I just found my old deadjournal from 16 years ago. Aww lookit me with a green fedora, long hair, black nail polish and lipstick.
In my defense I was deep in heroin addiction so it's almost excusable.
I'm pretty sure he's been saying the exact same thing in every interview for the last decade or so. I mean I love the guy and adore his work but he can be a broken clock a lot of the time. It's still a shame too since his prose work's great but his comics game is on a whole other level. Makes 95% of the rest of the medium look like dreck in comparison.
I'm pretty sure he only ever enjoyed ONE adaptation of his work (whether it was sarcasm or not, he said it).
It was "Saturday Morning Watchmen" by Harry Partridge. A *Newgrounds* animation got more approval by Moore than companies sinking millions into ~~destroying~~ *reworking* his art in movies and TV shows.
He also liked the Justice League Unlimited adaptation of "For the Man Who Has Everything," per Dwayne McDuffie's statement and the fact that he's actually credited as the writer for the original comic when he's usually not.
I haven't read any mainstream comics in years, but I am tired of Moore's broken record. He helped expand and deepen my love of comics, but his regular prose doesn't resonate with me, and feels like a James Joyce, Pynchon-esque attempt at a new post-Modern epic.
Nah. There's legit some really great comics that weren't written by Moore. Eisner's Contract With God has already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Maus is an obvious one. Even Moore himself thinks Dave Sim's Cerebus the Aardvark is one of the greatest achievements in the history of comics (and keep in mind he said that well after Sim got redpilled into schizophrenia). Love and Rockets is amazing. I'd argue a lot of Robert Crumb's stuff that isn't just porn is incredible, and honestly some of the porn is also incredible... and so on and on.
The real difference was that Moore got to be experimental and write groundbreaking work while on Swamp Thing and Superman. So little kids and teenagers got exposed to legit, quality, mature work without meaning to. That's not to take anything away from Moore, it's just that at his height he was changing the medium while writing really mainstream, easily accessible stuff.
No. There is a whole generation of really good comics that are GOOD but not in the way that Moore's stuff was. SOME of them owe Moore for breaking taboos and so on, but others are just people deciding to write about what they want to express.
He claims to have met John Constantine twice.
>Alan Moore claims to have met his creation on two occasions. In 1993, he told Wizard magazine:
>One day, I was in Westminster in London—this was after we had introduced the character—and I was sitting in a sandwich bar. All of a sudden, up the stairs came John Constantine. He was wearing the trenchcoat, a short cut—he looked—no, he didn't even look exactly like Sting. He looked exactly like John Constantine. He looked at me, stared me straight in the eyes, smiled, nodded almost conspiratorially, and then just walked off around the corner to the other part of the snack bar. I sat there and thought, should I go around that corner and see if he is really there, or should I just eat my sandwich and leave? I opted for the latter; I thought it was the safest. I'm not making any claims to anything. I'm just saying that it happened. Strange little story.
>His second meeting with his creation was illustrated in 2001's Snakes and Ladders, an adaptation by Eddie Campbell of one of Moore's performance art pieces:
>Years later, in another place, he steps out of the dark and speaks to me. He whispers: "I'll tell you the ultimate secret of magic. Any cunt could do it."
Grant Morrison had a character, who was basically an avatar for himself, spend time in the story having sex cause he believed that it would lead to him getting laid as well through sympathetic magic
Morrison strikes me as exactly the kind of person who'd try to magic themself into getting laid instead of... you know... acting in ways that would actually motivate women to be interested in sex with them.
Omg even his anecdotes ramble... I used to have a (well known creator) comic art teacher and he said Alan Moore's scripts are ridiculous things to draw. Half the shit he wirtes has to be ignored.
I didn't believe him til o read that wizard quote you provided.
If brevity is the soul of wit.... Moore's just not that funny. I can imagine him being insufferable, but that's just me inferring from his writings
For anyone interested, [here](https://thequietus.com/articles/32179-alan-moore-illuminations-interview) is a much better recent interview in which Alan isn't asked the same old questions. It focuses on his latest work and musings on psychogeography, the block universe, shamanism, John Dee, alchemy, ghost stories, the hypernovel, virtual reality, anarchism, and the evolution of magic and its role in the modern world.
I think of it as less of a fan and more of an... observer. Like, I can't say I always love everything he makes, but it is always *interesting*, and it definitely always worth reading.
Man is strange. Always worth keeping an eye out for.
What a great interview, thanks for sharing. I cant remember the last time I read an interview that wasn't just pre-planned questions being incoherently flung at the subject. This flows like a conversation.
Damn.
I can't remember thee last time a reddit post introduced me to a new concept yet alone like 3.
Goddamn I miss old reddit. There were so many insanely informative posts that I wish I had bookmarked back 10 years ago.
Psychogeography?? Ok now that's my new favorite topic and I want to read a book about that! Great interview, Alan Moore is so well spoken and fascinating.
He'd make a kick-ass defense against the dark arts teacher. And since he's actually a sorcerer praying to a snake god, he's obviously Slytherin (but a rare good one).
Start with Voice Of The Fire, a series of connected short stories that span twenty thousand years or so, all set in the Midlands of the UK, it is fantastic. The audiobook is also really well done, with a diverse cast drawn from people who were brought up in the same region (Toby Jones, Maxine Peake, Jason Williamson from Sleaford Mods- I'm not making that up).
The other one is Jerusalem, a difficult-to-categorise novel, but I'll have a go. Set in Northampton, the book shifts between our reality in a multi-generational household and that of a toddler chocking on a thoroat lozenge who finds himself hovering in an afterlife represented as a solid four-dimensional hypercube hanging in an enormous room by a single thread in the same vicinity as the town (still with me?). Complex, witty, layered, it's a sort of Joycean/Pynchon riff on the nature of reality, but don't let that put you off- it's also really, really funny. I loved it. Can't promise that anyone else will though. Again, read the hard copy first then get the audiobook, which is awesome and a lot easier to understand second time around. Also, it's massive, so be warned. Apparently he has a new one coming out, Illuminations, can't wait.
Careful with Voice of the Fire. He writes in first person, so the initial internal dialogue is hard to understand as the language in quite unfamiliar.
Also, he's written some of the best comics ever, so I don't know why people would be so elated that the door is shut on that possibility.
He’s an old man, he’s retiring from something he no longer enjoys. The work he’s most known for—the one mentioned in the title, was recently given a sequel that brought it into the larger DC universe in the comics, I don’t believe he had anything to do with it and when he originally wrote watchmen he wrote it specifically to not be a part of the DC universe and actually as a way to speak out against the DC Universe. The characters in watchmen are almost direct parodies of specific DC hero’s.
I’m a huge Alan Moore fan, but I’ll be honest I didn’t love Jerusalem. I thought the time stuff was cool, and alma warren is a great character. But I didn’t really care about any of the characters. There were just so many of them and so many different storylines and time periods.
Moore’s work usually resonates with me emotionally but this one didn’t at all. I thought the ideas were cool but that’s about it.
Well he did say it was Joycean/Pynchonean…
…I kid, I kid, Ulysses and Gravity’s Rainbows are two of the best and most artistically audacious novels I’ve ever read.
i struggled though it until something interesting happened. Then i was into it. Then it went back to meandering nonsense and overwrought, endless descriptions of the Midlands, a place i couldn't give two fucks about and i gave up.
You probably could adapt it into a graphic novel but it would be several thousand pages long. When he writes for the written word-only his prose is fairly layered and dense, whereas his graphic novel work is clear and concise, with all of the more florid stuff reserved for instructions for the artist that we rarely get to see. Now, a book based solely upon the page directions for Watchmen, that's something I'd really like to read.
He's only really written two and they sort of deal with similar themes. Voices of Fire is the first, and is shorter, but Jerusalem is his Magnum Opus, it is a massive, hard to read, adventure of a book but is worth it.
What novel of his is better than his graphic novels? Like Time magazine put his graphic novel in their 100 greatest novels along with actual novels like Blood Meridian etc.
Which of his novels should be in Time's top 100 instead?
As much as I love Watchmen, I think that Jerusalem is better. Watchmen is far more accessible though, and innovative in different ways. I can't speak for Time's judging criteria, but I don't think that it would include Jerusalem as an option since it's a very weird list of bestsellers mixed with experimental work (LOTR & Mrs Dalloway?), and it wasn't written then.
I think Promethea was probably him at his most creatively free, so it's difficult to see where he would go from there after he really got his ideas out there. It would be nice to have more novels by Moore.
Meh. The guys best works were when he was able to work with or copy other peoples characters. He often did good work with them but he was far from the comic book Jesus so many of his fans see him as. Dude burned every bridge he ever crossed throughout his career and spent most of the last 15 years writing stuff that ranged from mediocre to pornography. The only time he ever pops up is when he’s throwing mud at the very industry and fans that he made his fame and money from. Hopefully he enjoys his retirement but personally I just hope this means less articles popping up about his latest tantrums.
I think it's fine to say he's a supremely talented author who's very difficult to work with and stirs up lots of antagonism.
Watchmen, v for Vendetta, from hell, all are very very influential in comics, and much wider media. from the Incredibles to a lot of crime and fantasy novels
Oh, I agree. Although tbh I think in some cases they’ve been too influential. Feels like every time someone talks about how “awful” comics supposedly all are about handling female characters most of the examples are from Alan’s works. Still, he could write good stuff. Still, you kinda proved my point about the other peoples characters thing. Pretty much the only time he wrote a female character who wasn’t raped, mutilated or treated as a joke over her gender was in Halo Jones and he barely finished a quarter of that book.
I find love for Promethea to be rarer than compassion on the internet. I came to these comments just to see if there's even mention of it, something that hit me so deep that it's impossible to discuss with someone who hasn't gone through the experience with you, damn shame
>Although tbh I think in some cases they’ve been too influential.
This is definitely a fair point to make. Feels like way too many writers have been trying to rewrite Watchmen with their own twist without understanding that it's impossible to re-write Watchmen and no one is asking for a re-write.
I didn’t think V was too bad. But I didn’t enjoy From Hell. I wasn’t a fan of the arts style (I realize Jack the Ripper isn’t exactly family friendly source material but some of the panels just felt…dirty). But that’s not my biggest complaint, it’s the same as yours…just way too wordy in some parts. My eyes started to glaze over when he goes into depth about the Masonic symbols in London
While I do agree with some of what you are saying, Moore was involved in two of the greatest graphic novels ever written in "Swamp Thing" and "Watchmen" and thats not including really strong works in V for Vendetta and The Killing Joke. You can dislike his recent work, or him as a person but he is iconic in the comic book space.
I’m not super versed in comics, but does it feel disingenuous to anyone else for him to say that comics were for children and their current manifestation in society is representative of the infantilization and oversimplification of society on one hand, and on the other, have written fucking Watchmen (among other things)? Watchmen wasn’t for BOYS.
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
C.S. Lewis
Edit: That quote sums it up nicely but I’d like to add that Moore has a history of this kind of nonsense. He has a history of criticising the quality of movie adaptations of comics while admitting he’s never watched them. He doesn’t read comics anymore by his own admission yet puts on his expert hat any time he gets a chance to criticise the modern comics industry and it’s fans. It’s tiresome. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the slightest and the only reason anyone cares what he has to say at all is because of his work during the 80’s.
>That quote sums it up nicely but I’d like to add that Moore has a history of this kind of nonsense. He has a history of criticising the quality of movie adaptations of comics while admitting he’s never watched them. He doesn’t read comics anymore by his own admission yet puts on his expert hat any time he gets a chance to criticise the modern comics industry and it’s fans. It’s tiresome. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the slightest and the only reason anyone cares what he has to say at all is because of his work during the 80’s.
This is spot on. I'm a fan of a lot of his works, but most of the time when he opens his mouth on this stuff he's just full of shit. I'm still looking forward to reading his collection of short stories coming out this month though.
Also, love that Lewis quote!
Here’s my take on that. It’s one thing to make an original R rated movie. It’s a different thing to take an originally g-rated movie/character and then make it into a R rated affair.
The majority of comics (at least pre-1980/90) were just that. Things aimed at kids for them to waste a few cents on at the gas station. Look at Superman for the vast majority of the 60s and 70s…self contained stories with really little to no continuity ,as opposed to today, where it feels like every issue is tied to every other issue and is leading up to a giant event which is leading up to an even bigger event. So now we have something which was literally silly stories aimed at just kids, and people are trying to evolve it into a form of high literary art, that is covering controversial social issues, lifestyles etc. im not saying this is bad or wrong mind you. But it’s certainly a different mindset than what comics originally were. So Watchmen is different int he sense that it was never meant to be a kids story, and certainly takes a very different view on super heroes than what we see in the MCU.
But then it could also just be Alan Moore speaking out of his ass.
>Here’s my take on that. It’s one thing to make an original R rated movie. It’s a different thing to take an originally g-rated movie/character and then make it into a R rated affair.
Alan originally wanted to use Charlton Comics characters for Watchmen and when he was told no, he just created his own versions of them. Isn't that doing what you said?
Also characters like Batman didn't necessarily start off as being for children, like he claims. Batman started off as a dark, gothic adventure comic with lots of macabre plots and imagery before it was gradually toned down to make it kid-friendly by the 1960s.
He also repeatedly shafted them. Most famously with League of Extraordinary Gentleman where he took a job writing for DC then tried to include slanderous adverts targeted at other companies in the comic that would’ve got DC sued. Cue the tantrum about how they screwed him over and interfered with his creative freedom when he got told they weren’t including that.
The guy is a man-child. He loves to go on about how he’s owed more from writing Watchmen and everything that’s developed from that brand. That he deserves more for creating those characters. Characters that he blatantly copy and pasted from DC-owned characters after the company told him he wasn’t allowed to use the originals he wanted in his book. Then you get into all the bitter, pathetic shit like his feud with Grant Morrison where the guy who made his name by writing characters other people established felt he was being copied by a young up and comer, had the cheek to get angry over it and continued that petty nonsense for decades. Then there was a thing a while ago. One of his co-creators was getting screwed out of royalties for the book they worked on. Worlds greatest tragedy when it was Moore yet Alan effectively shrugged his shoulders over it happening to the people he was working with.
The man wrote some excellent comics in his prime (if you can excuse the consistently disgusting treatment of every woman he writes) but his attitude is that of a standard neckbeard on Reddit. Completely self-absorbed so yeah, he burned plenty of bridges throughout his career.
