Really interesting article over at The Beat about the relationship between Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. Well actually Grant Morrison responding to comments made about him by Alan Moore.
http://comicsbeat.com/the-strange-case-of-grant-morrison-and-alan-moore-as-told-by-grant-morrison/ (http://comicsbeat.com/the-strange-case-of-grant-morrison-and-alan-moore-as-told-by-grant-morrison/)
...well its interesting to those of us who enjoy reading the about antics of great comic writers or very minor celebrates in the real world, as much as I do.
I wonder if this thread can reach the heights of the Moore Byrne page???? I can only wish...
It goes without saying that there's truth, hypocrisy and over-inflated self-opinion in what each hugely talented creator has to say about the other and themselves. I haven't read enough of the contested material to offer a worthwhile opinion and, as a reader of both their work, I've no intention of taking sides anyway; but I will admit to being fascinated by their petty squabble in the same way as someone reading about the Kardashians in Heat. It seems to me that this kind of detailed, point-by-point refutation of fanboy tittle-tattle seems beneath someone of Morrison's stature and is probably a misstep, though.
Cheers for regularly turning up and posting the kind of stuff I'm interested in reading but too lazy to look for myself, Colin.
As long as it doesn't escalate into releasing a sex tape.
From a personal perspective, I remember being generally appalled by the Morrisons interviews I read back then, mainly because of that whole Morrisey style of talking others down. It certainly was the style of the time, but it turned me off a whole slew of people - mostly musicians such as the aforementioned Morrisey and also Nirvana, who I recall were slagging off various people, including curiously Guns and Roses - I hate Guns and Roses more than they did, but I still found it made my blood run cold at the time.
I imagine there's a lot of personal stuff behind that in terms of being the target of a lot of similarly flavoured spite from the cool kids from leafy Solihull (all big Smiths fans naturally!) against the heavy metal kid from "worst estate in England tm" Chelmsley Wood. It certainly made me feel like I wasn't welcome to the club, and made sure I wasn't interested in joining it. Which when I look back now, I should have gatecrashed anyway, if only to piss them off! I remember an interview with Morrison where he said we should all sell our Sgt Rock comics and travel the world with the profits - this was the pretty good advice, and coming from Moore I could imagine myself taking heed - right message, wrong messenger!
That said, Morrison makes a pretty good defence of himself on the facts and I'm not sure why Moore felt the need to say anything as it doesn't paint him in a great light. Something like this is probably as much about feelings as facts I suppose...
Morrison is just plain jealous of Moore :D
Quote from: Mabs on 25 November, 2012, 12:47:12 PM
Morrison is just plain jealous of Moore :D
Have to agree. What Morrison
wants to be, Moore just
is. This was my take-away conclusion from
Supergods.
I'm not knocking Morrison here, I genuinely think he's great - he's constantly trying to re-invent himself and his work, and to that end he casts himself as the hero in an ever-changing metaverse of significance where random encounters and boring economic trends are brightened up by being slotted into a consciously invented mystical narrative.
That's very cool, and it's produced some great work.
Moore, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have to work at this, let alone
invent it: he just
does it.
He decides to be a magician, a performance artist, a pornographer, a patron of his community, a symbolic figure in the issue of creator's rights, a self-publisher, an author, and lo! All without leaving Northampton. Of course it doesn't always work out, but he never looks like he's
faking it. Morrison is just as sincere, but even when he's carefully considering the next approach for his writing it always sounds like his latest Madonna-esque image change, because it is. Doesn't mean he works any less hard, or that results aren't sometimes even more satisfying than Moore's, but ultimately it's artifice. Moore just gets shamble along and still be be the real deal. It must drive Grant insane.
Have to say I disagree with you two on this one (Mabs and Tordelback). I think Morrison has absolutely no need to be 'jealous' of Alan Moore and from the little I know of him would be surprised if he was. Both have egos that's for sure but these days I really think Moore comes across as the most driven by ego at the moment... well driven is unfair. He does come across as terrible arrogant in recent interviews I've read and seems to have begun to believe his own reputation and listened a little too closely to those that hail him as the greatest comicbook mind of all time. Grant Morrison gives a couple of good examples in this post.
