This Alan Moore quote really bugs me

GOTHOS · Jan 21, 2014

So let me proceed to see if it bugs anyone here too.

In this so-called "last Alan Moore interview"-- a long and winding blatherfest by one of the medium's best fiction-writers-- he expatiates on many things, but the one that I found most peculiar was his animus to big-screen Hollywood adaptations of superhero comics. As noted in the excerpt below he made passing reference to the subject in an earlier interview, and then expanded his thoughts in this one:

It transpired that this was because I’d actually taken part in the interview a couple of very busy months earlier, on the afternoon when I’d given a half-dozen brief press interviews relating to the launch of Fashion Beast. The subject of comic-related-films (or film-related-comics) had understandably arisen and, when asked, I had ventured my honest opinion that I found something worrying about the fact that the superhero film audience was now almost entirely composed of adults, men and women in their thirties, forties and fifties who were eagerly lining up to watch characters and situations that had been expressly created to entertain the twelve year-old boys of fifty years ago. I not only feel this is a valid point, I also believe it to be fairly self-evident to any disinterested observer. To my mind, this embracing of what were unambiguously children’s characters at their mid-20th century inception seems to indicate a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence. It looks to me very much like a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite ‘universes’ presented by DC or Marvel Comics. I would also observe that it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.

I for one am particularly PO'd that Moore, a guy who has specialized in the creation of fantasy-comics for fantasy-readers, now feels free to sneer at viewers who enjoy superhero movies as having made "a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence." I realize that he has defined the superhero genre as something intrinsically juvenile and that nothing but nothing is going to persuade him otherwise. But I would think he would be given at least a *little* pause in this ad hoc definition by the fact that films like THOR and AVENGERS are being enjoyed by audiences who are absolutely not invested in the continuities of the comic books, contrary to what he says. At bottom his argument is just a particularized version of the old "fantasy is just an escape from reality" snorer, which formerly kept not just "juvenile comics," but a lot of superior prose fiction, in the fantasy-ghetto.

OK, I've run down now.

veinglory · Jan 21, 2014

He is in a tradition that competes with, and often loses to, 'superhero'-based publishers. So, I think he is just being consciously or unconsciously antagonist. Unnecessarily so giving that most of his readers will also be superhero comic readers. It goes without saying that superhero graphic novels go from juvenile to serious and complex. And simple has its place.

williemeikle · Jan 21, 2014

As one of those kids from fifty years ago, I agree with him.

{runs away}

robjvargas · Jan 21, 2014

I think I get what he's saying. Not sure what I think of it. My first thought is to dismiss with a kind of "I like what I like" response. But I think it's something more.

Comics and graphic novels are more visual than text-based fiction. But movies are... well... moving. Not just visual, but moving. They allow a viewer to immerse in an experience and a story in a way quite different from a novel/story, or even a comic/graphic novel.

I think he's overthinking it. A good superhero plot, with a bad guy out to destroy the world and a hero trying to stop the bad guy, it's blatant escapism, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think the worry here isn't the audience. It's the makers of the content. The written word, the drawn comic, the celluloid entertainment, it all has a place in our fancy. And if one is succumbing to the others, it's up to us, the makers of the content, to show readers why each has a valuable place in their lives.

Amadan · Jan 21, 2014

Alan Moore is frequently a wanker. But he has a point. Superhero comics and movies are aimed at middle-aged men who were fans of those same characters when they were boys. They are not aimed at attracting new kids to the genre or carving out a new mythology and a modern vision of heroism.

Notwithstanding occasional "updates" to recognize the new era, they are indeed the same juvenile power fantasies of 50-60 years ago.

veinglory · Jan 21, 2014

And there are always examples like Zot, Watchmen, arguably V for Vendetta etc of superhero trope plus literary depth.

And those movies are totally aimed at women too. Since the early eighties (arguably early 70s) superhero stories were part action adventure and part soap opera, that is when they really hit broad appeal and lept into the adult market.

Torgo · Jan 21, 2014

One other thing about Moore is that his whole beef, in that this interview is him apparently walking away from explaining himself further, is that the media often take his multi-thousand-word disquisitions about things and boil them down to a headline or two. I think he has a lot of great and persuasive things to say in the piece.

