable enough, but they have got these ‘top-flight industry creators’ that are ready to produce these prequels and sequels to WATCHMEN, well this is probably a radical idea, but could they not get one of the ‘top-flight industry creators’ to come up with an idea of their own? Why are DC Comics trying to exploit a comic book that I wrote 25 years ago if they have got anything? Sure they ought to have had an equivalent idea since? I could ask about why Marvel Comics are churning out or planning to bring out my ancient MARVELMAN stories, which are even older, if they had a viable idea of their own in the quarter-century since I wrote those works. I mean, surely that would be a much easier solution than all of this clandestine stuff? Just simply get some of your top-flight talent to put out a book that the wider public outside of the comics field find as interesting or as appealing as the stuff that I wrote 25 years ago. It shouldn’t be too big an ask, should it? I wouldn’t have thought so. And it would solve an awful lot of problems. They must have one creator, surely, in the entire American industry that could do equivalent work to something I did 25 years ago. It would be insulting to think that there weren’t."
Posts: 8154
Aug 10 11 11:50 AM
Posts: 4692
Aug 10 11 11:52 AM
sterlling wrote: Jack Kirby continues to receive the shaft as Alan Moore derails his thread...
Aug 10 11 12:06 PM
sterlling wrote:Jack Kirby continues to receive the shaft as Alan Moore derails his thread...
Posts: 544
Aug 10 11 12:25 PM
Matthew McCallum wrote:sterlling wrote: Jack Kirby continues to receive the shaft as Alan Moore derails his thread...Yeah, and I remember that Martin Goodman made verbal promises to Kirby that he'd have his own thread...
Posts: 10379
Aug 10 11 12:26 PM
Registered Member
Jack Kirby continues to receive the shaft as Alan Moore derails his thread...
Posts: 5411
Aug 10 11 1:02 PM
Posts: 1754
Aug 10 11 2:11 PM
famac wrote: sfcityduck - he threw down the wager - are you going to take him up it? And I find the Tea Bagger stuff insulting.
Famac,The point of my post is not to predict the outcome of the appeal, it is to properly discuss the issues. As an attorney, I know how difficult it is to predict the outcome of a case, and how often judges get it wrong. I've lost appeals I should have won and won appeals I should have lost. So, no, I'm not going to bet on an outcome, especially when I haven't read the appellate briefs on which the outcome will be based. This appeal could have several stages, and it will be a long time, possibly years, before it is over.I also don't make gentlemen's bets with folks who aren't gentlemen. Binecon has repeatedly insulted me and my profession. On that note, I find it curious you feel a need to note that you feel "insulted" by a comment not directed to you, but make no comment on Binecon's rudeness to me. Seems to me that Binecon's unprovoked insults are motivated by some long past political animosity, as I can't otherwise explain his insult that at some other point my analysis has offended him. Hard for me to believe that my love of Barks or EC could have offended anyone. I agree that there is no place for political animosity on this board. The fact I apparently pegged Binecon accurately is suggested by his lack of alternative explanation for his animosity.
No further need for me to waste time on this.
Posts: 1239
Aug 10 11 3:21 PM
Modern Age
But Alan Moore has created plenty of characters (probably more then any other creator working in modern comics).
Aug 10 11 3:34 PM
Aug 10 11 3:43 PM
Aug 10 11 3:45 PM
Lol, nearly everything is derivative of something. SIN CITY, in Miller's own words, is a mash-up of Spillane, Chandler, and Hammett. But if Alan Moore writes "fan fic", I'm afraid to ask what everything else in comics is...
Aug 10 11 3:57 PM
Melkorjunior wrote:Lol, nearly everything is derivative of something. SIN CITY, in Miller's own words, is a mash-up of Spillane, Chandler, and Hammett. But if Alan Moore writes "fan fic", I'm afraid to ask what everything else in comics is... The diifference is, Miller didn't use Spillane's or Chandler's or Hammet's characters. Tone is one thing, using other people's characters is quite obviously another. The day Mike Hammer appears in Sin City is the day Miller is writing fan fic.
Share This