Matt, I will admit my comment about hypocrisy in the thread was partly to see if anyone would ask me to qualify that statement. 

My position is that Moore's stance regarding his work and films of his work is not hypocritical and that the extracts from interviews posted validate this.  Yourself and others don't share that view and I see no point in continuing that line of debate.  On this issue we are poles apart and that will not change.

I didn't comment on Lost Girls because I have not read it.  That said,I will say that I find myself in agreement with a lot of JB's comments on this page and don't think it is cynical at all to suggest that the attention garnered for the book is down to the characters that he has used.  To be honest I think their use kind of reeks of creative bankruptcy.  Regarding the legalities of the use of same, I'm not quite sure, it does not seem to be straightforward.

I also think that Rance makes a lot of sense in particular with regard to each to their own.

Jacob P Secrest wrote: He published work featuring a character he doesn't own the rights to, that is copyright infringement, that is illegal.

Mmm, until he is found guilty of copyright infringement, then he is considered innocent, at least in an American court of law. Aside from that, there may be extenuating circumstances that would negate the possibility of it being copyright infringement that we are unaware of. It is a morass of red tape when you get into the legalities of such matters.

Casey Sager wrote: I do opt to spend my money on something else. I thought this was a topic of conversation and I was expressing my point of view.

Hey, express away. I firmly believe in a  "live and let live"  motto. That's why I say let the people who want to see Alice and company in sexual adventures have their cake. It doesn't hurt you or anyone else in any way whatsoever as long as you don't view it for yourself.

Matt Reed wrote: It's Rance's position that if you're not buying it, it doesn't affect you, and therefore you really have no right to complain.  Not a position I agree with at all.

 

Not exactly. I admit I was being a bit sensational myself with the "mind your own damn business" remark, but honestly I think everybody should have the right to express their opinion. However, I don't think that just because you disagree with something that you should have the right to enforce your definition of what is right on other people.

Matt Reed wrote: I'm a fan of Luke Cage.  He's a character created for a mainstream, all-ages audience.  That Bendis! decided to write him having anal sex with another character in the MU is abhorrent to me.  Sure, it was in a MAX title.  But that doesn't mean that because it wasn't meant for children, as Rance has been wont to justify LOST GIRLS, that it's not wrong to use an all-ages character in such an adult manner.

Just because Luke Cage, or any other character, was originally created as an all ages character, it doesn't mean that other versions of that character can't be explored. Especially not just because you don't like it. There are plenty of people out there who do after all. Who are you to decide for them what kind of content they should read? I would also point out that when something like anal sex occurs with a character, then that character is no longer an "all ages" character. it is a character written for and (ideally) intended for an adult audience.

John Byrne wrote: And this choice was made by the creators of the characters?

No, they're dead. The decision as to how to portray a character should lie with the current owner of that character, no one else. Granted, in the case of Wendy in Moore's Lost Girls that may not be the case. But, for the sake of argument, if Moore had gotten the permission of Wendy's owners, where would be the harm? Children wouldn't be reading it, or if they were then the fault lies with the person who provided them with what is most definately adult content.

Edited to put Wendy's name in place of Alice's... Oops.

If you're Writer Z, and you have the greatest Luke Cage Anal Sex Story Ever Told Ever, maybe you should think about creating a Luke Cage surrogate first, and then have your fun. Heck, in the process of creating that alternative character, you might even decide that it's not a very good story after all.

But creating stuff is really really hard, and fucking stuff up is really really easy....

Ah, the old "think of the children" defense. Well, watch your kids and hopefully they won't become the victims of the big bad wolves of the world. Banning Lost Girls wouldn't be a drop in the bucket in a defense against pedophiles at any rate, and is seriously reaching as a reason to ban the book in my opinion.

Rey Madrinan wrote: The man stuck characters he didn't own into a porno book! I can't believe someone can even begin to defend him.

Actually, "the man" depicted two characters he didn't own engaged in anal sex that was published by a company that did own the characters, who also paid him for his efforts. There was no betrayal by the writer to the owner's of the characters.

Just because I think it should be mentioned, the original copyright on Peter Pan in the US expired in 1987.  In 1998 there came the "Copyright Extention Act", however since Peter Pan's copyright had already expired it wasn't eligiable for extention.  That's the arguement at least.

And another thing, you may have moral objections to Lost Girls.  It's understandable, however to condemn a work that has yet to even be release, well I don't know.  No one here has read it all right?  So you can't really judge it as child pornography and all that.  Maybe it will be, but I sure don't know.

Jason Fulton wrote: If you're Writer Z, and you have the greatest Luke Cage Anal Sex Story Ever Told Ever, maybe you should think about creating a Luke Cage surrogate first, and then have your fun. Heck, in the process of creating that alternative character, you might even decide that it's not a very good story after all.

He wasn't paid to tell stories about a Luke Cage surrogate, but about Luke Cage. The owners of the character, the people ultimately responsible for how the character is portrayed, saw no reason to use a surrogate and published the story.

Edited to fix the quotes.