What's Alan Moore's Problem?

A lot of great artists are huge assholes. I'm a huge fan of Miles Davis, for example, and he was one of the biggest pricks to walk the face of the Earth. Didn't make him any less talented.

I think that's pretty much the case with Moore as well.

I have to say, though, I LOVE the "Baby Watchmen" bit from the Simpsons. Fucking hilarious.

 

Alan Moore creeps me out honestly. Partly it's the Unabomber look. Partly it's the all the kooky "look at me imma zanny weird artsy fartsy crazy man! I'm a free spirit! Look how artisty I am! Whoooo!". But mostly, it's his bizarre sexual topics he likes to write about like turning iconic childhood story characters into slutty porn stars and his strange fascination with glorifying rape. Fucking weirdo.

 

Never seen any of those things (though they seem in-character with what I DO know about the guy)... except for "glorifying rape." That seems pretty out-there, and not in-character with things I've read which he wrote. From his writing, he doesn't "glorify" it... but rather treats it as evidence of the "animality" of humanity as he sees it.

Of course, it's entirely possible (I'm not a huge fanboy!) that there's stuff about him I've just never seen... so... sources for your comments, above?

 

Well, by this

Thrall is obviously referencing Moore's Lost Girls, which you can read about here.

 

I think he's just a crazy cranky bastard who is a brilliant writer.

 

At least Moore seems to have a sense of humor about everything for him to come on the Simpsons and parody his irritations like that.

 

Read Lost Girls. Truly terrifying.

And in every work I've ever read there comes a point where a female main character gets sexually assaulted or raped. It's to the point where I pretty much expect it to happen in any story he writes. "Oh look there's Mina Harker, and oh hey, there's 20 horny Arabs with massive hard on's looking for a good ol' fashioned gang bang. Oh what fun we shall have!" I don't think Bram Stoker would would much care for that.

 

My understanding is that Moore is voluntarily giving his share of the proceeds to Gibbons, essentially to make a statement and/or to distance himself from the project.

If Moore had chosen to keep his share, Gibbons would still have been paid Gibbons' share.

So, in no scenario would Moore be "taking food out of the mouths of Gibbon's children," any more than I would be taking food out of the mouths of your children if I don't donate a portion of my salary this year to you.

 

No, what he means is that if he had refused consent, he would be denying Gibbons money by not allowing the film to be made.

 

Well, I suppose it's a more perilous subject matter than samurai with magic swords ().

Seriously, though, I'd partialy recommend "Lost Girls", as long as the hypothetical person asking for a recommendation isn't a prude, puritan or overly attached to the original versions of Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan or Wizard of Oz. It's a very funny send-up of the contemporary cultures (and the works it bases itself off), traditional 'morality' and sexual hypocrisy. The downside is the art, which is done in blurry pastels and far too often strays into a kind of pretentious 'avant-guardness'. Moore calls it 'benign pornography', which is accurate enough: the art is explicit, but not particularly enticing. "Lost Girls" is better as satire than it is as erotica.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

Maybe it's just me, but---isn't craziness inferior art? Now I'm not that familiar with Moore's work, only reading The Watchmen, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Promethea. The Watchmen was marred by the peculiar treatment of Rohrschach. Presumably the perverse sexual motive of the superhero psyche is exposed in him. But the book basically loves him in a way it doesn't love any other character. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen seems extraordinary only for the way that Moore rewrites well known characters. Nemo as a government agent is so extraordinary a perversion it is remarkable no one seems to notice.
Whatever could the point be? And Promethea---occultism is stupid. Period. I think you must moderate praise for Moore.

As for his rants about comic book companies or whatever, I've forgotten who has the signature quote from Moore about how he was treated worse than someone who gave heroin to a busload of kids or something. I'm afraid that even without being in the business I'm sure that's gross exaggeration. Since he seems to be sincere (not joking,) he comes across
as neurotically sensitive. But, since I'm not in the business, I see no need at all to berate Moore for abusing comic book companies.

 

Moore's point is that he's a monster; but he's very compelling, so fans love him.

He's an uneasy member of the group trying to help for the greater good, and ultimately resigns over Britain's use of germ weapons.

That's your opinion; he can express his own beliefs however he wishs, and the book is certainly a triumph of artistry.

That pertains to the court proceedings surrounding the LoEG lawsuit, I believe.

 

I think you missed my point. The thing is, Moore is refusing to be associated, even financially, with the making of the film, and is also refusing to turn over his rights to people who aren't involved.

This basically gives him two choices... either (1) refuse to allow the materials to be used (which would be "taking the food out of the mouths of his co-creators' children") or do what he's doing now.

Clearer?

 

CaptainCanada---Moore has the right to express his beliefs. But any "artistry" in Promethea is like putting a silk gown on a pig. Doing it for a joke is one thing. Really thinking it beautiful mocks the very idea of beauty. Expanding the idea of art to include nonsense devalues art. Obiously that's my opinion.

 

My problem with Promethea had nothing to do with Moore's beliefs being either "art" or "occultism"; it had everything to do with taking two and a half books to have the character meander about while he explored these beliefs instead of moving the story along. In my opinion, the books went nowhere.

 

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Promethea either; it's a phenomenal work of technical art, but as story it's not especially compelling.

 

Didn't someone already say that Moore didn't have the right to keep Watchmen from being made? That he didn't own the rights?

 

He wasn't the sole rights holder, only partial.

 

I'm the same - I think its a pretty good read, once, because its very pretty and comics are incredibly quick reads anyway, but I'm glad I only borrowed it rather than bought it. I have no real desire to read it again.

Watchmen, however, is perfect.

 

He doesn't hold any rights to watchmen, it was work for hire. People tend to forget, that when it was published it was just another comic.