Morrison also has a far better track record for not falling out with his co-workers. There must be a point when people who can't see any downside to anything Alan Moore does look at the number of people he has fallen out with and realise that there is only one common factor in all that and its Alan Moore. All those folk can't be such terrible people?
All that said I know neither man and I'm sure they are both just lovely. Certainly Alan Moore always comes across as pleasant and a man that sticks to his guns when interview, when he's not bad mouthing others or claiming to be responsible for all that is good in comics these days... even though he doesn't read any any more.
COMICS WRITERS ARE HORRIBLE PEOPLE SHOCKA
I think you might have a point, Colin, because Alan Davis is notoriously cheery and easy to get along with, and I think Moore was deeply unreasonable in asking Rob Liefeld to draw what was in the scripts he was given, as there is specific mention of backgrounds, feet, and a third facial expression.
There are two sides to every story, and unfortunately with Moore, a lot of his side of things is deliberate baiting of the more precious elements of a fandom that delusionally rises to the bait every single time like their own mothers have just been personally insulted ("I don't read superhero comics, that's how I know they are all rubbish"), and sticking to his guns about how his work is presented even when that affects his artists' bottom line. On the other hand, Moore hasn't held a grudge for 30 years because someone mentioned in passing that some elements of his sophomore work was derivative of something else, or held a convention named after himself and dedicated to excluding contact with fandom and pandering to the delusions of creators that they couldn't be replaced with one of a thousand different people at any time.
Quote from: Colin_YNWA on 25 November, 2012, 03:28:05 PM
All that said I know neither man and I'm sure they are both just lovely.
Aye, they do both seem like genuinely decent sods.
Quote from: TordelBack on 25 November, 2012, 01:03:56 PM
(Moore) decides to be a magician, a performance artist, a pornographer, a patron of his community, a symbolic figure in the issue of creator's rights, a self-publisher, an author, and lo! All without leaving Northampton. Of course it doesn't always work out, but he never looks like he's faking it. Morrison is just as sincere, but even when he's carefully considering the next approach for his writing it always sounds like his latest Madonna-esque image change, because it is.
Both of them are presenting a contrived persona to their audience, you just prefer it when the piss-stained wizard frantically tugging at levers is concealed behind a curtain. I like the way Morrison's open about living his life as a pose, and one of the most endearing things about his work is the way he interweaves the two strains of his persona - the priapic, transgressive revolutionary and the domesticated, sentimental loser - throughout his fiction as well as his autobiography, blurring the lines between the two and creating something unique.
Dragging the prosaic and mundane into the glamorous but shallow realm of fiction makes the former seem oddly heroic and invests the latter with an otherwise absent emotional weight. The most obvious example of that's probably
The Filth, where the hero's simultaneously a bald guy living in a shitty flat full of porn and crying because his cat has cancer
and a sexy superhero who embarks on colourful adventures with a full head of hair. The pathos comes largely from the desperation of the author dragging something real, which can't be changed, into the realm of fiction, where he has the power to make events play out as he wishes they could.
I wouldn't hesitate to agree that Moore's the better craftsman, he has an astonishing ability to shape the same chaotic rush of ideas seen in Morrison's work into stories whose structure and formal perfection are just beautiful, but that also means they're
very arch and sometimes a little remote. Valerie's letter in
V for Vendetta aside, I'm not sure I've felt much that Moore's written to be as emotionally affecting as the early episode of
The Invisibles (ii) where Morrison dedicates an entire issue to telling the mundanely tragic (partly autobiographical) life story of one of the henchmen casually offed by the glamorous King Mob in issue number one.
(i) that's how I understand those early hubristic Morrison interviews to operate too - he's shaping reality to conform to his fantasies.
(ii) Best Man Fall, Vol 1, issue 12
Moore wrote Halo Jones, Morrison didn't. Moore wins.
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 25 November, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
(i) that's how I understand those early hubristic Morrison interviews to operate too - he's shaping reality to conform to his fantasies.
That's how he'd like to see it, I'm sure.
