Anyone Else Catch This Article on Alan Moore's Source Material?

[Prince Namor]

I will throw-in with the hate Morrison crowd.

 

I hate him.

 

That's the best way to aggravate a narcissist.

[Prince Namor]

 

So no, I don't think Moore is wrong for being influenced by others. What's important is, as others have pointed out, he takes the formula and presents it in such a way that forces readers to look at it from a different perspective. Where he errs is in believing the formula to be of his own making. Like many storytellers before him, he's able to take the old and make it new; however, he is not creating these stories without outside influence. So I'm not sure I can agree with his disdain for other writers participating in the same act of storytelling that he has done. Maybe he's done a better job than most? By all means. But there's no reason they can take their turn at the wheel.

 

 

The bolded bit is the only point I disagree with.

 

I feel that Moore is only too willing to acknowledge influences and only has his back up, on this issue, because he feels that

 

1) The Superfolks influence has been unduly emphasized (and I agree)

 

perpetrated by

 

2) the man, Grant Morrison.

 

And as to letting others take their turn at the wheel, as I said back on page one, I think the timing concerns him more than the act itself. He's still kicking- let him retain mastery of his works a little longer. I can't possibly fathom AM minding others working the clay after he's gone.

 

Yeah, I'd love for comic writers to be more influenced by sources OUTSIDE of comics as opposed to regurgitating (and that's the best word for it) the same goofy ideas that have been repeated over and over and over again in comics.

[Mac Man]

 

So no, I don't think Moore is wrong for being influenced by others. What's important is, as others have pointed out, he takes the formula and presents it in such a way that forces readers to look at it from a different perspective. Where he errs is in believing the formula to be of his own making. Like many storytellers before him, he's able to take the old and make it new; however, he is not creating these stories without outside influence. So I'm not sure I can agree with his disdain for other writers participating in the same act of storytelling that he has done. Maybe he's done a better job than most? By all means. But there's no reason they can take their turn at the wheel.

 

 

The bolded bit is the only point I disagree with.

 

I feel that Moore is only too willing to acknowledge influences and only has his back up, on this issue, because he feels that

 

1) The Superfolks influence has been unduly emphasized (and I agree)

 

perpetrated by

 

2) the man, Grant Morrison.

 

And as to letting others take their turn at the wheel, as I said back on page one, I think the timing concerns him more than the act itself. He's still kicking- let him retain mastery of his works a little longer. I can't possibly fathom AM minding others working the clay after he's gone.

 

I can't help but laugh at your only disagreeing with the bold-faced portion of my post when most of what I wrote, you bold-faced! Good times. (not being snarky--genuinely thought it was funny)

 

But in all honesty, doesn't that take a certain amount of egotism to not allow contemporaries a chance to do better? Why must they wait until after he's gone? A friend of mine posted in the comment section (Greg Carpenter) that he actually wanted the rivalry to keep up as this has often produced some of the best works by various artists, performers, and creators.

 

And while Pádraig Ó Méalóid does proceed to dismiss the similarities in the second part of his column between Superfolks and Alan Moore's primary 3 works, those mentioned in the first part are still quite compelling. Nor do the explanations he (POM) provides conclusively dismiss the connections. Instead, his column would have benefited from hedging his bets a little bit more. Instead of outright dismissing some credibility that Superfolks had a substantive influence, he could have argued other works were equally important. I think this would have made a stronger case.

 

Again, I'm no Morrison apologist. I think there's more to his motivations as an up-and-coming writer than he lets on years after the fact. I also think he's looking to gain a spot in the canon, and Moore clearly made space for himself--so there's that to be looked at as well. But I read the interviews where Moore clearly downplayed the importance of a source he admitted to reading, and given what I've started reading of that source... well, let's just say it's a touch disingenuous for him to look down on others for using a formula he's employed.

[Mac Man]

 

So no, I don't think Moore is wrong for being influenced by others. What's important is, as others have pointed out, he takes the formula and presents it in such a way that forces readers to look at it from a different perspective. Where he errs is in believing the formula to be of his own making. Like many storytellers before him, he's able to take the old and make it new; however, he is not creating these stories without outside influence. So I'm not sure I can agree with his disdain for other writers participating in the same act of storytelling that he has done. Maybe he's done a better job than most? By all means. But there's no reason they can take their turn at the wheel.

 

 

The bolded bit is the only point I disagree with.

 

I feel that Moore is only too willing to acknowledge influences and only has his back up, on this issue, because he feels that

 

1) The Superfolks influence has been unduly emphasized (and I agree)

 

perpetrated by

 

2) the man, Grant Morrison.

