That Two And A Half Hour Alan Moore Webchat You Missed... (VIDEO BACK)

[khuxford]

I'd imagine JK Rowling doesn't really care. She may even be an Alan Moore fan, who knows?

As far as her publishers go, because 'Tom' wasn't specifically identified as Voldemort, there doesn't appear to be much they could do legally, were they so inclined. Similarly, Moore got round using James Bond in part two of Century by referring to him simply as 'Jimmy'.

Whether taking advice on this stuff, while whining, when asked, about Before Watchmen in interviews makes Moore a swine and a hypocrite is down to the individual, I guess.

Personally, as long as he stays out of court and keeps on writing, I'm happy enough for him to do as he pleases.

Well, seeing as how Voldemort's original name was Tom Riddle, before the transformation, I don't know that calling him Tom is taking even as much liberty as calling James Bond "Jimmy".

[Snowspinner]

Ahh the blind arrogance that causes you to routinely answer with nonsense that has nothing to do with what was said. I'm sure you've put hours of research into Moore's psychology and emotional makeup, right?

Or, at least, into understanding his general worldview, yes. Considerable hours, actually.

[Snowspinner]

He's cut friends out of his life over the fact that they still bring up DC work to him. And you seem to be nitpicking in separating passionate and angry, suggesting his outward appearance of calm means he could only be the former and not the latter. You argue because he is so satisfied with other aspects of his life that it means he can't be angry about this subject. You seem to be willfully misinterpreting the meaning behind statements that begin with "Alan Moore is just" to be about the entirety of his life and being, rather than limited in scope to his position on a topic or two.

Though CF101 could have said it more politely, I have to remain in agreement with him: you're using the limited exposure of a fan to rule out another fan's determination of how Moore feels about the situation, with the difference being that you claim to be more of an authority on the subject.

Mmm. We get into some wooly territory here. I mean, yes. Obviously I am a fan of Alan Moore's work. I paid $99 to get into a video conference with him. I won't claim not to be a fan.

I'm also a PhD in English who focused on media studies, particularly comics, who has done some pretty sizable research on Alan Moore with the intention of future scholarship in that direction. I don't tend to stress this on forums because, well, it's a bit dick-waving and crass. But on the other hand, yeah, actually - I've spent rather a lot of time on the specific question of trying to figure out Alan Moore's worldview, philosophy, and views on issues and on reconstructing an overall philosophical and aesthetic system out of what he says from an angle separate from really liking his work. Up to you whether that is still "the limited exposure of a fan," but, if we're being honest... yeah. I think I'm actually a pretty damn good authority on this subject.

Which is not to say "accept me at my word" - I've generally tried to give the thought behind my claims and explain what causes me to reach the conclusions I have. If you disagree with my read on the tone and spirit with which he approaches discussions of his older work then, well, fine. You disagree with my conclusions. It happens.

Regardless, I've seen and heard hours of footage of Moore opining on various subjects and been there personally for some of it. His demeanor does not change when asked about these topics. He does not tense up or become animated or otherwise act in any way angry or differently than he acts a few minutes before or after while talking about Jerusalem. He does not respond poorly or tersely to questions on it. He remains genial. Lines that come through as savage denunciations when read are delivered with a wry smile or chuckle. And I've had cause to look at quite a bit of material on this topic, and not from the perspective of fandom. Agree or disagree with the conclusions, but, you know. That is the spirit they're offered in, at least.

[Joe B. Pangrazio]

You're being disingenuous at best Joe. You know perfectly well that this is not an accurate comparison. A company in this position would try to get the good PR if they could also get the stories, which does appear to have been the angle. There is nothing illogical about that.

So you're taking the position that a company would not care about the negative PR it received for nigh on 20 years and then suddenly decide they wanted good PR when they were going to do something which was guaranteed (even with Moore's approval) to have some negative PR attached to it. And are claiming this is logical? Really?

And if this had lined up with Diane Nelson coming on board, I would even probably agree with you it was likely (and thus have rationalized it). But it didn't. It was many of the same people who had been fine with the status quo for the years preceding suddenly deciding they wanted good PR. And it makes less sense when some renegotiation of the contract (which would keep the rights with DC or sure up their rights while giving Moore more of whatever would appease him at the time) would have given them good PR long before and cost them much less. (And I can't remember if there were two instances one before and one after Diane or not..., edited to add this)

And if you want me to believe that a large corporation would give up one of their highest selling perennials for the sake of some marginally good PR, I'd suggest you're the one being disingenuous.

As for whether Moore and Gibbons admitting that DC had every legal right to the characters happened before or after their tiff is irrelevant. His understanding of the contract he signed doesn't retroactively become void because he later got angry.

And if DC being able to do such things was dependent on their approval (which, in fairness I typed before I got to khux's reply actually quoting Gibbon's reply) that would actually be very relevant. Also, I was not replying to a claim of "Moore and Gibbons admited that DC had every legal right to the characters."

You know what? Fuck it. I'm done.

I'm removing what I put up here, because, if that's the level of response I'm going to get from you, Joe, responding isn't worth it. The effort I put into the initial response is gone and will not return, but I save myself compounding it with having to read and being tempted to respond to whatever follows.

This is largely how I felt, and I meant no disrespect with the response that I gave. But, I started in and took some breaks (because, you know, life) and by the end just couldn't muster any more. But I didn't want to just go, "I'm out!" so I gave you what I had up until that point and was honest about not having more. If that is offensive to you, I'm honestly sorry. But I can't muster up more energy. I'm going to reply to a few other things and probably give up because as I've said elsewhere (ie, not on these forums) these prequels just kinda make me sad more than anything else. So it's a bit hard to keep a righteous anger going.

But again: I don't agree with everything Moore says or does and I don't have to in order to feel that when it comes to the rights of Watchmen (and especially V for Vendetta) he's more right than DC and therefore I disagree with them doing these prequels. It's very likely that Moore would disagree with some of the reasons that I'm on his side, but that's immaterial since they are my reasons.

And dredging up all the quotes of Moore being an ass (or seeming to be) doesn't change that. The same way that Moore getting mad doesn't change his contract, Moore being a dick doesn't change his contract either.

From a strictly moral standpoint - and many of Moore's champions use the moral argument as the reason why he was "wronged" by DC - why is it ok to use characters in the public domain but not characters the company all acknowledge have control over?

Because of how said company gained control and because said company has not been stalwart in its honoring of its side of the contract in other matters (ie, my only complaint with the Watchmen situation is not simply that DC is still publishing new editions of the Watchmen trade)?

And because of what the public domain is?

Well, seeing as how Voldemort's original name was Tom Riddle, before the transformation, I don't know that calling him Tom is taking even as much liberty as calling James Bond "Jimmy".

I'll see if I have it handy, but I think he's only ever called Tom. He's never actually named as "Tom Riddle" though the connection is made and obvious to a Potter fan (which went right over my head...)

[DonBruno]

I still don't understand how, if using old ideas and characters is good as long as you do something new with them, who gets to decide what makes the stories new enough to be okay.

But that really isn't the point he's trying to make. He doesn't knock on Fables, or if people use Frankenstein in a story. It's the industry that is over reliant on a few characters and seems to recycle them over and over again that is his problem. And doing so cheating the old men out of a profit that he thinks are rightfully theirs.

I think this qoute from Wired.com highlights just that.

But what superheroes have become since those times is something I think is very different. Prior to the mid-’60s, at least at DC National Comics, their backbone was supplied by a raft of very gifted science-fiction authors, who included John Broome and Gardner Fox. All of these were grown-ups, men who wrote, especially in Fox’s case, dozens of pulp paperbacks in a variety of genres under a variety of pseudonyms. Steve Moore had almost a complete collection of Gardner Fox, which had historical romances, pornography, science-fiction stories, hard-boiled detective fiction, westerns, every genre that he could make a sale on.

These were real writers. I’ve got the greatest of respect for those men of pulp tradition who endlessly spewed out ideas for a penny a word on ridiculously tight deadlines. What happened in the mid-’60s is that those writers who had created the vast majority of DC’s superhero characters had all redefined them after the original creators had left. Around that time, I understand that a group of these creators noticed that they didn’t have medical insurance or pensions, even though they were doing most of the work. So they went to the heads of DC to address this and suggested that maybe they should form a kind of union to negotiate with the publishers on an equitable level. At which point, the publishers told them they were fired.

Why Fanboys Should Not Take Over a Faltering Industry

Wired.com: What happened after the industry fired who you consider to be comics’ most ambitious writers?

Moore: They then immediately imported a new raft of writers who were comics fans, who were delighted to be working on the characters that they loved from their childhood and would never dream of doing anything as anarchic or potentially evil as forming a union. They were very glad to be working on Batman and the Justice League. And this has contributed to the state of present comics.

‘I’m starting to feel that the most significant part of the superhero makeup is that part which is not talked about, the fact that these triumphant paragons are being created by an industry of people who are frightened to ask for a raise.’

Wired.com: How do you mean?

Moore: When I started reading the superhero stories in 1959 and 1960, I was 7. So the audience for comics when I started work in the beginning of the ’80s was perceived as being mostly between 9 and 13 with a few significant outliers in the range of their late teens and early 20s. Which is a difficult and demanding audience; they’re very discriminating. In the current market for superheroes, I understand that the average age of the readership is between their 30s and 50s. Now I can only assume that since the content and quality of the comics has not noticeably changed since those decades, although there have been a few stylistic flourishes, then that’s a dwindling audience.

Back in the ’50s, even a third-string publisher like Lev Gleason could expect that one of his third-string titles, such as the original Daredevil, to sell something like, what, 6 million copies a month? Compare that to today’s comics, which at the moment are if not dead then at least coughing blood, which have pitiful sales figures and which are largely aimed at an audience of 30- to 50-year-olds who are mostly in it for nostalgic reasons. They want that connection to their vanished childhood.

There’s an awful lot of that about at the moment, and I understand it. I don’t think any of us grew up into the world we were hoping for or expecting. So I completely understand the need for people to connect to these icons, but they don’t mean the same thing that they used to mean.

And one of the things that strikes me most about superheroes as they currently stand, is that these are heroes, as the term implies. These are people who stand unflinchingly against tyrants and oppressors, who protect and support the underdog, who are fearless and noble in everything that they do. I’m starting to feel that the most significant part of the superhero makeup is that part which is not talked about, the fact that these triumphant paragons are being created by an industry of people who are frightened to ask for a raise, the rights to their work, and, especially after seeing what happened to Gardner Fox and the others, to form a union.

This is why I split from the comics industry. The way it had handled The Black Dossier certainly propelled me into other directions away from comics, to the point where the League is my only expression in the comics field and is likely to remain to so for the foreseeable future. When that happened, the nearest we got to supportive comments from the rest of the industry was along the lines of useful advice like, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” I’m not expecting the writers and artists of the industry to go out and struggle with Galactus, should he turn up suddenly and threaten to eat the world. Of course I’m not. I’m just asking them to show a little bit of ordinary human courage. I think that if they had done that, then the industry would probably not be in the state that it is.