St Swithin's Day and Bible John are two of my favourite stories (whereas that Infinite Crisis or whatever it was - awful) but there's not much doubt that Moore is the better writer. Indeed, I think he's probably the best writer in fantasy from 1980s on. I also believe he was a big factor in the British Explosion, even though he may have come later. Quite why that should matter I'm not sure.
Never met Grant but heard he's pretty difficult. Vain, arrogant and self-centred. Hearsay, though. That might have been part of the image he tries to cultivate (actually, I've also heard he's dedicated to really helping people too). Met Alan on multiple occasions (he just lived round the corner and drank in the same tavern). A lovely man, always friendly and interesting.
That said, I've a lot of sympathy for Grant's view. Without naming names, there are some people that Moore has fallen out with where I just can't see them having done much wrong. It reminds me of Morrissey, more so than Morrison, who would simply stop communication, rather than mention something that was eating him.
I can see why Alan may have taken the hump with Morrison, but everything Grant says seems to ring true. I don't really see why who's talented should be a factor in who's telling the truth. Both immensely talented, but I'd have to side with Grant on this one, just as I have with quite a few creators that fell out with Moore, where they would be hard-pressed to tell you a reason.
I cannot help but notice that Morrison's contribution to that article is not to engage in a dialogue with the writer, but to extensively annotate it with his own take on events as fact in an interesting bit of kettle/pot. He pulls more than a few actual facts out of his hat, too (although he draws his own conclusions in a great many cases from them), making me think he's either made extensive notes on Moore's career over the years, or he sat down and researched every claim in that article with a mind to rebuking it, either way, it seems a little unnecessarily... obsessive. he could also do with a bit less editorializing:
QuoteAgain, why the fibs, other than to reinforce once more the fantasy of me – and indeed every other Vertigo writer – in a junior or subordinate position to himself?
It's a shame as Morrison's influence and body of work is both pronounced and undeniable to anyone who's been reading comics for any amount of time, but every time he sticks his neck out to take a pop at Moore it just seems like a mix of jealousy and... well, not disingenuousness on his part as much as what he attempts in that article - a re-writing of things to suit his preferred view of events - on a larger scale, which is doubly unfortunate as Moore is his own worst enemy when it comes to the opinions of comics fandom and no-one needs to take a pop at him, they just need to wait around until he opens his gob and says
anything at all about mainstream comics and the fanboys will crawl out of the woodwork, frothing at the mouth that some old man in a village somewhere dared to say that Superman comics are not very inventive these days.
All the same, as a fan I prefer to have the two best comics writers in the world sniping at each other than getting along and patting each other on the arse like the rest of them do. When was the last time we saw a good creator pagga? They all seem to just get along.
And am I the only one who finds it amazing that it is an actual story that a Northerner is a bit intransigent and a Scotsman is up for a ruck?
Quote from: starscape on 25 November, 2012, 08:31:26 PM
... I don't really see why who's talented should be a factor in who's telling the truth.
Completely this.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 25 November, 2012, 09:09:36 PM
he's either made extensive notes on Moore's career over the years, or he sat down and researched every claim in that article with a mind to rebuking it, either way, it seems a little unnecessarily... obsessive.
Aye, Morrison doesn't come out of that well. It reminded me of one of those forum ding-dongs where someone responds to another post with one which consists of sentence-long quotes followed by paragraph-long retorts. I'm surprised Morrison didn't end his contribution with the words
"not that I care anyway ... retard!"
Quote from: Professor Bear on 25 November, 2012, 09:09:36 PM
And am I the only one who finds it amazing that it is an actual story that a Northerner is a bit intransigent and a Scotsman is up for a ruck?
Northampton isn't in the north - it's the midlands!
All the same coal eating ale drinkers to me.
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 25 November, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
Both of them are presenting a contrived persona to their audience, you just prefer it when the piss-stained wizard frantically tugging at levers is concealed behind a curtain.
Indeed - I do think Moore is more successful at appearing to
be the trailblazing illuminated magus, while Morrison always seems to be
working at it. It's not a criticism, I just suspect it must be a frustrating situation for Grant.
