I hate what Moore does with super heores mainly. Especially pre-existing ones that he didn't create himself. I've explained why.

I hate what his immitators have done with super heroes considerably more.  I hate watching Marvel and DCspeinging the last twenty years trying to become semi-2000AD hardcore.

And yes, Matt you are absolutely more full of it than I am.  You not only don't agree with my arguments... you don't meaningfully respond to them. You just sit there babbling about Cul 'de sacs and insinuating that I'm all Byrne-loving and all Moore hating and ignoring them.  Why? I submit that it's because you can't make a good case that what Moore did with Miracle man and what Byrne did with Man of Steel are equivalent even though you admit you'd like to hear Mr. Byrne admit that they are....why exactly?

Bored now.

You posited John Byrne's revamp of Superman as being just as much meddling with the intent of a character as anything Moore did. You also brought up the Vision, and the unfinished Hulk plot.

I am listening. What's more I am responding. I am applying critical thinking to what you said. I am objecting and supporting my objections. What I am not doing is agreeing with you. Or being persuaded.

In fact your assertion that what Moore did to Marvel Man doesn't matter because I never would have heard of Marvel Man(which previously you suggested that you never in fact said BTW) has been shot down as bunk. It only works if you can convince me that turning a character virtually inside out doesn't matter as long as no one (comparitively) can see it happening or if it's done to boring out of favor characters. I maintain that it does matter very much. It is an atrocity whether it is widely reported or not. Furthemore it is yet another set of evidence that Mr. Moore IS famous primarily for doing what you take issue with Mr. Byrne saying he does. "Everything you know is a lie."

It may be a bit of hyperbole to say that Moore doesn't ammount to  anything but "everything you know is a lie" but it is certainly a very large and significant  portion of Moore's super hero work and largely the sort of stuff that he is most famous for. No it is not literally true but it is largely accurate as far as observations go.It captures the reality wuite well. That IS Alan Moore's biggest claim to fame. Catastrophic re-invention, darkening, deconstruction. That is primarily how he services his audience. Are there some exceptions? Sure. However is it not said that the fact that exceptions are exceptions proves that there is a rule there?

Also if we are going to go hyper legalistic and pedantic as our only leg to stand on then:

" Surely, sticking to the claim that Moore has no story to tell beyond "everything you know is a lie" is doing exactly the same thing- pretending that Moore's work is something that it clearly is not."

is not the same thing as Mr. Byrne's actual quote:

" I have some very fond memories of MarvelMan, from when I was a child in England. I don't suppose I read more than a small handful of stories, but I remember enjoying them. It's a shame, then, to see characters like this fall into the hands of the deconstructionists -- especially someone like Moore, who seems to really have no story to tell beyond "everything you know is a lie".

Some characters, surely, are not meant to be "darkened"? "

If we are going to play overly semantic games then it should count for something that YOU Matt, had to remove extant softening words in Byrne's quote to transform his sentiment into an absolute formulation that you could then effortlessly "find invalid" mostly on the basis of the absoluteness that you chose to artificially heighten with your truncation. This reduces most of your own arguments so far to a mere exercise of the straw man fallacy. You've substituted your OWN STATEMENT for the actual statement of Mr. Byrne's that you wished to knock down.

Mr. Byrne is in his quote obviously referring to Miracle Man (Moore's "work" in this case) and saying that here Moore "seems to have no story to tell beyond "everything you know is a lie"." He brings nothing to the old story or the character beyond the act of perverting it and chewing it up. Now whether Mr. Byrne is applying that to Moore's entire carreer or just this work, or perhaps that specific period in Moore's career, is open to some interpretation unless Mr. Byrne chooses to clear it up.

I personally (and independently of Mr. Byrne's opinion on the matter) maintain that the claim applies pretty accurately for the most part(more than it does not) to most of Mr. Moore's "big time" career. That IS Moore's most commonly employed schtick in nutshell. The shoe fits.

There's only so many times that I can point out the fact that your outrage
of the treatment of Marvelman is laughable. It's a character you would
never even have heard of if not for Moore. John says he doesn't like it-
he at least has a genuine comparison to make. What do you have? Did
*you* read any of those stories as a boy?

*****

Just because i never read The Yellow Kid doesn't mean i would like to see an updated gritty version of it today.  i just object to basically destroying any characters for future generations.  Once you go into that territory, it's hard going back. 

One thing I don't get is why Moore is singalled out for 'everything is a lie' ness when comics have, almost uniquely as a story telling media, have a long history of playing that card. There are dozens of occasions where new writers come along and write the character they want to write. I'm prepared to be wrong but hasn't Aquamans history changed? And look at the characters that were revamped in the silver age.

Green Lantern is the most obvious example where the people involved took what they wanted from the concept and added what they wanted. It's a comic book thing I see Moores Marvel Man as being in the same catagory as the Silver Age Green Lantern. I'm guessing you could argue that Hal Jordans introduction is less offensive because they're closer in intent than the two Miracle men but hey ho.

And I think it's an odd arguement that only a creator can change a character, or that for that matter that any change is permenant. For a start the majority of creators of the superhero folk are long gone. Does that mean they should be static and unchanging? By subtle degrees characters have been changed and adapted to fit the world they're produced. Those that didn't eventually fade away becuase they become irrelevent. The 60's Batman might be a beaming buffoon a long way from the core concept of his origins but that kept him alive. There aer some gloriously silly stuff in the 50's and 60's that I dearly love - Batmite! - but in a way that's as far from the core concept as Miracleman.

And secondly I've read and seen over the years many stories that take Rupert the Bear, a beloved newspaper strip, in a darkly adult direction. The famous Oz image springs to mind. It didn't ruin the original, that's still there, and nor did it change my affection for him. The same goes for Morrisons Dare for that matter. Nothing has stopped people produciong adventures for the original Dan. And if you want to read them check out the awesome Spaceship Away!

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.