Al Cook wrote: I will take issue with anyone who thinks it's worth defending, though.

What I think is worth defending is the ability to choose whether to read it or not. let it stand or fall on it's own merits. I won't be reading either as far as that goes.

"Convenient.

Oh, wait a minute -- that's not convenient at all! Whoops! Apparently
Moore did not have the right to do this after all! Oh no!

(If it looks like piss, if it smells like piss, if it's warm like piss; it probably is
piss. Doesn't matter what you might think of the cup.)"

Um, what?  The UK is the only place where the copyright has yet to expire.  As I posted earlier, the US copyright expired in 1987.  He hasn't been found guilty of copyright infringement has he?  No he hasn't.

"I didn't say it wasn't a gimmick. of course it is. And lots of people are going to fall for it. Big deal. I didn't say it was a good story that could stand on it's own either. I haven't read it, so I can't say whether it is or not. Given what I know about it, I doubt I'd like it. But there are people out there who will like it, and why not let them?"        

Again, let them enjoy it~ I didn't say they shouldn't. Your response to my statement is a non sequitur. Telling me there's a market for this kind of thing is a response to a statement I didn't make.

                                        *******************************

"They are characters, they can't be bent to someone else's will. That would imply they had a will of their own to begin with."

No, it doesn't~ it means Alan Moore is bending them to his purposes. Parse the semantics any way you please, man.

                               *****************************

"They are being written as adults, which means they have been recreated."

No, it means he's taking J.M. Barrie's creation (for instance) and using her in  ways that would have appalled her creator. Or do you think this is how J.M. would have "recreated" the adult Wendy?

                                  *********************************

"In the sense they are someone else's creation that Moore is taking and using to tell his own stories they are being swiped, yeah."

Which puts the lie to your previous statement quite neatly.

                                 ************************************* 

"Our own Mr. Byrne could be accused of swiping if that's the way you want to look at it."

Examples?  Or did I miss the issue of Next Men where Red Riding Hood goes down on the wolf? 

                                  *****************************************

"What does that even mean?"

It means they were beating you point for point quite handily on their own and you should pay attention to the guys you were arguing with instead of going after me, since I don't give a rat's ass.

                                 ******************************************

"I disagree with you, and I disagree with Matt. I have no expectations that you will sway me to your POV or vice versa. "

Dandy~ ! Did it ever occur to you that I was merely expressing my opinion for the sake of it, as opposed to trying debate you? Get over yourself, man...

                              *******************************************

So how exactly do I "have my hands full"?

The fact that I had to explain all this to you pretty much tells the tale.

Matt & Joe? I leave this in your capable hands. I'm out.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Again, let them enjoy it~ I didn't say they shouldn't. Your response to my statement is a non sequitur. Telling me there's a market for this kind of thing is a response to a statement I didn't make.

I wasn't responding to a statement you made, I was reiterating a point I had already made, therefore it was not a non sequitur.

Jim O'Neill wrote: No, it doesn't~ it means Alan Moore is bending them to his purposes. Parse the semantics any way you please, man.

Hey, if you meant to say purposes, then say purposes. To say that Moore is bending them to his will implies a malice on Moore's part, which you can't possibly know. To say that he is bending them to his purposes is merely saying that he is utilizing the characters in such a way that works to tell the story he wants to tell. Granted, if you have to make a character act against type to tell your story you aren't telling a very good story. Sins Past anyone?

Jom O'Neill wrote: No, it means he's taking J.M. Barrie's creation (for instance) and using her in  ways that would have appalled her creator. Or do you think this is how J.M. would have "recreated" the adult Wendy?

I never met Mr. Barrie, so I have no way of knowing how he would feel about Moore's interpretation. Have you ever met him? Oh that's right, he's dead. it is my opinion, as it is yours, that he would not have approved however. I fail to see why that should matter however. The option to not read it is always there.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Examples?  Or did I miss the issue of Next Men where Red Riding Hood goes down on the wolf?

He tells stories about characters he didn't create. had you actually read my post you would have seen that I qualified my definition of swiping as "someone else's creation that Moore is taking and using to tell his own stories".

Jim O'Neill wrote: It means they were beating you point for point quite handily on their own and you should pay attention to the guys you were arguing with instead of going after me, since I don't give a rat's ass.

Y'know, I don't see it that way at all. Just because you happen to agree with those fellows doesn't automatically make them right. Also, I am not "going after you". I am simply arguing my point.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Dandy~ ! Did it ever occur to you that I was merely expressing my opinion for the sake of it, as opposed to trying debate you? Get over yourself, man.

Take your own advice there Jim.

Jim O'Neill wrote: The fact that I had to explain all this to you pretty much tells the tale.

The only tale it tells is that I don't understand your overly agressive posturing.

Jim O'Neill wrote: Matt & Joe? I leave this in your capable hands. I'm out.

Buh bye.

Joe Zhang wrote: Rance, nothing exists in a vacuum. And by incorporating characters from children's books into pornography, Moore is deliberatelycourting controversy.

I'm not saying he's not. I'm merely pointing out that you don't have to read it, but let those who do want to read it do so.

But is the desire to keep others from reading it present? That's the impression I got at any rate.

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.

------------------------------------------------

He can legally do whatever, I just think its disrespectful as a writer and completly tasteless.

I can understand - theough that isn't the same as agree with - the distaste at the concept of 'Lost Girls' but the abuse being given out to people who don't feel that way is interesting to behold.