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 25 November, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
I like the way Morrison's open about living his life as a pose, and one of the most endearing things about his work is the way he interweaves the two strains of his persona - the priapic, transgressive revolutionary and the domesticated, sentimental loser - throughout his fiction as well as his autobiography, blurring the lines between the two and creating something unique.
All true. I liked Morrison a lot more after reading
Supergods: even if he came as having less depth and less original to say than I had expected the book made me realise how important a creator he is. In fact it's inspired me to track down and read his entire catalogue.
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 25 November, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
I'm not sure I've felt much that Moore's written to be as emotionally affecting as the early episode of The Invisibles (ii) where Morrison dedicates an entire issue to telling the mundanely tragic (partly autobiographical) life story of one of the henchmen casually offed by the glamorous King Mob in issue number one.
[/quote]
Yeah, that is a very impressive episode. Dying to find out out who 'Edith' is and how she fits in as my read continues!
DON'T TELL ME HERE PLEASE.
Quote from: TordelBack on 25 November, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 25 November, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
I'm not sure I've felt much that Moore's written to be as emotionally affecting as the early episode of The Invisibles (ii) where Morrison dedicates an entire issue to telling the mundanely tragic (partly autobiographical) life story of one of the henchmen casually offed by the glamorous King Mob in issue number one.
Yeah, that is a very impressive episode. Dying to find out out who 'Edith' is and how she fits in as my read continues! DON'T TELL ME HERE PLEASE.
She's
Roger's Mom. That episode would be more affecting if
Austin Powers hadn't riffed on the same idea just a few years later
Wasn't giving dumbass henchmen elaborate backstories and personalities even though they accidentally get killed off by Thor in one panel of Avengers or something a joke from Steve Gerber's Howard The Duck? Revisited recently by Marvel in various books where Hydra feature and someone called Bob is usually milling about in the ranks somewhere.
Was gonna post some quotes from Morrison about how Mark Millar owes him everything and juxtapose it with GM's comments about Moore having a big head, but fuck that, it's too much like effort.
This spat is a funny one for me; I remember reading some time back how Morrison believes the whole issue between them was started by Moore because Morrison, on going to write Miracle Man, got in touch with Moore regarding his ideas and claims he received a reply that was somewhat Mafioso in tone and Moore himself admits he has a temper (I happened to bump into Alan Moore a few years back in the middle of the street. He was extremely pleasant to me despite my fanboy insistence on talking to him; he happily posed for a picture with me, wished me a Merry Xmas and New Year and didn't take the piss after I made a complete fool of myself.). The thing is I actually really like both writers and both writers have had a go at various people- I remember reading an interview with Moore in the last year or two in which he spoke about following Kaballah and he ended up having a right pop at Madonna. To be fair to both of them, if there's somebody in the public eye you have a problem with- it would be hard not to throw a dig at them during an interview. I'll laugh when I see an interview were one of them has a go at somebody in the public eye but their problem with each other is one I'd rather not take a side in. Both have great things going for them in my opinion and should be respected; Moore for revolutionizing the whole scene and being this free spirit and Morrison for showing how it is possible to stay with the big names and companies and still have it your way.
Quote from: Charlie boy on 26 November, 2012, 05:45:54 PM
I remember reading some time back how Morrison believes the whole issue between them was started by Moore because Morrison, on going to write Miracle Man, got in touch with Moore regarding his ideas and claims he received a reply that was somewhat Mafioso in tone and Moore himself admits he has a temper
I thought it all began with Moore not paying enough attention to him at a convention back when Morrison was a novice hawking his work.
Nonsense, Joe - Morrison was an established writer by then, not some lowly fan like the ones he excludes from conventions named after himself. He had three whole Starblazers under his belt, and a strip in his local paper when he met Moore - they were equals.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 26 November, 2012, 06:39:53 PM
Quote from: Charlie boy on 26 November, 2012, 05:45:54 PM
I remember reading some time back how Morrison believes the whole issue between them was started by Moore because Morrison, on going to write Miracle Man, got in touch with Moore regarding his ideas and claims he received a reply that was somewhat Mafioso in tone and Moore himself admits he has a temper
I thought it all began with Moore not paying enough attention to him at a convention back when Morrison was a novice hawking his work.