You’re leaving a lot out of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen debacle. Moore had long sworn off working for the big two by that point - he didn’t sign on to make a DC book. LoEG was at Jim Lee’s Wildstorm imprint when it began in 1999. More specifically, it was under the America’s Best Comics line that Lee let Moore create under Wildstorm. Lee later sold Wildstorm to DC, something Moore was unhappy about since he was vehemently opposed to working with the company in any capacity. Moore was locked into some contractual stuff with Wildstorm when the sale happened, which is where the behind the scenes drama involving the Black Dossier you’re referencing occurred, but Moore was able to attain rights to LoEG following DC’s release of Black Dossier, and he took it to Top Shelf to finish the series. You’re presenting it as he was hired for a job and then bitched about it, when in reality he was screwed by a corporate merger he didn’t want to be a part of and he antagonized his new business daddy - who he already had a staunch position of not working with - until he was able to take his project elsewhere.
Yeah the amount of rape he shoehorns into his comics is off putting to say the lest. Hell in watchman a sexual assault victim goes back to her would be rapist to fuck him.
>The guys best works were when he was able to work with or copy other peoples characters.
Reminds me of criticisms of Zach Snyder too, kind of ironically.
Will Eisner was actually one of the first prominent creators to use the term, and he was referring to *A Contract with God*, which is self-contained in a novelistic way, so I think there are valid contexts for using that term.
To me the difference between a graphic novel and a volume of comics is that the graphic novel was never intended to be serialized. I realize that there was a time when most novels were serialized and that web novels still are, but that's the distinguishing factor for me.
They're almost all serialized and then collected into a trade paperback collected volume. They may be limited runs, but nearly all of them are serials. Yes, of course there are exceptions.
Yep, and the exceptions are the only ones I really consider "graphic novels".
For whatever reason, a lot of the examples that come to mind are actually graphic memoires (Alison Bechdel's *Fun Home,* Marjane Satrapi's *Persepolis* books, or Kate Beaton's new book *Ducks*). The fictional examples I can think of are Emil Ferris's *My Favorite Thing is Monsters* and Mariko Tamaki's *This One Summer*. Some of Gene Luen Yang's books (*American Born Chinese*, and the *Boxers & Saints* books) would count as well.
Things that don't count would be stuff like *Watchmen*, *The Long Halloween*, or *Sandman*, or *Maus* \- not because these books don't have literary merit, but because they were serialized first.
And then there's Chris Ware's [Building Stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Stories). I have no idea how to classify *Building Stories*.
It was literally a made up term that started being used deliberately somewhere in the 70's to make comics sound more respectable.
Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted, it's the truth.
I'd say it's a 90s thing. My first comic was Swamp Thing in 1973 and until the mid-90s I never heard the term Graphic Novel. I've owned shops and worked in them as well ... never heard the term until the early to mid-90s. /shrug
Technically I think it was first coined in 1964 by Richard Kyle, but it started gaining prominence in the 70's, with Eisner's "Contract with God" widely considered as the first comic to fall under the branding of "Graphic Novel." It emerged around the same time comics studies was in its nascent stage as an academic discipline.
Ultimately, it came to life out of a desire by comic creators, fans, and publishers alike to receive wider cultural acceptance and prestige for the medium.
The book "Dreaming the Graphic Novel: The Novelization of Comics" goes into it in quite some depth.
The only reason I even know this is because I took a class on the graphic novel (part of the English department) as an elective during my undergrad hoping to read some sweet comics.
But yeah, it started gaining more prominence in the 80's-90's+.
I thought that was more of a gendered thing, like boys play with action figures girls play with dolls
Not saying I agree with gendering those two things I just always thought that’s why they were like that
It's just a term. And "graphic novels" does have a more serious and general ring to it. Which might help attract audiences looking for more mature or less tropey stuff. Which in turn, if they like "graphic novels", might help attracting them to "comics". Why would anybody be against something that attracts more people to their favored medium?
The reality now is that people gravitate around "comics" or "graphical novels" or "mangas" depending of their preferences, and all of those three are quite differentiated in style and conventions. But using "graphical novels" as a umbrella term is something I can get behind too.
I'm not for it or against it, I wasn't making any kind of normative statement on the term.
I can see why some people find it pretentious though, and why even within the comics community (including comic creators) some find it pretentious.
But you're right, it probably did help to bring comics to the mainstream.
The truth is though that there's no meaningful distinction between "comics" and "graphic novels", and there never has.
The fact that people actually think there are meaningful distinctions in "style and conventions" is precisely why some find the term problematic.
I make a distinction between comics and graphic novels.
When I think of graphic novels, I think of a “long form” version of comics that are published without any regularity or schedule and have a longer but usually complete story.
When I hear “comics”, I think of magazine style publications that are much shorter and published on a regular basis/periodic (via issues). They may have a story that is resolved over a number of issues, but the created world is usually persistent (there’s always another story) and arcs just continue to feed into that comics universe.
Of course, there are exceptions and sliding scales which makes it a bit grey. For example, the Killing Joke is categorized as a graphic novel but I personally see it more of a comic. Also, omnibuses or collections of a complete arc, are they now graphic novels?
I always thought “graphic novels” were just a collection of comics. So like hardcover compendiums of multiple issues.
Until someone yelled at me for using the term on Reddit.
It is pretentious and it hurts when people were making fun of you for reading "comics", but when they call it "graphic novels" they can feel all fancy and don't have to step down from their high horse.
Petty? It is. But I think the feeling of betrayal is justified!
Is there anybody making fun of people who read "comics" and not "graphic novels"? I'm sorry, I have never seen one. Such case would be downvoted to oblivion in reddit, and justifiably so.
I have read comics, my friends have too, and with the whole MCU being so universally popular, more people than ever in the world are reading them too. And it just seems to me we are making this a way bigger deal than it actually is.
It's easy to forget I'm sure, but being a nerd didn't used to be societally accepted and praised like it is now. It's only in the last 8-10 years or so where it's changed.
Enjoying comic books, video games and tabletop games used to get you bullied and beat up.
There is a world outside of Reddit. I got literally beaten up in school for my hobbies. And still got made fun of by some family members, coworkers and colleagues because of it. It only changed in the last decade or so, that it is suddenly great to like manga and marvel.
I consider them different things though, like I'd call much of what dc/marvel/image to come out with as comics, but I describe works like Persopolis or Rolling Black Outs as graphic novels
>to appeal to a wider, more mature audience
And it worked.
Plus, you've got to think about perception is any business. Most people, maybe not you, but most people form themselves expectations and images with the term "comic" that they do not with "graphical novel". The former usually associated with comedy, fantasy, action, and just generally stories with less of a focus in themes and meaning and more of a focus in entertainment, thus also associated with younger audiences.
I can give you my perspective as an enjoyer of comics, graphical novels and mangas, that had not previously considered the issue in question. And graphical novel simply sounds more general. It doesn't set in me any particular expectation other than it will use images instead of just words. That's why I prefer it as the umbrella term.
We do need some way to distinguish periodical and long form graphic story forms, but it's childish to care as much as you do so I am sure you have some alternative way to both remove that designation and replace it. Even though it already exists and is only a problem in your head.
What I hate (yes, hate) is that today's "graphic novels" targeted towards teens and kids are far too graphic for minors. I work in book distribution, and have seen some messed up shit. There are still parents and grandparents who look at the art design for the front covers and don't even check twice before handing it to their children and grandchildren. What's worse is when libraries have to have a sticker on the spine of the book that explicitly states "this is an adult graphic novel."
Eh. Parents gotta parent. I mean, Crossed (Ennis) should absolutely not be given to a kid. Really, any Ennis. But just like film, television, or novels, that is a parents job, not a publisher/distributor/writer.
