Comic people on Frank Miller's rant

[delekkerste]

You lost me after "despite the Gull theories' obvious attractions..."

As the topic for a fictional work, not a factual one. You seemed lost when you read the actual book it appears.

 

Um, yeah, that must be it.

[Transplant]

You lost me after "despite the Gull theories' obvious attractions..."

As the topic for a fictional work, not a factual one. You seemed lost when you read the actual book it appears.

Gene's not gonna let the facts get in the way of his opinion on this one. And despite his protestations to the contrary, my guess is that he read it too closely as an attempt as historical fiction. This, in turn offended him as a self described Ripperologist.

[Theagenes]

I saw the From Hell movie. It was kinda so-so, I suppose. I liked the Freemasonry angle because I am charmed by secret society occultism. I recall it was nicely atmospheric. I enjoy movies about London. I don't think I have much else to say about it other than I understand Moore doesn't watch his movies; which I find admirable.

 

"From Hell" was a bad joke. I was so angered by its IQ-lowering story that, after I finished reading it, I immediately sold my copy of the TPB on eBay (this was many years ago before everybody was using Amazon to buy trades). As a bit of a Ripperologist myself, I found the story to be mind-numbingly infantile and completely ridiculous on the surface of it (though, one certainly does not need to be a Ripperologist to find the story to be so preposterous to the point where disbelief cannot be suspended).

 

When I read Moore in the afterword expounding his story as truth, my esteem for the man plummeted. The theory proposed in the comic, uh, I mean, "graphic novel", is widely discredited and, on the surface, wholly implausible and unbelievable. I thought the art was decent and suited the story well, but the story was just so, so bad that I couldn't get over it and felt that my intelligence had been insulted and time wasted.

 

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

[Comicopolis]

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

 

+1 Totally agree. Absolutely brilliant.

 

I've read a lot of Alan Moore's stuff and I'm of age to have appreciated the impact some of the stories had when they first appeared some 25 years ago. However, there has been a grand total of two pieces of work from Alan that I thought were above and beyond what was being published during the day:

1. The Killing Joke - best self contained single issue Batman (or should I say, Joker) story ever. How many printings did the comic go through? And the TPB also went through several printing, too.

2. From Hell. The art matched the dark, dreary, and suspenseful story perfectly.

 

Everything else by Mr. Moore, from Swamp Thing to Watchmen was/is .

 

Frank Miller, on the other hand, has offered much more.

 

Granted, neither have made major contributions in over a decade.

 

Everyone knows 'em so there's no need to name them.

 

Such as?

 

[Comicopolis]

I saw the From Hell movie. It was kinda so-so, I suppose. I liked the Freemasonry angle because I am charmed by secret society occultism. I recall it was nicely atmospheric. I enjoy movies about London. I don't think I have much else to say about it other than I understand Moore doesn't watch his movies; which I find admirable.

 

The From Hell movie bears as mush resemblance to the original material as the movie Constantine does to Hellblazer.

[Comicopolis]

I saw the From Hell movie. It was kinda so-so, I suppose. I liked the Freemasonry angle because I am charmed by secret society occultism. I recall it was nicely atmospheric. I enjoy movies about London. I don't think I have much else to say about it other than I understand Moore doesn't watch his movies; which I find admirable.

 

"From Hell" was a bad joke. I was so angered by its IQ-lowering story that, after I finished reading it, I immediately sold my copy of the TPB on eBay (this was many years ago before everybody was using Amazon to buy trades). As a bit of a Ripperologist myself, I found the story to be mind-numbingly infantile and completely ridiculous on the surface of it (though, one certainly does not need to be a Ripperologist to find the story to be so preposterous to the point where disbelief cannot be suspended).

 

When I read Moore in the afterword expounding his story as truth, my esteem for the man plummeted. The theory proposed in the comic, uh, I mean, "graphic novel", is widely discredited and, on the surface, wholly implausible and unbelievable. I thought the art was decent and suited the story well, but the story was just so, so bad that I couldn't get over it and felt that my intelligence had been insulted and time wasted.

 

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

Thank you You saved me having to explain to Gene just how wrong his interpretations are

 

Answering the mystery of who JTR actually was is not the reason to read From Hell, nor was it the reason for compiling the work. The detailed research and historical work involved across a number of social, political, economic and artistic themes make it a superbly interesting read for me.

