2nd fascinating piece of 2000AD history

[Arkwright99]

I don't suppose Moorcock has a lot of opportunities to see current issues of 2000AD seeing as how he currently lives in Texas, but having come across this thread this weekend while looking for more background on Pat Mills' comment about Moorcock in the Complete Nemesis V1 introduction (which I got for Christmas) I've had an opportunity to ask Mike about his memories of this episode over at his website (www.multiverse.org). Here's his reply (for anyone who's interested):

"The comic lifted so much in its early issues and seemed to sensationalise and simplify politics that I really didn't have any sympathy for it. I have to admit that it later introduced more interesting themes, but it still struck me as a mere extension, in many aspects, of the Fleetway comics I'd refused to write for in the 50s, which reflected simplistic notions I'd objected to while working for IPC.

"According to Orwell, whose arguments are reflected in those of the Rev. Cleaves and to some extent my own (in that letter, which I'd never reread until now) I'd have grown up a raging fascist because of the prewar Amalgamated Press (earlier name for IPC) juvenile stuff I read (including Sexton Blake) and that of course is demonstrably untrue. I now have a different view, of course. I just thought the comic sought for and found a lower common denominator in those early runs whereas, of course, I'd been hoping to see something more sophisticated. I'd set great store in the prepublication publicity. It's not an argument I'd continue, these days, though, because the comic did do some more interesting things later. I suppose, too, I happened to know what a knee-trembling fear of The Communist Menace Len Matthews and some of Fleetway's management had and saw that reflected in 2000AD. While never remotely a commie, I was a Kropotkinist and the management gave me a weirdly hard time the whole time I was there, characterising me as a communist (while being too afraid of communism to sack me!) which I've talked about elsewhere. I wasn't, of course, the only writer those guys lifted from, but they did seem to me to be producing a corrupted version of many of my ideas and the images I'd created to exemplify them. I didn't like that and still don't. However, if the only good that came out of the comic (if this is true) was Alan Moore, I have in the final analysis few complaints. Certainly it represented in those early issues part of what I perceived as a degenerative process. I'd earlier begun and abandoned a book on popular fiction which spoke up for a higher level or sophistication than, for instance, Judge Dredd, which I still think is crap. Bryan Talbot had the grace to ask me if I minded his adapting Bastable and Cornelius to his own purposes (in Luther Arkwright) and of course I had no objection and appreciated the result (though have to say Bad Rat is still my favourite of his). A French friend (who was an editor of Metal Hurlant, among other things) and I were recently talking over the problem we found ourselves confronted by. We were among those in the forefront of trying to marry 'high' and 'low' arts, producing popular tools with which to identify and confront things we considered social ills and getting rid of what we regarded as artificial boundaries. What we now wonder is did our idealism lead to some sort of corrupting process -- or at least did we help give that process a vocabulary, some sort of intellectual respectability ? I'd already begun to try to address this problem in Barbarella and the Anxious Frenchman in NW circa 1968. Anyway, I thought most of what the comics guys were claiming was pretentious crap, justifying their own deep vulgarity and creative bankruptcy -- merely changing the scenery and language but not the essential approach of what I'd hated in the likes of Battler Britton. Though I know this wasn't the perception of the kids of the day, many of whom went on to do things I enjoyed, I thought much of what was going on at IPC and Marvel was just a way of dressing up the mixture as before, sometimes with a dash or more of sentimentality added. I was hoping for something new, more genuinely confrontational and, I suppose, more inventive than Pat Mills and his guys could produce. I'd wanted to see real advance (of the kind exemplified today by Alan Moore) not another whirl of the same old merry-go-round. As someone who's seen so much of his work lifted and turned into something cruder by alleged admirers, this is something I might one day also try to address. It's something Alan and I have touched on in conversation. He's one of the few who's claimed me as inspiration whom I'm proud to be associated with, precisely because he did take certain ideas and make more of them -- inspiring me and others in his turn. As far as my disappointment is concerned, an example I've offered in the past is Warlord of the Air which, especially in the hands of certain comics guys, just became at best a set of 'cool' images offering conventional 'attacks' on conventional subjects. I had a specific intention there, mostly to take a look at 'benign imperialism' and the way it was justified by the left -- the bent idealism which set such store in 'airmen' (cf Rex Warner's The Aerodrome -- Warner had some of the same concerns). Xeroxing never seemed much of an homage to me...

"I'm often more reconciled to this than I am at this precise moment when my neuropathy seems to be making me decidedly cranky! Usually, I don't talk too much about my disappointments but prefer to dwell on what I like. And, of course, there is much that I like about modern comics. Most of the stuff remains derivative crap, however, in my view. And of course always was. I produced my share of it."

I think it's interesting the different stances that Mills and Moorcock appear to take because I'm sure Pat would say he was trying to do something different with having a working-class lorry driver like Bill Savage be the hero rather than a middle-class, lantern-jawed traditional hero like Dan Dare. Moorcock on the other hand seems to have been focussing more on the politics of the strip, with the plucky British underdog battling Johnny Foreigner.

For a contrast, see Moorcock's Hawkmoon quartet (1967-9) where he has a German as the hero and the bad guys are British, as a deliberate retort to the anti-German attitudes that were still prevalent in British comics and which rarely rose above the 'Achtung! Gott in Himmel!' stereotype. (Mills, of course, scripted 'Wagner's Walk' for Tornado, which likewise featured a German as the eponymous hero.) Likewise, 'Nemesis' inverted expected norms of SF by having an alien 'hero' who opposes an evil Human empire (who also have a predilection for wearing masks just like the Granbretans of Hawkmoon).

Anyway, apologies for resurrecting a three-year old thread, but I thought people might appreciate a follow-up.

Cheers,
David

Link: http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=7778" target="_blank">Moorcock & 2000AD

[TordelBack]

No need to apologise, man, that was bloody fascinating!  I always forget that the authors I loved as a kid most probably have web presences now, and so it's great to see Moorcock out and about.  Very sorry to hear about the neuropathy, though.

Seems like Moorcock has lots of good points, while missing several other important ones.  He's decent enough to concede that things improved, and that he was arguing from publicity bumpf, but still doesn't seem that impressed - apart from teh Cradle of Moore angle.  

Dredd is a particular problem - when Joe himself is so popular as a character with us lifers, it's always hard to argue that it's the "satire of a police state / crazy modern world" angle that is an important part of the strip's appeal.

[TordelBack]

By the by, and sorry fpr the double post, but I've just spent a fantastic 15 minutes digging through the Moorcock forum... a great place for a good read.  Moorcock gives real and considered answers to questions I've been wanting to ask for  up to a quarter of a century!  Compare and contrast with the self-serving madness of ByrneRobotics.

[Peter Wolf]

 Some interesting points there but its from a writers perspective and not a young kid reading the comic who isnt that interested in politics. I disagree with his points about the early run of comics but how early is early ?

 [he admits as much himself]


 A lot of his gripes are about plagiarism or being there first with ideas that were groundbreaking.


 I thought the comic married high art [the artwork] and low art [action] perfectly and if 2000ad had been to wordy or deep or too intellectual it would have alienated its audience a bit too much IMHO so a bit of perspective is needed there particularly getting the comic off the ground in the first place when the marketplace was full of kids comics or war comics.


However, if the only good that came out of the comic (if this is true) was Alan Moore, [its *not* true].



 I heard here that some of the strips that i particularly like were greenlighted or commisioned while Pat Mills wasnt editing or in control of 2000ad so as much as i like Pat Mills i am eternally grateful that he wasnt involved at that time.


 My brother was a massive Micheal Moorcock and had the entire library which partly explained his fixation with Hawkwind.I never read any myself [mild attention deficit disorder].He was also a reader of the prog but only in  quick flick through and that was it kind of way .

[JOE SOAP]

**Dredd is a particular problem - when Joe himself is so popular as a character with us lifers, it's always hard to argue that it's the "satire of a police state / crazy modern world" angle that is an important part of the strip's appeal.***

yeah, that and the fact we all have an inprinted admiration and respect for him our pretend grown up, P.C. selves needs to make up an excuse for being there in the first place.

[Leigh S]

good work, demos!

I've been reading for the first time a load of Moorcock stuff, in an attempt to play catch up with all the things I should really have picked up on years ago!  Finished reading the second Corum trilogy only the other day, and am hungry for more.

I really do understand Moorcocks position, and its interesting to see in TPO (and maybe worth mentioning on the thread in the Moorcock forum) that Invasion was indeed a suggestion of the management rather than Pats own idea, and the reasons why Pat eventually thought it a good vehicle for subversion.  I do think the Mills/Moorcock antagonism is something of a shame, as they seem in many ways kindred spirits.  One difference seems to be Mills sometimes vehement distruct of 'intellectual' though.

As for Moorcocks views on Judge Dredd, I do think he's missed the point and the audience.  Mills and Wagner (more than alan Moore) did more than anything to make me question the anti-commie management views of IPC!

[Arkwright99]

**I do think the Mills/Moorcock antagonism is something of a shame, as they seem in many ways kindred spirits.**

I agree, 'though I'm not sure how much actual antagonism exists between Mills & Moorcock, unlike say Moorcock & Grant Morrison (who Mike freely labels "a thief" for ripping off Jerry Cornelius for 'The Invisibles'). While I can see the parallels between, say, Hawkmoon and 'Nemesis' (or even parts of Corum and Slaine) I think Pat subverts the reader's definition of 'a hero' much more with Nemesis - particularly in 'Purity's Story' - than Mike ever did with Dorian Hawkmoon, even though much of Moorcock's work is Anarchic - i.e. opposed to having gods and leaders. I would argue that Mills didn't just 'xerox' his influences, but brought that streak of originality which Moorcock (I think) would approve of (cf. Talbot's 'Luther Arkwright').
 
It's a pure speculation on my part that Pat would have been a reader of Mike's fiction in the '60s & '70s. Perhaps he wasn't but I think it likely, given the Moorcockian influences in 'Nemesis' for instance (although possibly some of that may have come from O'Neill and Talbot). Certainly I can't imagine that Mills would have given a toss about Mike's comments in 1977 if he hadn't been a reader/fan. But that's just my interpretation of his comments in the 'Complete Nemesis' introduction.

**As for Moorcocks views on Judge Dredd, I do think he's missed the point and the audience.**

Again, I'd agree with this but I think in Moorcock's defence he's probably not a regular reader of Dredd and perhaps not as familiar with the character - beyond what he read in '77 and maybe the Stallone movie - as anyone who's followed Dredd's story over the past 30 years. Dredd is a fascist bully boy to some degree, but he's much more complex than *just* being the poster boy for fascism. Of course, those elements of Dredd didn't really come out til much later with storylines like 'A Question of Judgement' and 'Democracy Now'.

**Mills and Wagner (more than alan Moore) did more than anything to make me question the anti-commie management views of IPC!**

Again, I'd say there's a great deal more subversion in Mills and Wagner's work that Mike might give them credit for, but not being a regular reader wouldn't be aware of. If all you read was the first few issues of 2000AD then you probably would come away with the opinions that Moorcock expressed in 'The Guardian'. Reading TPO it's clear that Pat worked really hard to bring the comic together - and in the face of a lot of resistance from the IPC management, so he was in no way a company stooge.

[Leigh S]

Agree entirely, and indeed, was the argument I upuit forward back when these articles were first discussed.  On the face of it, Invasion was just IPC pushing a rather dodgy political agenda, and TPO does nothing to dispell Moorcocks reading of the situation - If Mills had stuck by Invasion maybe it would have fulfilled the potential he could see in it, (and hes explored in Savage).  Looking at the early progs and having had the same story idea foisted on him, Moorcock would ahve had to have been prettty foresighted to predict what Mills and Wagners true potential was.  I'd argue the first "sophisticated" thrill is Strontium Dog, closely followed by Robohunter and ABC Warriors.  Prior to that, you'd have to squint a bit to see the undoubted qualities and impact of 2000AD.  As a kid, I suspect you would pick up on the difference between Prog 1 and the rest of the comics indutry of the time that bit easier!

[TordelBack]

Dredd is a fascist bully boy to some degree, but he's much more complex than *just* being the poster boy for fascism.

It's interesting that Dredd's almost-a-good-guy status derives from altering his position on a programme of apartheid after 50 years of enforcing it,  supporting one democratic referendum, burying one old dear and arranging for another get killed in the line of duty, and visiting his niece at Christmas - set against decades of brutality and repression of "his" citizens and others (for our consderable enjoyment!).  

There's no denying that Dredd's heroic and self-sacrificing in his defence of "his" city and its laws, and he's by far my favourite comics character (caveat: when written by Wagner), but he's still not a very nice man propping up a not-very-nice regime.  The alleged satire is far less a part of the main strip these days.

As garageman says, the "subversive" elements of the strip seem to me very much a conscience-salving  elastoplast over the fun of an ageing head-cracking authority figure with his hi-ex and Eastwood/Arnie quips, now heightened by the humanising of Dredd that's taken place since "A Case for Treatment" (although after Prog 2008, I now find myself dating that back to Lopez).  

With the notable exception of John Cassavettes is Dead, do many people really enjoy Alan Grant's explicit "Judges are horrid" stories for both Dredd and Anderson?  

Is a big element of Judge Dredd really the satirising of police states, and was it ever?

[Leigh S]

I think the beauty of Dredd when written by Wagner(WWBW), is that Dredd is both appalling instrument of the state, and appealing instance force of justice. You wouldnt want him going through your bins, but when some idiot cuts you up, just how satisfying would it be to see Dredd in the wing mirror? When Wagner writes Dredd, he shows both sides of the coin and a number of shades inbetween, and its that sophistication thats lost in most non Squax's perceptioon of the character and in most other writers attempts to portray old stoney face.

On top of that, Dredd is a much more layered character than you'd imagine., with his status as grown for purpose programmed weapon of the Justice Dept sitting uncomfortably alongside his own human emotions and justifications for his actions.