 

And as to letting others take their turn at the wheel, as I said back on page one, I think the timing concerns him more than the act itself. He's still kicking- let him retain mastery of his works a little longer. I can't possibly fathom AM minding others working the clay after he's gone.

 

Yeah, I'd love for comic writers to be more influenced by sources OUTSIDE of comics as opposed to regurgitating (and that's the best word for it) the same goofy ideas that have been repeated over and over and over again in comics.

 

I'm not going to knock being influenced by comics--there's some fantastic stuff being produced. But it certainly demonstrates a certain level of far-ranging appeal when an author can incorporate more sources into their work. Less likely to be miopic.

[dupont2005]

In order for a contemporary to do better than his creation, they should have their own creation. Nobody can do Usagi Yojimbo better than Stan Sakai. NOBODY. Someone else can try to make a better comic book though. Maybe even a samurai comic book.

[Maccai3]

so who'd win in a knife fight?

[Speedy-D]

I have never read any of Moore's work. The Watchmen movie was unwatchable. Before the Watchmen, it wasn't like I made a conscious effort to avoid his work. His work just never really appealed to me in any way. Take what I just said with a grain of salt, especially since post-90's comics were a blackout period. However after reading this article, I find no compelling reason to make any effort to catch-up and read his work.

 

 

Just two words: Swamp Thing.

 

 

It's too good to pass up and so incredibly well done.

That's the business right there! The first 10 or so issues of Miracle Man were killer too. And as played as the sentiment seems to be these days, when it came out Watchmen was the best comic I'd ever read by such a long shot it was ridiculous. Dark Knight was very cool, but Watchmen was real writing.

 

 

for the bolded part

I got your eye roll right here mister!

[comicwiz]

I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

[TupennyConan]

The summer before 9th grade I read Frankenstein for the first time. I think I’ve read it three times in my life. I'm not sure now, maybe four. It is a great, great novel. I still have the paperback I first read decades ago. I fondly recall reading it on the green carpeted living room floor of my childhood home.

 

I also recall being shocked by how different it was from any other Frankenstein I’d ever known. The tragic, intelligent Monster in Mary Shelley’s novel bore no resemblance to anything I’d seen from Hollywood or in comic books. The book looks nothing at all like the movies & comics, &c.

 

The novel had an important philosophical impact on me, entirely distinct from Universal’s movie creature, et al. I love Hollywoods’ many versions -- except that awful De Niro film. Frankenstein’s presence in pop culture is ubiquitous, welcome, & sweet. Young Frankenstein, for example, may be my favorite comedy.

 

Hollywood’s creature is an entertainment. Shelley’s novel is a religious tract of enormous romantic impact.

 

As I reflect on this, I note that the Tolkien heir is a pretentious clown with too much butthurt.

 

[TupennyConan]

To preserve one discreet work of art, the Tolkien nutjob would cause a chilling effect on endless possibilities for other works of art.

 

Art is about art, which is in turn about the Human. It influences itself. It doesn’t & we don’t exist in a vacuum.

 

Homer’s muse was Calliope.

 

[comicwiz]

I think your butthurt detector needs calibration.

 

Seriously though, we grew up in a generation that saw artists like Bill Waterson defend their creative works to the point where the strip was discontinued over bitter disagreement on direction and an acrimonious relationship with commercialism.

 

Where creators like Crumb, although heavily influenced by a "Humor in a Jugular Vein," still managed to veer into a direction of originality which is distinct and uniquely their own, and as such, merits an introspective look at the aspect of preserving creator rights over commercial works.

 

I think this "all or nothing" approach is badly outdated, and in this regard, the disputes we are seeing emerging from original creators and estate heirs are a clear sign that a paradigm shift might well be in order.

[ComicConnoisseur]

The summer before 9th grade I read Frankenstein for the first time. I think I’ve read it three times in my life. I'm not sure now, maybe four. It is a great, great novel. I still have the paperback I first read decades ago. I fondly recall reading it on the green carpeted living room floor of my childhood home.

 

I also recall being shocked by how different it was from any other Frankenstein I’d ever known. The tragic, intelligent Monster in Mary Shelley’s novel bore no resemblance to anything I’d seen from Hollywood or in comic books. The book looks nothing at all like the movies & comics, &c.

 

The novel had an important philosophical impact on me, entirely distinct from Universal’s movie creature, et al. I love Hollywoods’ many versions -- except that awful De Niro film. Frankenstein’s presence in pop culture is ubiquitous, welcome, & sweet. Young Frankenstein, for example, may be my favorite comedy.

 

Hollywood’s creature is an entertainment. Shelley’s novel is a religious tract of enormous romantic impact.

 

As I reflect on this, I note that the Tolkien heir is a pretentious clown with too much butthurt.

I like that and agree. To try to stay on topic what I like most about George Lucas is he lets other people play in his sandbox he created. It seems here that Alan Moore and Tolkien heirs don`t want to share with their fans.

Why is Marvel still so damn successful?

Other creators took what Stan and Jack did and added to the mythos.

 

[Prince Namor]

I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

 

I would imagine you're a pretty well read person. You seriously may want to read Watchmen, Miracleman, and Swamp Thing and seriously take the time to see the way it's put together to understand it's place in comics. His -script, which you can find online is the polar opposite of the 'Marvel Method' and goes into great lengths to use the comic form of storytelling and help the artist to tell the story.

 

To me. all of this is simplified as such:

 

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby: influenced by literary content outside of comics like Jekyll/Hyde, Norse Gods, Sci-Fi magazines = GOOD

The Modern Comic Book writer: Influenced by the Green Goblin returns! Professor X dies/walks! Reboot the Universe! = BAD

 

So, anyone who comes from the 'literary influence' group, who creates something unique, FOR THE MEDUIM OF COMICS, might see the constant reworking of those ideas as BORING.

I do. I see it all as BORING.

Mainstream Marvel and DC comics are nothing more than the same ideas retold over and over and over again.

Scott Snyder may be the greatest writer in the world, I can't take ANOTHER JOKER STORY. I don't want to read anymore about the GREEN GOBLIN or babies born from clones or Galactus returns! or the same old stuff I've read a million times before.

 

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

 

Is THAT the side you want to take in this?

[Prince Namor]

The summer before 9th grade I read Frankenstein for the first time. I think I’ve read it three times in my life. I'm not sure now, maybe four. It is a great, great novel. I still have the paperback I first read decades ago. I fondly recall reading it on the green carpeted living room floor of my childhood home.

 

I also recall being shocked by how different it was from any other Frankenstein I’d ever known. The tragic, intelligent Monster in Mary Shelley’s novel bore no resemblance to anything I’d seen from Hollywood or in comic books. The book looks nothing at all like the movies & comics, &c.

 

The novel had an important philosophical impact on me, entirely distinct from Universal’s movie creature, et al. I love Hollywoods’ many versions -- except that awful De Niro film. Frankenstein’s presence in pop culture is ubiquitous, welcome, & sweet. Young Frankenstein, for example, may be my favorite comedy.

 

Hollywood’s creature is an entertainment. Shelley’s novel is a religious tract of enormous romantic impact.

 

As I reflect on this, I note that the Tolkien heir is a pretentious clown with too much butthurt.

I like that and agree. To try to stay on topic what I like most about George Lucas is he lets other people play in his sandbox he created. It seems here that Alan Moore and Tolkien heirs don`t want to share with their fans.

Some people find the blatant prostitution of creativity to be less than entertaining than others do.

 

Why is Marvel still so damn successful?

They've taken the genius of two men and retold that story over and over again to a market they've bullied and tried to control for 50 years.

 

Other creators took what Stan and Jack did and added to the mythos.

Added to the mythos?

I guess if I spit in the ocean, I've added to it.

[TupennyConan]

Some people find the blatant prostitution of creativity to be less than entertaining than others do.

 

lol

 

This is silly.

[comicwiz]

I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

 

I would imagine you're a pretty well read person. You seriously may want to read Watchmen, Miracleman, and Swamp Thing and seriously take the time to see the way it's put together to understand it's place in comics. His -script, which you can find online is the polar opposite of the 'Marvel Method' and goes into great lengths to use the comic form of storytelling and help the artist to tell the story.

 

To me. all of this is simplified as such:

 

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby: influenced by literary content outside of comics like Jekyll/Hyde, Norse Gods, Sci-Fi magazines = GOOD

The Modern Comic Book writer: Influenced by the Green Goblin returns! Professor X dies/walks! Reboot the Universe! = BAD

 

So, anyone who comes from the 'literary influence' group, who creates something unique, FOR THE MEDUIM OF COMICS, might see the constant reworking of those ideas as BORING.

I do. I see it all as BORING.

Mainstream Marvel and DC comics are nothing more than the same ideas retold over and over and over again.

Scott Snyder may be the greatest writer in the world, I can't take ANOTHER JOKER STORY. I don't want to read anymore about the GREEN GOBLIN or babies born from clones or Galactus returns! or the same old stuff I've read a million times before.

