General Chat > Books & Comics

Alan Moore thinks you're a prick!

(1/20) > >>


"I have written these things. I'm not proud of it. I have nothing but abhorrence for the superhero as a figure. I think that there is something wrong with our culture. These are responsible adults, and they are thrilling to concepts and characters and stories that were written to entertain the 12 year old boys of 50 years ago.

I think that it says something a little bit disturbing if we just want to regurgitate the culture that we grew up with and which takes us back to our happy place. I really thought comics was about something more than that."

Moore's got new product to promote! Radio Four's Today Programme brought him in from the field, made him wipe his unshod feet on the doormat, and sit up straight like a real author, before asking him every single question he's asked whenever he does an interview for the mainstream media. As well as the playground taunt reproduced above, he manages to perform the Stan Lee trick of forgetting that there was some guy called David Lloyd hanging around while he "created" the look adopted by the Occupy movement - he neglects the Wachowskis, for that matter.

It's actually an interesting interview, which seems to reveal the formative influence collaborating with Malcolm McLaren had on Moore's approach to storytelling - he compares McLaren to William Blake! Moore's promoting the comic adaptation of his script for McLaren's unfilmed Fashion Beast - which I had no idea was even coming out - and mentions that he's having another prose novel published next year, called Jerusalem.  Endearingly, Moore upbraids the interviewer for referring to his new work as a graphic novel, "lets just call them very expensive comics". Classic Alan:

As always with the sublime Moore I do wish he'd qualify his statements a bit - contemporary comics are more than superheroic childhood escapism, it'd be almost impossible to even keep up with all the comics that don't fit that description, and that are far from infantilism.  Repeatedly asserting that the dominance of the lycra-punching crowd somehow means that the medium itself is presently reduced to just that has to be harmful.  Does the ubiquity of kill-the-pig 'reality' TV mean that there's nothing decent being made, and avidly consumed, in that medium?

Alan needs to acknowledge that he's no longer as aware of the state of the medium or form as he was when he hung about with the Westminster Hall comics mart folk, and arguing that books that make it to critical/awards lists aren't worth reading because they are 'style accessories' is really throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Mention of David Lloyd would have been nice, but Alan has spent 30-odd years insisting on the fair treatment of his co-creators to his own detriment, even after he'd cut them out of the metaphorical will, so he's allowed the odd lapse.

Can't wait for Jerusalem, speaking as a big fan of Voice of the Fire, and local history novels in general.

Link Prime:
Fair comment Tordel.

Richmond Clements:

--- Quote ---These are responsible adults, and they are thrilling to concepts and characters and stories that were written to entertain the 12 year old boys of 50 years ago.
--- End quote ---

So, nothing like LOEG then...

Meh. That's OK, I think he is too. It's funny that he touches upon adults still digging superhero fiction (that he himself has long stopped reading, so not sure how he knows what other creators are doing in the genre) because but he's the biggest man-child on the planet. Goes without saying that Moore is a really good writer but it's a bloody shame that he choses to spew such constant negativity about the medium and it's creators from the soapbox he's given. He constantly seems to downplay his past superhero writing, not in a modest way but to try and belittle the people that do like it.

This is a hilarious interview for anyone that has the time (it's a long 8 page rant). I still think it could be a spoof as some of the stuff he comes out with is mind blowing bonkers paranoia-filled stuff.

Disdain for anyone else working in mainstream comics; "I didn't really think that there was any talent in the mainstream comics industry. If there had have been, they presumably, sometime over the past 20 or 25 years, would have perhaps come up with something that was as good as Watchmen--or as notable or as memorable--after they'd already been shown how to do it."

NEW 52 was launched because he said no Watchmen sequels (and nothing to do with DC trying stop falling print sales or clean up DC continuity to make it more accessable) "When I originally said that I would not be giving my permission to a raft of prequels, DC immediately announced that they were going to do an exciting relaunch to all of their classic characters--which, I suppose, was their "plan B."

Anyone that worked on Before Watchmen is a prick and are only doing it to get 15 minutes of fame:
"I feel that the industry employees who are actually working upon this book--I had only heard of about three of them--but I'm certainly not interested in seeing any of their work.  But, I'm unlikely to because I don't read comics anymore and they're never going to do anything outside of comics.  I think it's a shame.  I can see why the people concerned are involved, having either never created anything original themselves or they did, but it wasn't good enough to get DC out of their current hole.

It strikes me that, yes, I can understand why they took on Before Watchmen.  It will probably be the only opportunity they get in their careers to actually be attached to a project that anybody outside of comics has ever heard of."

If you read Before Watchmen you're a prick "If people do want to go out and buy these Watchmen prequels, they would be doing me an enormous favor if they would just stop buying my other books."

I can't do anything legal about Before Watchmen so I'm going to try and guilt tripping people into not buying it "I would hope that you wouldn't want to buy a book knowing that its author actually had complete contempt for you.  So, I'm hoping that will be enough."

That's just the first few pages, he's real charming.

As with the likes of Frank "totally bonkers" Miller some times it's necessary to focus on the output of artists rather than the artist themselves.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version