Seriously? I'd never heard that story before. The article I read (I'll try googling it if I can't find the magazine I read it in at my brother's so long ago) claimed Moore always thought the Miracle Man creator was getting royalities etc when he (Moore) was writing it but it turned out he wasn't. Morrison was later given the chance to write Miracle Man and, as I mentioned earlier, he got in touch with Moore about his ideas and says he received a reply warning him from the title.
The article Colin links to at the top of the page has similar anecdotes from Dez Skinn about how Moore (and by inference, other Warrior contributors) didn't take kindly to other people writing their strips when Morrison wrote a Kid Miracleman short story and submitted it without consulting with anyone if this was good form - and notably, he still doesn't see anything wrong with trying to nick someone else's job by going behind their back to that person's boss. I'm sort of with Moore on that one but think it was cool of Skinn to respect that his creators were telling stories rather than creating franchise sandboxes - he didn't need Moore's permission to run that KM story, but he asked for it anyway and respected when Moore declined.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 November, 2012, 07:17:17 PM
(I) think it was cool of Skinn to respect that his creators were telling stories rather than creating franchise sandboxes - he didn't need Moore's permission to run that KM story, but he asked for it anyway and respected when Moore declined.
Isn't one of the things at the heart of their mutual antagonism Moore's position on creators' rights? However he arrived at his current stance and whatever the ways in which he might have violated his own principles, Moore seems to genuinely believe in the line he's pursuing, and Grant Morrison's made his name and a small fortune doing exactly the opposite. To Moore's way of thinking, Morrisson's a scab, helping reduce (even further) the likelihood of DC/Marvel/Rebellion responding to the withdrawal of his labour by agreeing to his terms.
That's what I think is at the heart of Moore's plainly nonsensical insistence that Morrison (and Vertigo in general) was copying his work and aping his style. I don't think Moore's serious about that charge, only frustrated that other talented and capable writers are content to submit to the terms he has rejected - which is the source of all Moore's petty and baffling fueds with his former collaborators too. When you've enjoyed the complete mastery over fictional worlds and characters routinely displayed by Moore, it must be frustrating that the world of fiction and its major characters don't bend to your will in the same way.
Dunno, both come out of this poorly, petty and egotistical.
They are both great writers, when at the top of their game, but could learn something from the longterm writers of the tome we read, in character creation and making a character work over a looooong period of time.
They are each jealous of the other's respective cuddly hirsuteness/ dignified smoothness.
Alan in particular wishes he could carry off Grant's look, but is aware that if he were ever parted with his fuzziness, it would result in him constantly being mistaken for Uncle Fester out of that Addams Family.
It's like how Dredd and Death don't get on, on account of them being envious of the size of each other's teeth.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 November, 2012, 07:17:17 PM
The article Colin links to at the top of the page has similar anecdotes from Dez Skinn about how Moore (and by inference, other Warrior contributors) didn't take kindly to other people writing their strips when Morrison wrote a Kid Miracleman short story and submitted it without consulting with anyone if this was good form - and notably, he still doesn't see anything wrong with trying to nick someone else's job by going behind their back to that person's boss. I'm sort of with Moore on that one but think it was cool of Skinn to respect that his creators were telling stories rather than creating franchise sandboxes - he didn't need Moore's permission to run that KM story, but he asked for it anyway and respected when Moore declined.
But that's not what happened. Morrison asked Moore if it was ok, only to be told it's not. Morrison then respected that, even though KM wasn't Moore's concept/character and Grant didn't need permission. If it's cool of Dez, then it must be cool of Grant surely?
Quote from: we are all roger godpleton on 26 November, 2012, 09:01:56 PM
Isn't one of the things at the heart of their mutual antagonism Moore's position on creators' rights?...To Moore's way of thinking, Morrisson's a scab, helping reduce (even further) the likelihood of DC/Marvel/Rebellion responding to the withdrawal of his labour by agreeing to his terms.