 

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

 

Is THAT the side you want to take in this?

 

Even if we could come to some agreement on your view of the situation, how do you reconcile the most important view in the discussion - that of Robert Mayer's, the author of Superfolks, who stated:

 

Among the spawn, many critics say, were much of Alan Moore’s work, including the ‘classic’ Watchmen. To my knowledge Mr. Moore has never publicly acknowledged a debt to Superfolks, but you can Google Superfolks and read all about it.

 

Should his lot be one which should kiss the very ground that Moore walks on, because without Moore, what fate other than certain obscurity would have been decided for him?

[500Club]

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

Why does questioning Moore's views make one a Big Two sympathizer, Chuck?

[Prince Namor]

Some people find the blatant prostitution of creativity to be less than entertaining than others do.

 

lol

 

This is silly.

 

Hyperbole can be a weapon used by either side.

[Prince Namor]

I see this as a double standard - where it's "hands all over" any/all "influences" when they're eventually masterminded into Moore's opus, but "hands off" when it's Moore's work that is being purposed in a different manner or direction than he may have wanted or intended.

 

Somewhat related to the subject at hand is this article discussing the recent trouble on middle earth. I found it interesting how the estate is taking a firm stance on control over merchandising. Especially this quote:

 

In an article in Wired about the litigation, Erik Wecks wrote that with this suit, Christopher Tolkien, who manages his father’s legacy, "doesn’t want to see the intellectual tour de force that is his father’s work reduced to slot machines and hack-and-slash online games."

Christopher himself told the magazine Le Monde, "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has gone too far for me. Such commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of this creation to nothing."

 

To me, this line of thinking captures the essence of what bothers me most about what Moore did with League of Extraordinary Gentleman, to say nothing of the way the whole Beyond Watchmen debate gave rise to a lot of issues with Moore's creative liberties, and which are again being drudged up in The Beat post.

 

I would imagine you're a pretty well read person. You seriously may want to read Watchmen, Miracleman, and Swamp Thing and seriously take the time to see the way it's put together to understand it's place in comics. His -script, which you can find online is the polar opposite of the 'Marvel Method' and goes into great lengths to use the comic form of storytelling and help the artist to tell the story.

 

To me. all of this is simplified as such:

 

Stan Lee/Jack Kirby: influenced by literary content outside of comics like Jekyll/Hyde, Norse Gods, Sci-Fi magazines = GOOD

The Modern Comic Book writer: Influenced by the Green Goblin returns! Professor X dies/walks! Reboot the Universe! = BAD

 

So, anyone who comes from the 'literary influence' group, who creates something unique, FOR THE MEDUIM OF COMICS, might see the constant reworking of those ideas as BORING.

I do. I see it all as BORING.

Mainstream Marvel and DC comics are nothing more than the same ideas retold over and over and over again.

Scott Snyder may be the greatest writer in the world, I can't take ANOTHER JOKER STORY. I don't want to read anymore about the GREEN GOBLIN or babies born from clones or Galactus returns! or the same old stuff I've read a million times before.

 

The need to try and vilify Alan Moore is nothing more than fans trying to justify the garbage they buy from the Big Two. Garbage thrown together by 2 companies trying protect their market share by bully tactics and keep the status quo of characters in place for later use in movies; written by people too afraid to share the real creative side of their abilities for fear that Marvel/DC will own something good they come up with.

 

Is THAT the side you want to take in this?

 

Even if we could come to some agreement on your view of the situation, how do you reconcile the most important view in the discussion - that of Robert Mayer's, the author of Superfolks, who stated:

 

Among the spawn, many critics say, were much of Alan Moore’s work, including the ‘classic’ Watchmen. To my knowledge Mr. Moore has never publicly acknowledged a debt to Superfolks, but you can Google Superfolks and read all about it.

 

Should his lot be one which should kiss the very ground that Moore walks on, because without Moore, what fate other than certain obscurity would have been decided for him?

 

Alan Moore HAS acknowledged he read it and that it's an influence.

You may want to read the material to make a decision. The article is makes it sound like outright plagiarism. It's not.

In the case of both Watchmen and Marvelman it's less influential than the Norse Gods were to Kirby's Thor stories.

[TupennyConan]

Some people find the blatant prostitution of creativity to be less than entertaining than others do.

 

lol

 

This is silly.

 

Hyperbole can be a weapon used by either side.

 

You must mean this:

 

As I reflect on this, I note that the Tolkien heir is a pretentious clown with too much butthurt.

 

 

The side I'm on is the side of the working artist & their art, especially if good & interesting, & the host of influences which inspired them both.