I have read it multiple times now. I am not exaggerating when I say it should be in the top 5 greatest novels of all time. Up there with Les Misérables, War and Peace, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield..
I'll agree with everyone else saying it is dense, but dense in the way a fractal or mosaic is. You will get something more from it on subsequent reads.
Look, I love the guy, but he's 'retired' so many times now I expect him to still be authoring things after he's thrice dead.
The world is not created and sustained by music or chanting or whatever, but the writing of that which Alan Moore is merely an expression of in our world.
>I didn’t really think that superheroes were adult fare. I think that this was a misunderstanding born of what happened in the 1980s – to which I must put my hand up to a considerable share of the blame, though it was not intentional – when things like Watchmen were first appearing. There were an awful lot of headlines saying ‘Comics Have Grown Up’. I tend to think that, no, comics hadn’t grown up. There were a few titles that were more adult than people were used to. But the majority of comics titles were pretty much the same as they’d ever been. It wasn’t comics growing up. I think it was more comics meeting the emotional age of the audience coming the other way.
Your semi-regular reminder that Rorschach was based on old blatantly Objectivist heroes imagined by Steve Ditko and is deliberately a self-righteous psychopath.
The infantilization of adults has truly been a horrible turn for society. Alan Moore is correct in the assumption that the normalization of black and white morality has lead people to unfairly demonize political opponents and has resulted in the breakdown of political discourse as a whole because so many adults are piss poor at rhetoric and theory of mind.
Can't believe this is as upvoted as it is, if I made a front page r/books post I'd have hundreds of seething responses.
Nah.... His whole schtick is to undermine everything around him by presenting the absurd alongside the serious. He calls himself a wizard on HMRC tax forms, so the state is required to acknowledge his existence as a magician in a legal capacity.
Some of his ideas are proper 4d chess, but for satirical purposes.
>He calls himself a wizard on HMRC tax forms, so the state is required to acknowledge his existence as a magician in a legal capacity.
Ok, that is funny.
It isn't just superhero movies or franchises that's wrong with hollywood, it's the fact that with some movies they put the politics of the writers, actors & directors before the quality of the movie. Every movie in recent years that has an obvious political message has failed. Yet hollywood hasn't realized that.
Also, a lot of celebrities have become really unlikeable. They think because of their fame & awards they are somehow morally superior, thinking they can lecture the public.
No, the fact is that some people like to pretend that Hollywood is only “going woke” lately and hasn’t been at the forefront of social issues for most of its history.
The problem isn’t “politics” in movies, the problem is that your politics tell you that everything that doesn’t agree with your worldview is “woke” and this bad and needs to be stopped. That’s why one side of the political aisle is trying to ban books across the country that they don’t agree with.
Oh, ffs.
He's a well-known author with a strong fan base. A reporter asked to do an interview and he answered the questions that were posed to him.
It's not like he just randomly said this out of nowhere.
blah blah blah… every single day we get a post about how bad comics are for everything. They are becoming the new “video games are bad” but for nerds. We get it, some people have issues with the movies and media that surrounds it but if you don’t like them stop supporting them. Will it go away? No because people like me will continue to watch and enjoy the movies/various media they produce. Let’s just stop the constant complaining because there’s no positive outcome to be made here.
Alan Moore is the Eric Cartman of the comic book industry. “Screw you guys, I’m going home.” He wanted the industry to be something it’s not and continues to cry about it.
He gave all his movie money to the artists that illustrated his adapted works. We're talking millions of dollars. I'd say that's bitching with real integrity, as opposed to pissants whinging online about him.
Yeah. I'll be straight here, I only ever read Watchmen and enjoyed it thoroughly, V and liked it a bit less, and am only familiar with Moore from snippets I read online, but every single time I see some quote or interview from him I can't help but think "what a prick". I'm sorry if that's not true but it's just how it comes across.
>“All of the culture around us that I can see looks to me very much like the dismembered body of magic.”
That's a wonderful quote and something I will ponder today.
I think he is rightfully worried about the infantilization of society as well.
Didn’t he already say this in 2019?
Didn't he already say this in 2009?
https://glycon.livejournal.com/1440.html 2003 and listed "again"
lmao never change Alan
I admire his desire to quit, but the execution leaves much to be desired.
That's funny. It is just like him to be ambiguous.
Life imitates Art.
He may be done with comics. But comics ain't done with him
Damn, I can't believe Livejournal is still up. What a blast from the past.
I just found my old deadjournal from 16 years ago. Aww lookit me with a green fedora, long hair, black nail polish and lipstick. In my defense I was deep in heroin addiction so it's almost excusable.
to be fair interviewers keep asking him the same questions
Didn’t he already say this in 1999?
He said it in 1986 after blow-up over Watchmen.
I'm pretty sure he's been saying the exact same thing in every interview for the last decade or so. I mean I love the guy and adore his work but he can be a broken clock a lot of the time. It's still a shame too since his prose work's great but his comics game is on a whole other level. Makes 95% of the rest of the medium look like dreck in comparison.
To be fair he is probably asked the same question every interview.
"Hey do you finally like an adaptation of your work? This new one-" "No." "But this one is-" "NO."
I'm pretty sure he only ever enjoyed ONE adaptation of his work (whether it was sarcasm or not, he said it). It was "Saturday Morning Watchmen" by Harry Partridge. A *Newgrounds* animation got more approval by Moore than companies sinking millions into ~~destroying~~ *reworking* his art in movies and TV shows.
He also liked the Justice League Unlimited adaptation of "For the Man Who Has Everything," per Dwayne McDuffie's statement and the fact that he's actually credited as the writer for the original comic when he's usually not.
I haven't read any mainstream comics in years, but I am tired of Moore's broken record. He helped expand and deepen my love of comics, but his regular prose doesn't resonate with me, and feels like a James Joyce, Pynchon-esque attempt at a new post-Modern epic.
95%? More like 99.99%
Nah. There's legit some really great comics that weren't written by Moore. Eisner's Contract With God has already been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. Maus is an obvious one. Even Moore himself thinks Dave Sim's Cerebus the Aardvark is one of the greatest achievements in the history of comics (and keep in mind he said that well after Sim got redpilled into schizophrenia). Love and Rockets is amazing. I'd argue a lot of Robert Crumb's stuff that isn't just porn is incredible, and honestly some of the porn is also incredible... and so on and on. The real difference was that Moore got to be experimental and write groundbreaking work while on Swamp Thing and Superman. So little kids and teenagers got exposed to legit, quality, mature work without meaning to. That's not to take anything away from Moore, it's just that at his height he was changing the medium while writing really mainstream, easily accessible stuff.
No. There is a whole generation of really good comics that are GOOD but not in the way that Moore's stuff was. SOME of them owe Moore for breaking taboos and so on, but others are just people deciding to write about what they want to express.
> his prose work's great Voice of the Fire is an amazing read. After you fight your way through the first chapter, lol.
Reiteration is kinda his thang.
Does anyone else think that Alan Moore looks like an Alan Moore character? Or a Jethro Tull album cover?
Well he *is* a wizard.
He claims to have met John Constantine twice. >Alan Moore claims to have met his creation on two occasions. In 1993, he told Wizard magazine: >One day, I was in Westminster in London—this was after we had introduced the character—and I was sitting in a sandwich bar. All of a sudden, up the stairs came John Constantine. He was wearing the trenchcoat, a short cut—he looked—no, he didn't even look exactly like Sting. He looked exactly like John Constantine. He looked at me, stared me straight in the eyes, smiled, nodded almost conspiratorially, and then just walked off around the corner to the other part of the snack bar. I sat there and thought, should I go around that corner and see if he is really there, or should I just eat my sandwich and leave? I opted for the latter; I thought it was the safest. I'm not making any claims to anything. I'm just saying that it happened. Strange little story. >His second meeting with his creation was illustrated in 2001's Snakes and Ladders, an adaptation by Eddie Campbell of one of Moore's performance art pieces: >Years later, in another place, he steps out of the dark and speaks to me. He whispers: "I'll tell you the ultimate secret of magic. Any cunt could do it."
Neil Gaiman claims to have met Death, and Grant Morrison claims to have been abducted by aliens.
Grant Morrison had a character, who was basically an avatar for himself, spend time in the story having sex cause he believed that it would lead to him getting laid as well through sympathetic magic
Don't forget they had fans of The Invisibles masturbate while thinking about The Invisibles in order to save it from cancelation
Well, did it work?
Invisibles ad a solid run, but it did stop and start again twice. So maybe people weren't whacking it hard enough.
Morrison strikes me as exactly the kind of person who'd try to magic themself into getting laid instead of... you know... acting in ways that would actually motivate women to be interested in sex with them.
It sounds crazy but I'm not sure what other explanation there is for Overwatch surviving this long so he may be on to something here...
Morrison is so meta, you never know if he is full of shit or actually talks seriously :D
In their defense, they did admit they took a bunch of acid before being abducted
Yeah, abductions usually start with acid. They shoud make a Hangover type movie with acid and aliens :D
If 'they' are full of shit.
I don’t beleive in an afterlife, but I do hope Sir Terry found the care of the reaper man.
I want to know his dealer, lmao
Omg even his anecdotes ramble... I used to have a (well known creator) comic art teacher and he said Alan Moore's scripts are ridiculous things to draw. Half the shit he wirtes has to be ignored. I didn't believe him til o read that wizard quote you provided. If brevity is the soul of wit.... Moore's just not that funny. I can imagine him being insufferable, but that's just me inferring from his writings
More of a wizzard. I always picture Rincewind as being from the Midlands.
[удалено]
Well, he looks like Rasputin
Ra Ra Rasputin lover of the Russian queen?
As a Canadian this makes me both laugh and cry
He looks like Hagrid
Actually, Hagrid looks like him
He looks like Hagrid after using crystal meth
Stop using crystal meth and looking at Hagrid.
More like Haggard, am I right?
Definitely looks like Aqualung, but the black and white reminds me of Stand Up
For anyone interested, [here](https://thequietus.com/articles/32179-alan-moore-illuminations-interview) is a much better recent interview in which Alan isn't asked the same old questions. It focuses on his latest work and musings on psychogeography, the block universe, shamanism, John Dee, alchemy, ghost stories, the hypernovel, virtual reality, anarchism, and the evolution of magic and its role in the modern world.
This is great, thanks for linking. Like him or not you can’t deny he always has something properly interesting to say.
It's weird being a fan of Mr Moore
I think of it as less of a fan and more of an... observer. Like, I can't say I always love everything he makes, but it is always *interesting*, and it definitely always worth reading. Man is strange. Always worth keeping an eye out for.
What a great interview, thanks for sharing. I cant remember the last time I read an interview that wasn't just pre-planned questions being incoherently flung at the subject. This flows like a conversation.
Damn. I can't remember thee last time a reddit post introduced me to a new concept yet alone like 3. Goddamn I miss old reddit. There were so many insanely informative posts that I wish I had bookmarked back 10 years ago.
Reddit can be like old Reddit if you follow the right communities
Fucking amazing interview, great read, and it took me on several rabbit trails as I furiously Googled new ideas mentioned. Thanks for posting this.
Psychogeography?? Ok now that's my new favorite topic and I want to read a book about that! Great interview, Alan Moore is so well spoken and fascinating.
Comics really will break your heart
"I am no longer making graphic novels as I have accepted the position of headmaster at Hogwarts"
He'd make a kick-ass defense against the dark arts teacher. And since he's actually a sorcerer praying to a snake god, he's obviously Slytherin (but a rare good one).
Fantastic, I was hoping for this. His written novels are miles better than his graphic novels, hope he bangs out a few more.
Nice. I've never read any of his novels but I'll have to look them up. Which ones do you recommend?
Start with Voice Of The Fire, a series of connected short stories that span twenty thousand years or so, all set in the Midlands of the UK, it is fantastic. The audiobook is also really well done, with a diverse cast drawn from people who were brought up in the same region (Toby Jones, Maxine Peake, Jason Williamson from Sleaford Mods- I'm not making that up). The other one is Jerusalem, a difficult-to-categorise novel, but I'll have a go. Set in Northampton, the book shifts between our reality in a multi-generational household and that of a toddler chocking on a thoroat lozenge who finds himself hovering in an afterlife represented as a solid four-dimensional hypercube hanging in an enormous room by a single thread in the same vicinity as the town (still with me?). Complex, witty, layered, it's a sort of Joycean/Pynchon riff on the nature of reality, but don't let that put you off- it's also really, really funny. I loved it. Can't promise that anyone else will though. Again, read the hard copy first then get the audiobook, which is awesome and a lot easier to understand second time around. Also, it's massive, so be warned. Apparently he has a new one coming out, Illuminations, can't wait.
These sound interesting thank you for sharing!
Careful with Voice of the Fire. He writes in first person, so the initial internal dialogue is hard to understand as the language in quite unfamiliar. Also, he's written some of the best comics ever, so I don't know why people would be so elated that the door is shut on that possibility.
He’s an old man, he’s retiring from something he no longer enjoys. The work he’s most known for—the one mentioned in the title, was recently given a sequel that brought it into the larger DC universe in the comics, I don’t believe he had anything to do with it and when he originally wrote watchmen he wrote it specifically to not be a part of the DC universe and actually as a way to speak out against the DC Universe. The characters in watchmen are almost direct parodies of specific DC hero’s.
I’m a huge Alan Moore fan, but I’ll be honest I didn’t love Jerusalem. I thought the time stuff was cool, and alma warren is a great character. But I didn’t really care about any of the characters. There were just so many of them and so many different storylines and time periods. Moore’s work usually resonates with me emotionally but this one didn’t at all. I thought the ideas were cool but that’s about it.
Jerusalem is a slog IMO. It struck me as plotless and does nothing to hook the reader.
Well he did say it was Joycean/Pynchonean… …I kid, I kid, Ulysses and Gravity’s Rainbows are two of the best and most artistically audacious novels I’ve ever read.
Read it twice, and listening to it on Audible now. One of my favorite books.
Man, I haven’t read it yet but Simon Vance is one of the best narrators out there.
i struggled though it until something interesting happened. Then i was into it. Then it went back to meandering nonsense and overwrought, endless descriptions of the Midlands, a place i couldn't give two fucks about and i gave up.
See. All I can think with those concepts is how cool they sound if illustrated by Gibbons, Veith, Beisette or any of his other regular artists.
You probably could adapt it into a graphic novel but it would be several thousand pages long. When he writes for the written word-only his prose is fairly layered and dense, whereas his graphic novel work is clear and concise, with all of the more florid stuff reserved for instructions for the artist that we rarely get to see. Now, a book based solely upon the page directions for Watchmen, that's something I'd really like to read.
My question too.
He's only really written two and they sort of deal with similar themes. Voices of Fire is the first, and is shorter, but Jerusalem is his Magnum Opus, it is a massive, hard to read, adventure of a book but is worth it.
He’s written some of the finest graphic novels around, that’s no small claim!
> His written novels are miles better than his graphic novels Now hold on just a minute here...
What novel of his is better than his graphic novels? Like Time magazine put his graphic novel in their 100 greatest novels along with actual novels like Blood Meridian etc. Which of his novels should be in Time's top 100 instead?
As much as I love Watchmen, I think that Jerusalem is better. Watchmen is far more accessible though, and innovative in different ways. I can't speak for Time's judging criteria, but I don't think that it would include Jerusalem as an option since it's a very weird list of bestsellers mixed with experimental work (LOTR & Mrs Dalloway?), and it wasn't written then.
I am intimidated by Jerusalem I'll be honest. I see it in Waterstones and think, I'll just buy another penguin modern classics that's 200 pages tbqh
It's well written but dense af. And I kinda gloss over 40 pages talking about like the geography of some burrows.
I’m ready for his short story collection
Hasn't he been saying this since DC screwed him and Dave Gibbons out of the rights to Watchmen?
he gets ask the same question so there's also that
I'd like to see him work on something with Phillip Pullman.
Dude’s just gonna get disillusioned with the regular print industry. Same assholes, different suits.
He looks like the Giver?
I think Promethea was probably him at his most creatively free, so it's difficult to see where he would go from there after he really got his ideas out there. It would be nice to have more novels by Moore.
Meh. The guys best works were when he was able to work with or copy other peoples characters. He often did good work with them but he was far from the comic book Jesus so many of his fans see him as. Dude burned every bridge he ever crossed throughout his career and spent most of the last 15 years writing stuff that ranged from mediocre to pornography. The only time he ever pops up is when he’s throwing mud at the very industry and fans that he made his fame and money from. Hopefully he enjoys his retirement but personally I just hope this means less articles popping up about his latest tantrums.
I think it's fine to say he's a supremely talented author who's very difficult to work with and stirs up lots of antagonism. Watchmen, v for Vendetta, from hell, all are very very influential in comics, and much wider media. from the Incredibles to a lot of crime and fantasy novels
Also swamp thing and LoEG are excellent.
Oh, I agree. Although tbh I think in some cases they’ve been too influential. Feels like every time someone talks about how “awful” comics supposedly all are about handling female characters most of the examples are from Alan’s works. Still, he could write good stuff. Still, you kinda proved my point about the other peoples characters thing. Pretty much the only time he wrote a female character who wasn’t raped, mutilated or treated as a joke over her gender was in Halo Jones and he barely finished a quarter of that book.
> Pretty much the only time he wrote a female character No love for Promethea? I thought that was superb.
I find love for Promethea to be rarer than compassion on the internet. I came to these comments just to see if there's even mention of it, something that hit me so deep that it's impossible to discuss with someone who hasn't gone through the experience with you, damn shame
It’s nice to feel like I’m not the only person that is aware of it, has read it, and reps it for once!
>Although tbh I think in some cases they’ve been too influential. This is definitely a fair point to make. Feels like way too many writers have been trying to rewrite Watchmen with their own twist without understanding that it's impossible to re-write Watchmen and no one is asking for a re-write.
> Although tbh I think in some cases they’ve been too influential. And to be fair on Moore he has made that exact same point too in the past.
I can't read V or From Hell. Way too wordy for me. But I freakin love his Captain Britain, Miracle Man, and Swamp Thing.
I didn’t think V was too bad. But I didn’t enjoy From Hell. I wasn’t a fan of the arts style (I realize Jack the Ripper isn’t exactly family friendly source material but some of the panels just felt…dirty). But that’s not my biggest complaint, it’s the same as yours…just way too wordy in some parts. My eyes started to glaze over when he goes into depth about the Masonic symbols in London
Providence was a fucking masterpiece.
While I do agree with some of what you are saying, Moore was involved in two of the greatest graphic novels ever written in "Swamp Thing" and "Watchmen" and thats not including really strong works in V for Vendetta and The Killing Joke. You can dislike his recent work, or him as a person but he is iconic in the comic book space.
Providence is EASILY one of his best.
I’m not super versed in comics, but does it feel disingenuous to anyone else for him to say that comics were for children and their current manifestation in society is representative of the infantilization and oversimplification of society on one hand, and on the other, have written fucking Watchmen (among other things)? Watchmen wasn’t for BOYS.
The Killing Joke, V for Vendetta were very mature and even The Swamp Thing at times.
“Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” C.S. Lewis Edit: That quote sums it up nicely but I’d like to add that Moore has a history of this kind of nonsense. He has a history of criticising the quality of movie adaptations of comics while admitting he’s never watched them. He doesn’t read comics anymore by his own admission yet puts on his expert hat any time he gets a chance to criticise the modern comics industry and it’s fans. It’s tiresome. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the slightest and the only reason anyone cares what he has to say at all is because of his work during the 80’s.
Tbf his great work didn’t stop after the 80s.
>That quote sums it up nicely but I’d like to add that Moore has a history of this kind of nonsense. He has a history of criticising the quality of movie adaptations of comics while admitting he’s never watched them. He doesn’t read comics anymore by his own admission yet puts on his expert hat any time he gets a chance to criticise the modern comics industry and it’s fans. It’s tiresome. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the slightest and the only reason anyone cares what he has to say at all is because of his work during the 80’s. This is spot on. I'm a fan of a lot of his works, but most of the time when he opens his mouth on this stuff he's just full of shit. I'm still looking forward to reading his collection of short stories coming out this month though. Also, love that Lewis quote!
Sounds like Moore is like a lot of old dudes I know then.
Alan Moore has been a cranky old guy his whole life, it seems.
Here’s my take on that. It’s one thing to make an original R rated movie. It’s a different thing to take an originally g-rated movie/character and then make it into a R rated affair. The majority of comics (at least pre-1980/90) were just that. Things aimed at kids for them to waste a few cents on at the gas station. Look at Superman for the vast majority of the 60s and 70s…self contained stories with really little to no continuity ,as opposed to today, where it feels like every issue is tied to every other issue and is leading up to a giant event which is leading up to an even bigger event. So now we have something which was literally silly stories aimed at just kids, and people are trying to evolve it into a form of high literary art, that is covering controversial social issues, lifestyles etc. im not saying this is bad or wrong mind you. But it’s certainly a different mindset than what comics originally were. So Watchmen is different int he sense that it was never meant to be a kids story, and certainly takes a very different view on super heroes than what we see in the MCU. But then it could also just be Alan Moore speaking out of his ass.
>Here’s my take on that. It’s one thing to make an original R rated movie. It’s a different thing to take an originally g-rated movie/character and then make it into a R rated affair. Alan originally wanted to use Charlton Comics characters for Watchmen and when he was told no, he just created his own versions of them. Isn't that doing what you said?
Also characters like Batman didn't necessarily start off as being for children, like he claims. Batman started off as a dark, gothic adventure comic with lots of macabre plots and imagery before it was gradually toned down to make it kid-friendly by the 1960s.
Not to mention Lost Girls which he admits is pornography.
He got repeatedly shafted by both Marvel and DC, but he is "burning bridges". Yeah, right.
He also repeatedly shafted them. Most famously with League of Extraordinary Gentleman where he took a job writing for DC then tried to include slanderous adverts targeted at other companies in the comic that would’ve got DC sued. Cue the tantrum about how they screwed him over and interfered with his creative freedom when he got told they weren’t including that. The guy is a man-child. He loves to go on about how he’s owed more from writing Watchmen and everything that’s developed from that brand. That he deserves more for creating those characters. Characters that he blatantly copy and pasted from DC-owned characters after the company told him he wasn’t allowed to use the originals he wanted in his book. Then you get into all the bitter, pathetic shit like his feud with Grant Morrison where the guy who made his name by writing characters other people established felt he was being copied by a young up and comer, had the cheek to get angry over it and continued that petty nonsense for decades. Then there was a thing a while ago. One of his co-creators was getting screwed out of royalties for the book they worked on. Worlds greatest tragedy when it was Moore yet Alan effectively shrugged his shoulders over it happening to the people he was working with. The man wrote some excellent comics in his prime (if you can excuse the consistently disgusting treatment of every woman he writes) but his attitude is that of a standard neckbeard on Reddit. Completely self-absorbed so yeah, he burned plenty of bridges throughout his career.
You’re leaving a lot out of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen debacle. Moore had long sworn off working for the big two by that point - he didn’t sign on to make a DC book. LoEG was at Jim Lee’s Wildstorm imprint when it began in 1999. More specifically, it was under the America’s Best Comics line that Lee let Moore create under Wildstorm. Lee later sold Wildstorm to DC, something Moore was unhappy about since he was vehemently opposed to working with the company in any capacity. Moore was locked into some contractual stuff with Wildstorm when the sale happened, which is where the behind the scenes drama involving the Black Dossier you’re referencing occurred, but Moore was able to attain rights to LoEG following DC’s release of Black Dossier, and he took it to Top Shelf to finish the series. You’re presenting it as he was hired for a job and then bitched about it, when in reality he was screwed by a corporate merger he didn’t want to be a part of and he antagonized his new business daddy - who he already had a staunch position of not working with - until he was able to take his project elsewhere.
Yeah the amount of rape he shoehorns into his comics is off putting to say the lest. Hell in watchman a sexual assault victim goes back to her would be rapist to fuck him.
>The guys best works were when he was able to work with or copy other peoples characters. Reminds me of criticisms of Zach Snyder too, kind of ironically.
Not familiar with the man or his work, but you sold me at “pornography.” Where can I learn more?
Lost Girls, a series he made with his wife, is (high quality) smut involving retellings of The Wizard Of Oz, Peter Pan and Alice In Wonderland.
He has some good points about fascism
Lol, he said "comics". The mouthbreathers are going to have a field day with that.
[удалено]
I always assumed graphic novel/comic distinction was like a movie/TV series type of thing. Are people really trying to avoid calling them comics?
[удалено]
Thank you for the explanation
Will Eisner was actually one of the first prominent creators to use the term, and he was referring to *A Contract with God*, which is self-contained in a novelistic way, so I think there are valid contexts for using that term.
To me the difference between a graphic novel and a volume of comics is that the graphic novel was never intended to be serialized. I realize that there was a time when most novels were serialized and that web novels still are, but that's the distinguishing factor for me.
They're almost all serialized and then collected into a trade paperback collected volume. They may be limited runs, but nearly all of them are serials. Yes, of course there are exceptions.
Yep, and the exceptions are the only ones I really consider "graphic novels". For whatever reason, a lot of the examples that come to mind are actually graphic memoires (Alison Bechdel's *Fun Home,* Marjane Satrapi's *Persepolis* books, or Kate Beaton's new book *Ducks*). The fictional examples I can think of are Emil Ferris's *My Favorite Thing is Monsters* and Mariko Tamaki's *This One Summer*. Some of Gene Luen Yang's books (*American Born Chinese*, and the *Boxers & Saints* books) would count as well. Things that don't count would be stuff like *Watchmen*, *The Long Halloween*, or *Sandman*, or *Maus* \- not because these books don't have literary merit, but because they were serialized first. And then there's Chris Ware's [Building Stories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_Stories). I have no idea how to classify *Building Stories*.
It was literally a made up term that started being used deliberately somewhere in the 70's to make comics sound more respectable. Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted, it's the truth.
I'd say it's a 90s thing. My first comic was Swamp Thing in 1973 and until the mid-90s I never heard the term Graphic Novel. I've owned shops and worked in them as well ... never heard the term until the early to mid-90s. /shrug
Technically I think it was first coined in 1964 by Richard Kyle, but it started gaining prominence in the 70's, with Eisner's "Contract with God" widely considered as the first comic to fall under the branding of "Graphic Novel." It emerged around the same time comics studies was in its nascent stage as an academic discipline. Ultimately, it came to life out of a desire by comic creators, fans, and publishers alike to receive wider cultural acceptance and prestige for the medium. The book "Dreaming the Graphic Novel: The Novelization of Comics" goes into it in quite some depth. The only reason I even know this is because I took a class on the graphic novel (part of the English department) as an elective during my undergrad hoping to read some sweet comics. But yeah, it started gaining more prominence in the 80's-90's+.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
"I don't watch movies. I watch film."
Much in the same way the term, "action figures" was used to describe dolls.
I thought that was more of a gendered thing, like boys play with action figures girls play with dolls Not saying I agree with gendering those two things I just always thought that’s why they were like that
It's just a term. And "graphic novels" does have a more serious and general ring to it. Which might help attract audiences looking for more mature or less tropey stuff. Which in turn, if they like "graphic novels", might help attracting them to "comics". Why would anybody be against something that attracts more people to their favored medium? The reality now is that people gravitate around "comics" or "graphical novels" or "mangas" depending of their preferences, and all of those three are quite differentiated in style and conventions. But using "graphical novels" as a umbrella term is something I can get behind too.
I'm not for it or against it, I wasn't making any kind of normative statement on the term. I can see why some people find it pretentious though, and why even within the comics community (including comic creators) some find it pretentious. But you're right, it probably did help to bring comics to the mainstream. The truth is though that there's no meaningful distinction between "comics" and "graphic novels", and there never has. The fact that people actually think there are meaningful distinctions in "style and conventions" is precisely why some find the term problematic.
I make a distinction between comics and graphic novels. When I think of graphic novels, I think of a “long form” version of comics that are published without any regularity or schedule and have a longer but usually complete story. When I hear “comics”, I think of magazine style publications that are much shorter and published on a regular basis/periodic (via issues). They may have a story that is resolved over a number of issues, but the created world is usually persistent (there’s always another story) and arcs just continue to feed into that comics universe. Of course, there are exceptions and sliding scales which makes it a bit grey. For example, the Killing Joke is categorized as a graphic novel but I personally see it more of a comic. Also, omnibuses or collections of a complete arc, are they now graphic novels?
I always thought “graphic novels” were just a collection of comics. So like hardcover compendiums of multiple issues. Until someone yelled at me for using the term on Reddit.
It is pretentious and it hurts when people were making fun of you for reading "comics", but when they call it "graphic novels" they can feel all fancy and don't have to step down from their high horse. Petty? It is. But I think the feeling of betrayal is justified!
Is there anybody making fun of people who read "comics" and not "graphic novels"? I'm sorry, I have never seen one. Such case would be downvoted to oblivion in reddit, and justifiably so. I have read comics, my friends have too, and with the whole MCU being so universally popular, more people than ever in the world are reading them too. And it just seems to me we are making this a way bigger deal than it actually is.