Only if it's a fairly recent falling out. For years, Moore had no problem working on Batman, Green Lantern, Superman etc. That possibly includes Marvelman too, based on whom you believe - for the record, Mick Anglo didn't seem to have a problem at the time but that's a whole other argument. Anyway, the falling out seems to precede Alan's change of opinion.
I also don't see Grant coming out badly in this. Putting something right, rather than be barracked from afar over untruths doesn't seem to unfair to me. If it was simply a lowly fanboy, it would be a little pathetic. But to be subject to unfair criticism from one of comics' leading lights, I can see why that needs straightening.
And after all that, I'm still not entirely sure why Moore dislikes Morrison so much. I don't see Grant being influenced any more than Moore 'ripping off' Stan Lee in his earlier years, or Gardner Fox in his mid-times. There must be something else, I'm sure.
It would seem we've all missed the real reason.
http://comicsbeat.com/morrison-v-moore-the-comics-version/ (http://comicsbeat.com/morrison-v-moore-the-comics-version/)
Quote from: starscape on 27 November, 2012, 03:41:45 AM
I also don't see Grant coming out badly in this. Putting something right, rather than be barracked from afar over untruths doesn't seem to unfair to me. If it was simply a lowly fanboy, it would be a little pathetic. But to be subject to unfair criticism from one of comics' leading lights, I can see why that needs straightening.
... but he
was responding to something a lowly fanboy had written, which dredged up historic quotes rather than publishing anything new. Going into such detail concerning how much work small press work he'd had published, to query Moore's description of him as a
fledgling writer, is endearing but unnecessary, given everything Morrison's gone on to achieve since, and makes him seem a little thin skinned - or keen to keep the dispute going.
When a high profile figure has something they want to get off their chest, the traditional PR way of doing so is to bury it within some big news announcement. Morrisson had a
puff piece in the Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/monster-success-top-comic-writer-1083374) last year, the headline of which concerned him apparently being contracted to produce the screenplay for a Barry Sonnenfeld film called
Dinosaurs vs Aliens (!), in which the interviewer asked Morrison whether he was jealous that Mark Millar had made more films than him -
"Mark does his thing. He creates comic books and tries to sell them as properties, but I write movies. They are different things. I live over in LA and write for the studios. Mark was my protégé for 10 years and has gone on and done stuff. We both do our own thing".
Morrison responded to the question with the weary resignation of a man tired of journos stirring the pot of the long-simmering fued with his former protege, but the feature included plenty of mentions for the
Supergods book he was promoting, which I'm sure were agreed in advance and a condition of the interview being granted in the first place ... a cynical man would say that fueds like those between Moore/Morrison/Millar are good human interest angles for journalists to latch onto. How and why nonsense like this started isn't half as interesting as seeing how readers line up for and against, or who they perceive to be the injured party and why.
Both gentlemen are missing the very real possibility that they are the product of each others imagination, conjured to life through the power of magic.
Quote from: Temponaut on 27 November, 2012, 10:27:28 AM
Both gentlemen are missing the very real possibility that they are the product of each others imagination, conjured to life through the power of magic.
You may have a point... Seem's they're both ripping if Bill Hicks.
"Life is a dream and we are all the imaginations of ourselves."
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 November, 2012, 07:17:17 PM
The article Colin links to at the top of the page has similar anecdotes from Dez Skinn about how Moore (and by inference, other Warrior contributors) didn't take kindly to other people writing their strips when Morrison wrote a Kid Miracleman short story and submitted it without consulting with anyone if this was good form - and notably, he still doesn't see anything wrong with trying to nick someone else's job by going behind their back to that person's boss.
Not at all like Moore writing those Ro-Busters and ABC Warriors stories, then? Given Pat's, err, lack of enthusiasm for other writers tackling his characters, I feel fairly confident that Alan didn't do Pat the courtesy of writing him a letter before submitting those stories.
Cheers
Jim
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 27 November, 2012, 10:34:15 AM
Quote from: Temponaut on 27 November, 2012, 10:27:28 AM
Both gentlemen are missing the very real possibility that they are the product of each others imagination, conjured to life through the power of magic.
You may have a point... Seem's they're both ripping if Bill Hicks.
"Life is a dream and we are all the imaginations of ourselves."
