I don't see the point in arguing with an established creator about another established creator, when the philosophies behind their work are diametrically opposed and your (Timson's) "points" will be lost. I agree that John Byrne's views on Moore are overt, but he's earned the right to make them. It is true that Moore has no interest whatsoever in respecting the history of comic characters, to his own ends, but it's been pointed out that no character has to be descontructed forever. If DOOM PATROL can be brought back to its roots after Grant Morrison, any title can be returned to what it once was. Including MIRACLEMAN.

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.

*****

Real change in comics is bad.  It's the illusion of change that makes it interesting.

Of course, now that you seem to be saying that because the 'lie' is nearly
always the rule (which it isn't), that it's ok to generalise? Interesting.

When a strong pattern is clearly established (and "everything you know is a lie" most definately is) in abody of work am I to understand you that it is somehow NOT okay to generalize? Is that not WHY we actually make generlizations in the first place?

That's a laughable ridiculous statement akin to "I'm not vegetarian because I ate part of a drumstick four years ago. Don't generalize me as a vegetarian."

By those lights Salvadore Dali was not really a surrealist because we dare no generalize his work.

Perhaps. But then there are things like the Mary Tourtell created Rupert The Bear which was created to order in response to competition but was taken over and became sublimely good and a fixture of British Childhood ever since because of what Alfred Bestalls work. If they'd stopped after Mary left the strip he'd be a forgotten non entity in the world of newspaper strips. Thanks to Bestall, and his eventual succesor John Harold he's still entertaining millions of kids. Certainly not better to stop in that case.

Are theer people who could continue Peanuts. Certainly, just as there are people who can and do follow on from Chester Gould. The strip isn't continued because, like Modesty Blaise, the creator remained the same throughout the run and he chose to walk away after decades behind the pen. If either had died in the job would there strips have been relegated to repears if they appear at all. Who knows but I suspect not.

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.

Moore is "singled out" because 1.) we are talking about Marvel Man/Miracle Man and 2.) Moore took the deconstructive redefinition of super heroes thing to an extreme and was applauded for it and widely imitated(usually badly) until what was a weird and intense sideline of super hero comics morphed into the main product.