But then he also says a lot of great and persuasive things in the service of character assassinations of people like, notably, Grant Morrison, and I like Grant Morrison's work a lot and can't even really see how one could feel plagiarised by the other. I entered a weird state of cognitive dissonance where even while I was applauding Moore's delicious rhetoric I was uncomfortable with how forensically he was applying it to the business of trashing a writer I admire.

I wish people could just get along, eh? Ah well.

EMaree · Jan 21, 2014

Alan Moore is known for being controversial, including biting the hand that's feeding him. This doesn't surprise me at all.

Torgo said:
But then he also says a lot of great and persuasive things in the service of character assassinations of people like, notably, Grant Morrison, and I like Grant Morrison's work a lot and can't even really see how one could feel plagiarised by the other. I entered a weird state of cognitive dissonance where even while I was applauding Moore's delicious rhetoric I was uncomfortable with how forensically he was applying it to the business of trashing a writer I admire.

Oh, man, he attacked Grant Morrison? My respect for Moore just dropped even lower -- Morrison, from everything I've seen of him, seems like a great guy who actively supports the UK comic industry and supports up-and-coming talent in the comic book industry.

RichardGarfinkle · Jan 21, 2014

There's also an oblique point in the quote. He mentions that he had been giving interviews about Fashion Beast. This last line in the quote

I would also observe that it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times.

is one of the themes of Fashion Beast.

In any case, he seems to be arguing specifically about the embrace of 50 year old characters by 50 year old people in place of creating new characters and stories for younger people. It's an interesting question. Are the updates of old characters really fitting into the younger consciousness?

I don't know. My kids like the new Marvel movies, but they're second generation comic book geeks, so it's hard to say if they're simply following in the tradition.

Torgo · Jan 21, 2014

EMaree said:
Oh, man, he attacked Grant Morrison? My respect for Moore just dropped even lower -- Morrison, from everything I've seen of him, seems like a great guy who actively supports the UK comic industry and supports up-and-coming talent in the comic book industry.

Moore and Morrison are engaged in a vicious and long-standing feud, I'm afraid. Moore has probably been the more vicious, rhetorically; they've both accused each other of ripping each other off. But, you know, Moore has also supported up-and-coming talent, and they both seem like great guys in their ways. Ach. It's distressing.

EDIT: and oh: 'attacked Grant Morrison' is such an understatement. That interview is, what, twenty thousand words long, and about half are devoted settling intensely personal scores? It's kind of amazing to read, because he's a great writer, but it's also kind of brutal.

Hanson · Jan 21, 2014

He's suggesting a cultural stagnation now exists, and in this instance, it is expressed in speculative fiction.

It may well be true that we are in cultural stagnation since the 50's/60's/70's, at least with a cursory glance. Those eras seem to have been reborn again and again.

But the thing is that the connection between mainstream and sub-culture was quite strong, back in the day. That is, if a art work gained traction in a sub-culture, mainstream mechanisms responded fairly quickly, harvesting such occurrences for financial gain--with the full enthusiasm of the creators -- not always for financial gain, but often from naivety.

However, nowadays, sub-cultures can survive independently from mainstream (because of technology such as the internet) and such sub-cultures are no longer so naive.

Hanson · Jan 21, 2014

In other words, I'm pretty sure numerous new works are created that remain 'underground' - ie, have not translated to mainstream.

It doesn't mean they don't exist, they're just not as visible.
And, in time, 20-30 years, they may well be revisited in other media forms, just as comic books are now rejuvenated in movie form.

In other words, just because it might seem there is now a cultural stagnation (in speculative fiction for instance) because the work is not highly visible, doesn't mean it is non-existent.

As for middle-age men revisiting the emotions of the past--that's a standard human engagement. But it doesn't mean that those same men are emotionally childish, or have stopped developing.

DeadCities · Jan 21, 2014

Wilde_at_heart · Jan 22, 2014

Alan Moore has long been known for his absolute contempt for the film industry and even film as a medium according to some interviews. While I disagree, I do often understand the point he's trying to make.

With this quote here - seems to indicate a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence - I don't think he's off-base.