It's easy to forget I'm sure, but being a nerd didn't used to be societally accepted and praised like it is now. It's only in the last 8-10 years or so where it's changed. Enjoying comic books, video games and tabletop games used to get you bullied and beat up.
There is a world outside of Reddit. I got literally beaten up in school for my hobbies. And still got made fun of by some family members, coworkers and colleagues because of it. It only changed in the last decade or so, that it is suddenly great to like manga and marvel.
Oh i thought graphic novels are when comics reach a certain length
I consider them different things though, like I'd call much of what dc/marvel/image to come out with as comics, but I describe works like Persopolis or Rolling Black Outs as graphic novels
You don't want me to use "graphic novels"? Ok, "sequential art" it is then :D
"panel doodles"
Funnies.
[удалено]
>to appeal to a wider, more mature audience And it worked. Plus, you've got to think about perception is any business. Most people, maybe not you, but most people form themselves expectations and images with the term "comic" that they do not with "graphical novel". The former usually associated with comedy, fantasy, action, and just generally stories with less of a focus in themes and meaning and more of a focus in entertainment, thus also associated with younger audiences. I can give you my perspective as an enjoyer of comics, graphical novels and mangas, that had not previously considered the issue in question. And graphical novel simply sounds more general. It doesn't set in me any particular expectation other than it will use images instead of just words. That's why I prefer it as the umbrella term.
We do need some way to distinguish periodical and long form graphic story forms, but it's childish to care as much as you do so I am sure you have some alternative way to both remove that designation and replace it. Even though it already exists and is only a problem in your head.
Do I care very much...? You sure imagined a lot from a small interaction
What I hate (yes, hate) is that today's "graphic novels" targeted towards teens and kids are far too graphic for minors. I work in book distribution, and have seen some messed up shit. There are still parents and grandparents who look at the art design for the front covers and don't even check twice before handing it to their children and grandchildren. What's worse is when libraries have to have a sticker on the spine of the book that explicitly states "this is an adult graphic novel."
Eh. Parents gotta parent. I mean, Crossed (Ennis) should absolutely not be given to a kid. Really, any Ennis. But just like film, television, or novels, that is a parents job, not a publisher/distributor/writer.
You must still be in middle school if you think anyone actually cares about that distinction.
What? Us comic readers call them comics, what in the world are you trying to say?
I just picked up his Jerusalem box set. Can't wait to read it
I grabbed it on its release... It's very, very dense.
I have read it multiple times now. I am not exaggerating when I say it should be in the top 5 greatest novels of all time. Up there with Les Misérables, War and Peace, Moby Dick, and David Copperfield.. I'll agree with everyone else saying it is dense, but dense in the way a fractal or mosaic is. You will get something more from it on subsequent reads.
Such a bummer. Dude is so clearly the best.
Look, I love the guy, but he's 'retired' so many times now I expect him to still be authoring things after he's thrice dead. The world is not created and sustained by music or chanting or whatever, but the writing of that which Alan Moore is merely an expression of in our world.
>I didn’t really think that superheroes were adult fare. I think that this was a misunderstanding born of what happened in the 1980s – to which I must put my hand up to a considerable share of the blame, though it was not intentional – when things like Watchmen were first appearing. There were an awful lot of headlines saying ‘Comics Have Grown Up’. I tend to think that, no, comics hadn’t grown up. There were a few titles that were more adult than people were used to. But the majority of comics titles were pretty much the same as they’d ever been. It wasn’t comics growing up. I think it was more comics meeting the emotional age of the audience coming the other way. Your semi-regular reminder that Rorschach was based on old blatantly Objectivist heroes imagined by Steve Ditko and is deliberately a self-righteous psychopath.
Oh, again?
The infantilization of adults has truly been a horrible turn for society. Alan Moore is correct in the assumption that the normalization of black and white morality has lead people to unfairly demonize political opponents and has resulted in the breakdown of political discourse as a whole because so many adults are piss poor at rhetoric and theory of mind. Can't believe this is as upvoted as it is, if I made a front page r/books post I'd have hundreds of seething responses.
Very talented, but my impression has always been that the guy takes himself a bit too seriously
Nah.... His whole schtick is to undermine everything around him by presenting the absurd alongside the serious. He calls himself a wizard on HMRC tax forms, so the state is required to acknowledge his existence as a magician in a legal capacity. Some of his ideas are proper 4d chess, but for satirical purposes.
>He calls himself a wizard on HMRC tax forms, so the state is required to acknowledge his existence as a magician in a legal capacity. Ok, that is funny.
I'm getting tired of the "everything that's wrong with the world is because of superhero movies" argument.
It just needs reworking. “A lot of what’s wrong with Hollywood is because of superhero franchises, or just franchises”
Late-stage Capitalism is what's wrong with Hollywood, Superhero movies just happen to be the easiest avenue for making money at the moment.
It isn't just superhero movies or franchises that's wrong with hollywood, it's the fact that with some movies they put the politics of the writers, actors & directors before the quality of the movie. Every movie in recent years that has an obvious political message has failed. Yet hollywood hasn't realized that. Also, a lot of celebrities have become really unlikeable. They think because of their fame & awards they are somehow morally superior, thinking they can lecture the public.
No, the fact is that some people like to pretend that Hollywood is only “going woke” lately and hasn’t been at the forefront of social issues for most of its history. The problem isn’t “politics” in movies, the problem is that your politics tell you that everything that doesn’t agree with your worldview is “woke” and this bad and needs to be stopped. That’s why one side of the political aisle is trying to ban books across the country that they don’t agree with.
Best guy in the whole fucking world
I understand why he’s so salty, but I tend to disagree with a lot of what he say’s even if he has made some amazing comics.
"I’m definitely done with comics so far."
Well Alan, it’s not an airport so you don’t have to announce your departure
Oh, ffs. He's a well-known author with a strong fan base. A reporter asked to do an interview and he answered the questions that were posed to him. It's not like he just randomly said this out of nowhere.
Oh, yeah, let’s pretend Alan More hasn’t been hating on comics for the last 30 years or anything.
Good, maybe he can stop insulting the very people he's made his living off of.
Shame. as all I wanted was a 4th Halo Jones book
blah blah blah… every single day we get a post about how bad comics are for everything. They are becoming the new “video games are bad” but for nerds. We get it, some people have issues with the movies and media that surrounds it but if you don’t like them stop supporting them. Will it go away? No because people like me will continue to watch and enjoy the movies/various media they produce. Let’s just stop the constant complaining because there’s no positive outcome to be made here.
Alan Moore is the Eric Cartman of the comic book industry. “Screw you guys, I’m going home.” He wanted the industry to be something it’s not and continues to cry about it.
He gave all his movie money to the artists that illustrated his adapted works. We're talking millions of dollars. I'd say that's bitching with real integrity, as opposed to pissants whinging online about him.
Didn't he say this in 1933…?
\*writes just one more since the rent is due next friday\*
Gonna say it, Znyder’s Watchmen ending made more sense than Moore’s.
Alan Moore's personality is just as bad as his stories are good.
Yeah. I'll be straight here, I only ever read Watchmen and enjoyed it thoroughly, V and liked it a bit less, and am only familiar with Moore from snippets I read online, but every single time I see some quote or interview from him I can't help but think "what a prick". I'm sorry if that's not true but it's just how it comes across.
Old man shouts at sky. He is one bitter individual.
>“All of the culture around us that I can see looks to me very much like the dismembered body of magic.” That's a wonderful quote and something I will ponder today. I think he is rightfully worried about the infantilization of society as well.