| Author |
|
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:45pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
So now the Time list is invalid because Watchmen "sticks out" or other stuff was excluded? This is starting to remind me of JB's consternation when people ask him for lists of his favorites on whatever topic - any favorite he fails to include is grounds for dismissing or chastising his choices.
The Time list is noteworthy because they're a reasonably prestigious organization and they decided to give it the time of day. But it's also just a list concocted by two of their staffers. Is it so impossible to believe they just thought it was a fine piece of work?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 9:57pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Brad Krawchuk wrote:
| A reasonably objective review by someone with some knowledge of the form, function, and history behind what they're reviewing is probably the best kind of review for any form of media or art. |
|
|
Okay, but...
Brad Krawchuk wrote:
| I'd argue that in the past 24 years since Watchmen was released, comics has imploded to the point where the only people reading them are 20-50 somethings who want their hobby taken seriously because comics have a stigma as being for kids. |
|
|
So knowledge of form, function and history is needed for a good, objective review, but no one can be trusted to offer that since Watchmen came out, apparently. That is one darkly comedic catch-22, Brad. A cynicism worthy of Alan Moore, I daresay.
I'd try to pull up some reviews for you that came out precisely concurrent with Watchmen, before the BAD DAYS had really set in, but I rather imagine rationale will be concocted to dismiss them, too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 10:22pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Tim - Just to give context, I like Watchmen. I had the trade paperback and gave it away so I could buy the Absolute.
I own From Hell, the first two HC's of Swamp Thing, the Absolute V for Vendetta and Promethea vol.1, all three League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Absolutes, the HC's for The Killing Joke and Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, the DCU stories of Alan Moore paperback, and probably a few other things of Moore's I'm not remembering.
Just because I eat at McDonald's a lot like billions of other people, doesn't mean I have to lie to myself and say it's fine dining. Moore's writing is what it is - in and of itself I enjoy most of it (obviously wouldn't own it otherwise).
It's just the whole notion that he's the be all end all of comic writing. Anytime a serious article gets written about comics, invariably his name or the name of one of his work's gets brought up. Why? Why is he honestly the most acclaimed writer in the medium? I've read a TONNE of his stuff. I've enjoyed most of it. But I don't get what everyone has to heap praise on the guy as if he did something earth shattering.
Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Maybe I look back and I think about how Superman changed comics, how Julie Schwartz and Gil Kane and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby ushered in a whole new age of Superheroes. But I just don't see Moore influencing anywhere near what those guys did. And if he is, it's certainly not in a positive way. Whence the acclaim?
Well, from people who want to redefine superheroes for adults. Oddly enough, in Moore's case this means adding swears, nudity and sex, graphic violence, and subtracting well-worn conventions of the genre. So to make comics seem more adult, he adds things to make them more immature.
He does it well, but it's pretty much all he does. Take superheroes and other fictional characters, write them as fuck-ups, and package it for grown-ups who don't want to admit they still like to play with the toy in a Happy Meal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 10:54pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Brad Krawchuck wrote:
| Well, from people who want to redefine superheroes for adults. Oddly enough, in Moore's case this means adding swears, nudity and sex, graphic violence, and subtracting well-worn conventions of the genre. So to make comics seem more adult, he adds things to make them more immature. |
|
|
Brad, is that really all you see in his superhero stories? I can't imagine owning such a representation of a writer's work as you seem to have of Moore's stuff and thinking so poorly of him.
Do you not enjoy the depth of Dan Dreiberg's character in Watchmen? The beauty of the love scene between Swamp Thing and Abby? The wonder at Swamp Thing embracing his connectivity with the natural world? The wry humor of "Mogo Doesn't Socialize?" The imagination of the Green Lantern story where Katma Tui has to induct a Green Lantern in a sector of pure darkness and no concept of light?
I have lots of problems with Moore and I think I own fewer of his collections than you, but I certainly think he's more than just "let's take something innocent and pervert it." He's absolutely fascinated with gray morality and has sympathy for those who've compromised themselves, but...it's not all he's about! Swamp Thing had ingenious horror and Top Ten's underlying theme was acceptance. V condemned fascism while at the same time testing the allure of it to his readers by having V employ fascist vigilantism. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is his tribute to literature and also an embrace of dark humor.
It just seems like it's feast or famine in this thread and it's depressing. Let's be more sophisticated! We can criticize his problems like thematic repetition and plagiaristic swiping, while maybe accepting that he brought some bitchin' stuff to the medium, like novelistic depth and the sharpest experiments with pacing since Eisner. We can be annoyed that his influence on superheroes was so profound, but maybe still enjoy the works unto themselves.