Especially when seen through the lens of this quote here:

The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.

However, having had success in a career doing something he obviously likes doing, I don't think he can relate to the droves of people going to see these films as an escape from their own relatively mundane lives. I doubt he can imagine what it's really like to sit in some office forty hours a week year in year out...

GOTHOS · Jan 22, 2014

robjvargas said:
I think I get what he's saying. Not sure what I think of it. My first thought is to dismiss with a kind of "I like what I like" response. But I think it's something more.

Comics and graphic novels are more visual than text-based fiction. But movies are... well... moving. Not just visual, but moving. They allow a viewer to immerse in an experience and a story in a way quite different from a novel/story, or even a comic/graphic novel.

I think he's overthinking it. A good superhero plot, with a bad guy out to destroy the world and a hero trying to stop the bad guy, it's blatant escapism, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think the worry here isn't the audience. It's the makers of the content. The written word, the drawn comic, the celluloid entertainment, it all has a place in our fancy. And if one is succumbing to the others, it's up to us, the makers of the content, to show readers why each has a valuable place in their lives.

We're agreed on the notion that superhero escapism is no worse than any other type of escapism that moviegoers have patronized in past times.

GOTHOS · Jan 22, 2014

Wilde_at_heart said:
Alan Moore has long been known for his absolute contempt for the film industry and even film as a medium according to some interviews. While I disagree, I do often understand the point he's trying to make.

With this quote here - seems to indicate a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence - I don't think he's off-base.

Especially when seen through the lens of this quote here:

However, having had success in a career doing something he obviously likes doing, I don't think he can relate to the droves of people going to see these films as an escape from their own relatively mundane lives. I doubt he can imagine what it's really like to sit in some office forty hours a week year in year out...

But do you agree that the "complexities" line could be turned against pretty much anyone who worked in fantasy, including Alan Moore? There have been many pundits who claimed that fantasy itself was detrimental to human psychology, not the least being Frederic Wertham.

GOTHOS · Jan 22, 2014

RichardGarfinkle said:
There's also an oblique point in the quote. He mentions that he had been giving interviews about Fashion Beast. This last line in the quote

is one of the themes of Fashion Beast.

In any case, he seems to be arguing specifically about the embrace of 50 year old characters by 50 year old people in place of creating new characters and stories for younger people. It's an interesting question. Are the updates of old characters really fitting into the younger consciousness?

I don't know. My kids like the new Marvel movies, but they're second generation comic book geeks, so it's hard to say if they're simply following in the tradition.

Obviously some updates work and some don't. Despite Moore's feelings for DC Comics, Batman has worked for a number of generations. Green Hornet, not so much. But even if Green Hornet fails in the market, I see nothing to censure in entrepreneurs trying to make a buck off updating old characters. Not all new characters grab the public either. Cultural productivity would in my opinion be a blend of the old and the new.

In this essay I wrote that Moore even ignores some of the breakthrough for characters who aren't 50 years old.

And of course, it's Alan Moore, so he must work in a shot or two at Marvel and DC Comics. who are
"squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times." Of course not all superhero films are derived from Marvel and DC, though certainly they are in the majority. But if films are made of relatively recent properties like HELLBOY (1993) or SCOTT PILGRIM (2004), are those films also squatting on the cultural stage?

nighttimer · Jan 23, 2014

The Truth Will Set You Free But First It Will Piss You Off.

Walk into any comic store in America and if you find anyone in there younger than 25 they were either dragged in by their father or they need change for the parking meter. There's no other conceivable reason why a teenager would want to read a 2014 Superman, Spider-Man or Justice League of America.

Comic books exist primarily as the coal their corporate owners strip-mine. There's little creativity in the 10,000th reboot of the DC and Marvel Universe and even less a sense of wonder. The corporate comics of the New 52 and Marvel Now aim low and scrape bottom. I finally got off the treadmill in 2013 and I'm not getting back on it for the latest "this changes everything mega-event until we change it back again" bullshit.

Is Alan Moore a total buzzkill, a snob and a bit of a prick? Yes, yes, and hell yes. But he's earned the right to be critical of the comics industry more than his critics have to criticize him.