[delekkerste]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (all I remember is that I was put off and unimpressed by it; in any case, it was only a sidebar to my main point), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

[Comicopolis]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (re: so what, that was only a sideline to my main point that the story just wasn't very good), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

Where did anybody say that?

[TupennyConan]

let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

[Transplant]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (re: so what, that was only a sideline to my main point that the story just wasn't very good), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

Where did anybody say that?

Don't get in the way of a good straw man argument.

[Comicopolis]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (re: so what, that was only a sideline to my main point that the story just wasn't very good), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

Where did anybody say that?

Don't get in the way of a good straw man argument.

 

Since Gene was apparently confused by the foreword, afterward and anything else in the book I can see why he may get confused by simple posts on the internet

[delekkerste]

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

 

+1 Totally agree. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Transplant, meet Straw Man. Straw Man, meet Transplant.

[TupennyConan]

As best I can recall, this is the closest the thread came to such a claim:

 

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

[TupennyConan]

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

 

+1 Totally agree. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Transplant, meet Straw Man. Straw Man, meet Transplant.

 

Yes, Jeff agreed too.

[Comicopolis]

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

 

+1 Totally agree. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Transplant, meet Straw Man. Straw Man, meet Transplant.

 

 

We should all chip in and send RickL some Dostoyevsky, Camus & Orwell.

[TupennyConan]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (re: so what, that was only a sideline to my main point that the story just wasn't very good), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

Where did anybody say that?

Don't get in the way of a good straw man argument.

 

Since Gene was apparently confused by the foreword, afterward and anything else in the book I can see why he may get confused by simple posts on the internet

 

I don't know about others but I wasn't confused about Jeff agreeing with RickL.

 

I was just going with an inverse strawman claim to protect my pal Jeff.

[TupennyConan]

Everyone raves about Watchmen, and so do I, but Moore's greatest work is From Hell. It's one of the finest pieces of literature I have ever read, period.

 

+1 Totally agree. Absolutely brilliant.

 

Transplant, meet Straw Man. Straw Man, meet Transplant.

 

 

We should all chip in and send RickL some Dostoyevsky, Camus & Orwell.

 

[Comicopolis]

You're confused or your memory is faulty. What I got from reading Moore's afterword is that he made use of the Stephen Knight "Royal Conspiracy" nonsense because it made for a good story---not because he thought it was true. In fact as I recall he tends to paint Knight as a fraud and goes to great lengths to praise works like Sugden's and Rumbelow's. I've also done quite a bit of research into the Whitechapel murders as well, but I'm able to separate fact (such as it is) from a work of fiction loosely based on historic events. You seem to have a problem doing that. Of course Moore went with the most sensationalistic theory on the murders---that's what makes for a good story. And it IS a good story. If someone wants to read a historic account of the murders they can read Sugden's book. That's not what From Hell is, nor was it intended to be.

 

My memory may be faulty about the afterward (re: so what, that was only a sideline to my main point that the story just wasn't very good), but it doesn't change my opinion of the preposterous story, fictional or not. What, pray tell, was so great about it? Just because it's Alan Moore doing Jack the Ripper does not automatically give it some kind of free pass. I assure you that I have no problem distinguishing fact from fiction, but even beyond the absurd plot/premise of the story, I have a difficult time understanding how this rehash of someone else's ideas can possibly be viewed as somehow better than Moore's truly innovative work on Watchmen, V for Vendetta or Swamp Thing, let alone being some kind of all-time masterpiece of Western literature as some here have claimed.

 

Where did anybody say that?

Don't get in the way of a good straw man argument.

 

Since Gene was apparently confused by the foreword, afterward and anything else in the book I can see why he may get confused by simple posts on the internet

 

I don't know about others but I wasn't confused about Jeff agreeing with RickL.

 

I was just going with an inverse strawman claim to protect my pal Jeff.

 

I was trying to wind-up Gene but he doesn't want to play

[Chespirito]

This thread went from cool to super awesome

[delekkerste]

I was trying to wind-up Gene but he doesn't want to play

 

 

Let's just agree to disagree...I really need to get on with my day.