Its going to take a
'Wizard Off' TM to settle this once and for all.
Quote from: judda fett on 27 November, 2012, 01:24:15 PM
Its going to take a 'Wizard Off' TM to settle this once and for all.
MVM
Whoever wins... we lose.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 27 November, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 November, 2012, 07:17:17 PM
The article Colin links to at the top of the page has similar anecdotes from Dez Skinn about how Moore (and by inference, other Warrior contributors) didn't take kindly to other people writing their strips when Morrison wrote a Kid Miracleman short story and submitted it without consulting with anyone if this was good form - and notably, he still doesn't see anything wrong with trying to nick someone else's job by going behind their back to that person's boss.
Not at all like Moore writing those Ro-Busters and ABC Warriors stories, then? Given Pat's, err, lack of enthusiasm for other writers tackling his characters, I feel fairly confident that Alan didn't do Pat the courtesy of writing him a letter before submitting those stories.
Cheers
Jim
.. and the fact that the majority of Alan Moore's works rips of/homages/references (delete according to taste) characters and stories from other people, a technique which he's surely taken as far as it could possibly go in LOEG. Apart from Halo Jones and V for Vendetta, I'm finding it hard to think of any AM story that doesn't pastiche actual characters, or at the very least easilly recognisable character types. This isn't a complaint, as what he does with them is wonderful, just shows a bit of a brass neck to accuse other people of ripping off his work.
I've adored almost everything moore has done: watchmen, v etc - 'til he got to his current sex obsesion! (latter loeg and 'strange girls?!)
Thought morrisson's zur en arrh batman arc was awesome but have found his methods mostly seem to be; start at the end and work back, start at the end and work back!
1 all, i guess
Quote from: zombemybabynow on 27 November, 2012, 02:50:13 PM
I've adored almost everything moore has done: watchmen, v etc - 'til he got to his current sex obsesion! (latter loeg and 'strange girls?!)
Lost Girls started publication about 1991, along with
From Hell in Bissette's much-missed
Taboo. That's a 'current sex obsession' that's over 20 years old, or to put in another way, almost two-thirds of Moore's career. FWIW I'm all for Moore and his unconventional sex.
I could do without Moore's arty porn, to be honest, as the sex scenes are usually the one part of any story that gets in the way of the rest of it - a whole volume of just sex scenes to me is like having an action movie that was just car chases.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 27 November, 2012, 10:34:15 AMYou may have a point... Seem's they're both ripping if Bill Hicks.
"Life is a dream and we are all the imaginations of ourselves."
I think that might be from from Mark Twain's
Mysterious Stranger - but I applaud any efforts to get Bill Hicks into this conversation so we can all start slagging Denis Leary.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 27 November, 2012, 12:20:30 PMNot at all like Moore writing those Ro-Busters and ABC Warriors stories, then?
Bad example, Jim - I will irrationally defend Pat Mills, too!
But as with the KM story in Warrior, spin-offs from properties owned by the publisher are the purview of editorial and not the talent. Dan Abnett and Gordon Rennie were just doing their job when they did Flesh spin-offs, but I doubt even if they were knocked back by Pat kicking up a fuss at the time, they wouldn't be bitching on an internet blog thirty years later about one five page story they tried and failed to get published. Although if that did happen, I like to think we'd at least credit the editor for allowing the creator some measure of control over the characters, a stance I can only really recall being practiced by Matt Smith, or Alan McKenzie that time he gave the rights to Luke Kirby back to the writer.
Quote from: Dandontdare on 27 November, 2012, 02:23:50 PMand the fact that the majority of Alan Moore's works rips of/homages/references (delete according to taste) characters and stories from other people, a technique which he's surely taken as far as it could possibly go in LOEG. Apart from Halo Jones and V for Vendetta, I'm finding it hard to think of any AM story that doesn't pastiche actual characters, or at the very least easilly recognisable character types.
Every writer of comics uses archetypes at some point, even if only to subvert expectations. Take that tool from the box and you lose pretty much everything of note except a few autobiographical GNs.
unconventional sex? = In the ear?
Quote from: Professor Bear on 27 November, 2012, 03:03:34 PM
Bad example, Jim - I will irrationally defend Pat Mills, too!
Not irrationally, just with a massive double-standard. Either Morrison was within his rights to pitch a story for a character Moore
didn't own but happened to be writing, in which case it was fine for Moore to do the exact same thing, or he wasn't, in which case neither was Moore. The key difference being that Morrison at least asked Moore if it was OK, something I will bet money that Moore didn't do with Mills.
Cheers
Jim
Quote from: zombemybabynow on 27 November, 2012, 03:13:10 PM
unconventional sex? = In the ear?
Any sex act in which Moore was involved would meet the definition of unconventional. I'll never forget his use of the phrase
"there was me, there was my wife and there was our girlfriend and we were all kind of living together" (http://blather.net/articles/amoore/brought-to-light2.html) in an interview, and the shudder that ran through me at the thought of the tangle of frizzy hair and pliant gooseflesh conjoured by those words.
BEARD-JIZM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Professor Bear on 27 November, 2012, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Dandontdare on 27 November, 2012, 02:23:50 PMand the fact that the majority of Alan Moore's works rips of/homages/references (delete according to taste) characters and stories from other people, a technique which he's surely taken as far as it could possibly go in LOEG. Apart from Halo Jones and V for Vendetta, I'm finding it hard to think of any AM story that doesn't pastiche actual characters, or at the very least easilly recognisable character types.
Every writer of comics uses archetypes at some point, even if only to subvert expectations. Take that tool from the box and you lose pretty much everything of note except a few autobiographical GNs.
I was thinking in particular of Top 10 which I'm rereading at the mo - now obviously lots of superheroes will overlap, there's only so many variations on capes and superpowers possible, but many of them are a little too recognisable - for example the character called The Word, who can control people with the power of his voice, depicted by his speech going red and bold. This came out 4 years after Preacher, the story of a man who can control people with The Word of God, which is depicted by his speech going red and bold - that's not the subversion of an archetype, that's a straight lift!
So you're saying Garth Ennis ripped off Sandman?
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 27 November, 2012, 03:31:48 PMThe key difference being that Morrison at least asked Moore if it was OK, something I will bet money that Moore didn't do with Mills.
I'll cede it's a double standard because to be honest, even if 2000ad has long been a patchwork effort I haven't a clue if Skinn or the then-2000ad editors had a policy where you just pitched stuff for anything in their books or if editors came looking.
I will also offer that I have never seen Moore or Morrison in the same room at the same time, and Moore's beard and accent are almost too silly to be real.
i respect professor bear's opinion - simply for his forum pic of; the wizard moore enjoying a unicorn-bukakke fest
I am troubled that your takeaway from this debate - or from anything ever - should be beard jism.
Perfectly valid lifestyle choice.
I often feel I should publish a book of some of the essay scripts submitted when I was a lecturer - then people might understand what 'nicking my stuff' actually meant. Whole chapters copied out verbatim and unattributed, complete with figure and plate references to illustrations that weren't in the essay, whole paragraphs lifted from Encarta complete with American spellings and code fragments... that's yer actual 'complete rip-off'. Almost everything else is just stock ladelled from the rich simmering pot of popular culture. Making a decent bouillabaisse from it, that's the trick.
I've no sympathy for students that do that. The whole system is practically engineered from high school onwards just to teach them to change the presentation of already-existing information, so when they get jobs in the real world they'll know how to steal other people's ideas and present them as their own, and if they can't even manage that much they deserve their jobs in advertising.
Really they should both have dodged the subject; Alan Moore seems to me to be recounting some half remembered stories from back in the days when he gave a shit about comics. Grant Morrison seems to me to be desperate to show that Moore is just a hater but remain the bigger man. His argument doesn't work.
Example: AM 'he felt that he wasn't famous enough, and that a good way of becoming famous would be to say nasty things about me.'
GM 'I don't believe I ever tried to get "famous" by insulting Alan Moore. It doesn't seem the most likely route to celebrity.'
Also GM 'the trash talk seemed to be working, and I was rapidly making a name for myself. Being young, good-looking, and cocky'