EMaree · Jan 24, 2014

nighttimer said:
Walk into any comic store in America and if you find anyone in there younger than 25 they were either dragged in by their father or they need change for the parking meter. There's no other conceivable reason why a teenager would want to read a 2014 Superman, Spider-Man or Justice League of America.

Dude, even with the weird US 21-is-drinking-age thing you can hardly call 25-year-olds teenagers. I'm 22ish and since I was 15 I've been obsessed with Gaiman, Morrison, Quitely, and every classic Batman story I could get my hands on.

Now, personally I lean more towards indie comics, webcomics, and quirky non-superhero books like Scott Pilgrim, Blankets, Saga or Anya's Ghost. But all the male comic fans I know still follow Marvel (and we *all* love the genuinely good stuff out there, like Marvel Now's Hawkeye and Young Avengers). But we all love comics, and we're all at home down at the local comic book shop.

The corporate comics of the New 52 and Marvel Now aim low and scrape bottom.

Marvel Now's the first good step Marvel's taken in a long time. It's entry level, sure, but Hawkeye and Young Avengers are sharp, funny, and perfectly position to bring in casual fans of the Avengers movie and get them interested in comics. There's a lot of skill required to both appeal to brand new comic readers without dumbing things down for them.

(New 52 is rubbish, though, on that we're agreed.)

nighttimer · Jan 24, 2014

EMaree said:
Dude, even with the weird US 21-is-drinking-age thing you can hardly call 25-year-olds teenagers. I'm 22ish and since I was 15 I've been obsessed with Gaiman, Morrison, Quitely, and every classic Batman story I could get my hands on.

Now, personally I lean more towards indie comics, webcomics, and quirky non-superhero books like Scott Pilgrim, Blankets, Saga or Anya's Ghost. But all the male comic fans I know still follow Marvel (and we *all* love the genuinely good stuff out there, like Marvel Now's Hawkeye and Young Avengers). But we all love comics, and we're all at home down at the local comic book shop.

Marvel Now's the first good step Marvel's taken in a long time. It's entry level, sure, but Hawkeye and Young Avengers are sharp, funny, and perfectly position to bring in casual fans of the Avengers movie and get them interested in comics. There's a lot of skill required to both appeal to brand new comic readers without dumbing things down for them.

(New 52 is rubbish, though, on that we're agreed.)

I'm glad you're enjoying two Avengers-related titles, but what about New Avengers, Uncanny Avengers, Secret Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Marvel Universe Avengers Assemble, Avengers Undercover, Avengers World, Avengers A.I. and just plain old vanilla Avengers?

Let's not even try to count the various annuals, graphic novels, repackages, one-shots, spin-offs and all the Thor/Captain America/Iron Man/Captain Marvel/Black Widow/Hulk titles because who wants to slog through all that crap?

When in doubt give 'em more of what they already have plenty of. Or just put Wolverine in it. The kids love Wolverine.

If there were any kids in the comic shop.

EMaree · Jan 24, 2014

nighttimer said:
I'm glad you're enjoying two Avengers-related titles, but what about New Avengers, Uncanny Avengers, Secret Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Marvel Universe Avengers Assemble, Avengers Undercover, Avengers World, Avengers A.I. and just plain old vanilla Avengers?

Let's not even try to count the various annuals, graphic novels, repackages, one-shots, spin-offs and all the Thor/Captain America/Iron Man/Captain Marvel/Black Widow/Hulk titles because who wants to slog through all that crap?

I really like a few of the new Black Widow releases (I'm happy she's getting attention, in general), the recent Thor: The Mighty Avenger collection by Roger Langridge was great though very fluffy and feel-good, I tend to skip Iron Man stuff because it's never as dark as I like and the multi-universe stuff just gives me a headache.

I'm not disagreeing with you that a lot mainstream comics are repetitive, formulaic, and confusing. But Sturgeon's Law applies, here, and I'll defend the good 10% to the death.

It just bothered me that you needed to make your point by saying under-25s don't read comics. We're reading comics as much as any generation before us (I'd say the communities have flourished, actually, and it's certainly much more welcoming to ladies). By changing your point from mainstream comics have a lot of issues to mainstream comics have a lot of issues and that's why no one under 25 would read them unless forced you're erasing a massive chunk of comic fans that are trying to support the industry and promote the enjoyable 10% that remains.