It doesn't have to be feast or famine!
Edited by Tim Farnsworth on 04 August 2010 at 12:44am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Agapito Qhelas
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 09 July 2009
Posts: 263
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 11:00pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| It's just the whole notion that he's the be all end all of comic writing. Anytime a serious article gets written about comics, invariably his name or the name of one of his work's gets brought up. Why? Why is he honestly the most acclaimed writer in the medium? I've read a TONNE of his stuff. I've enjoyed most of it. But I don't get what everyone has to heap praise on the guy as if he did something earth shattering. |
|
|
I don't see what that has to with the discussion. We haven't been discussing the merits of Alan Moore's work, but how it's regarded. You dislike the implications of Alan Moore's success and critical acclaim, fine, but that doesn't mean they doesn't exist.
And you have a particularly low opinion of fandom. You brought examples that I've yet to see embraced by it. I've seen nothing but hate and mockery for the instances you mention of Batman pissing himself or Wasp being eaten by the Blob.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 11:10pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Agapito Quelas wrote:
| We haven't been discussing the merits of Alan Moore's work, but how it's regarded. |
|
|
Yes, that's my other frustration with this thread: the goal posts keep moving when arguments are weakening.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 03 August 2010 at 11:28pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| We haven't been discussing the merits of Alan Moore's work, but how it's regarded. |
|
|
QUOTE:
| Yes, that's my other frustration with this thread: the goal posts keep moving when arguments are weakening. |
|
|
It's not that difficult to click back to previous pages in the thread to see that the merits of Moore's work HAVE been part of the discussion.
Edited by Michael Roberts on 04 August 2010 at 12:29am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ben Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:01am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just not seeing it. Maybe I look back and I think about how Superman changed comics, how Julie Schwartz and Gil Kane and Stan Lee and Jack Kirby ushered in a whole new age of Superheroes. But I just don't see Moore influencing anywhere near what those guys did. And if he is, it's certainly not in a positive way. Whence the acclaim? Influence and acclaim are not necessarily the same thing. He writes good (some consider great) stories that people really enjoy. That is what he gets acclaim for. Action Comics #1, while very important and influential on everything that came after it, would probably not be considered well written by today's standards. He does it well, but it's pretty much all he does. Take superheroes and other fictional characters, write them as fuck-ups, and package it for grown-ups who don't want to admit they still like to play with the toy in a Happy Meal. That's his style. Not every creative person is capable (or willing) to drastically change the approach that brought them success. and from that sentence alone, I really can't fathom why you own any of Alan Moore's books. You can send them to me if you want.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ben Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:11am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I'd argue that in the past 24 years since Watchmen was released, comics has imploded to the point where the only people reading them are 20-50 somethings who want their hobby taken seriously because comics have a stigma as being for kids. I would blame that on comic companies deciding to market directly to comic shops and eliminating newsstand distribution. The newsstand is what would draw in the majority of new younger readers, without it, the comic companies had to alter their approach to cater to the 20-50 somethings that remained. Considering Watchmen was released in 1988, and comic books were (to my knowledge) never more successful then they were in the early to mid 90s, that distinction doesn't really hold up for me.
Edited by Ben Smith on 04 August 2010 at 12:11am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3303
|
| Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:42am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Whioa now... from some of this Moore-acclaim, I'm getting the same vibe I got from people who thought that Matrix 1-3 were unbelievably deep stories on many levels, with an universal message that harmonizes with the soul in each and every one of us...
NOT!
Moore is a writer. He's been lucky to be in the right place at the right time and ride some of this deconstructionist crap from the get-go. But to put him on some untouchable plateau where he rules over us all? I don't by it. Most magazine and movie reviewers don't go too far beyond the press releases given to them at the time, and I'd imagine most lack the amount of history and perspective that we've spent with his work.
With the amount of contempt he feels for the industry, any acclaim I may have ever felt for this self-perceived diva, was lost amidst the swirling ashes and burning embers of the many bridges he torched behind him.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Tim Farnsworth
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 July 2010
Posts: 817
|
| Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:56am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Monte, comparing fans of Moore to Matrix trilogy apologists is truly one of the strangest analogies I've ever seen.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matthew McCallum
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 July 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 2711
|
| Posted: 04 August 2010 at 12:56am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Sadly, I feel much the same way, Monte.
I enjoyed a lot of Moore's early work, but as the years went on, I noticed that he spent more time dismantling than he ever did building. It was like sitting down for a fine meal at a perfectly set table and leaving famished, even though I recalled going through the process of eating.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