Wilde_at_heart · Jan 24, 2014

GOTHOS said:
But do you agree that the "complexities" line could be turned against pretty much anyone who worked in fantasy, including Alan Moore? There have been many pundits who claimed that fantasy itself was detrimental to human psychology, not the least being Frederic Wertham.

No, there are different levels of depth writers, etc. go into. Some have simple, dualistic worldviews of good vs evil, while others delve into more ambiguous areas. Some accept the status quo or reinforce stereotypes, others deconstruct them or challenge them head on.

A lot of magic-y stuff in a lot of comics, novels, etc. for instance are cliched rubbish borrowed primarily from whatever the write read elsewhere, or the same tired tropes.
To Moore's credit, he knows his stuff in that regard and his discussions of symbols and their effect on consciousness are worth paying attention to. Others just include things because 'they look cool' or because they're aware of common reader associations with them.

As for fantasy being detrimental, views such as Wertham's have been largely discredited anyway.

Amadan · Jan 24, 2014

EMaree said:
It just bothered me that you needed to make your point by saying under-25s don't read comics. We're reading comics as much as any generation before us (I'd say the communities have flourished, actually, and it's certainly much more welcoming to ladies). By changing your point from mainstream comics have a lot of issues to mainstream comics have a lot of issues and that's why no one under 25 would read them unless forced you're erasing a massive chunk of comic fans that are trying to support the industry and promote the enjoyable 10% that remains.

You are a statistical minority. You are not a massive chunk.

EMaree · Jan 24, 2014

Amadan said:
You are a statistical minority. You are not a massive chunk.

Under-25s are a minority of comic readers? Really? That's not sarcasm --I'm genuinely confused by this point. From my experience the comic book audience are a massive chunk of the readers. My local comic book shop is kept in business by twenty-something Marvel fans and Magic the Gathering players with a minority of dedicated older comic fans. And I know that's far from a universal way of keeping shop, but every comic shop I've been in across the UK has had mostly younger shoppers and a lot of what I see online supports this appearance of a young, vocal comic reading community.

I had a google for stats and found this survey which found 56% of comic readers are under 25 -- the majority.

(I'm sorry if my tone's not been on form in this thread, everyone -- I'm exhausted and work's been crazy. I really love comics so I can get carried away discussing them and, while I can be critical, I'm optimistic about their future.)

mercs · Jan 25, 2014

Alan Moore is equal measures a genius and a jackass. Some of his ideas are amazing and he's a credit to the comic book industry. I actually agree with his quote incidentally. All the revamps, relaunches and 1000000s of writers/artists/pencillers and so forth, and safe for CGI on some titles and different paper types, it's hard to tell what decade you have in your hand. Moore at least blew things out of the water when he worked on them...

His own work is phenomenal and got to love V for Vendetta, Lost Girls, From Hell, Watchmen and so forth, but...

His twitter page shows his nutter side. He contacted everyone to do with the watchmen film and in numerous languages wrote "I spit venom over the watchmen movie" for what looked like days on end. Nothing before or since. I also don't think he's a help to the industry. He could give it so much more credit and help direct things towards becoming something amazing, but instead he puts the industry down and that can't be good for anyone looking to go into the industry...

It's not perfect but Alan Moore and his comments aren't going to change that...

This Alan Moore quote really bugs me

GOTHOS

veinglory

volitare nequeo

williemeikle

The force is strong in this one.

robjvargas

Amadan

veinglory

volitare nequeo

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

EMaree

a demon for tea

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Hanson

Hanson

DeadCities

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe

GOTHOS

GOTHOS

GOTHOS

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

EMaree

a demon for tea

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters

EMaree

a demon for tea

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe

Amadan

EMaree

a demon for tea

mercs

This Alan Moore quote really bugs me

volitare nequeo

The force is strong in this one.

volitare nequeo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

a demon for tea

Nurture Phoenixes

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

No Gods No Masters

a demon for tea

No Gods No Masters

a demon for tea

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

a demon for tea

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe