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.

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

Look, I hadn't read any of your posts, or any of Matt's or Joe's either. I was elaborating on points made by Dave Pruitt on the very first page of this thread. As you said, I'm not going to sway you, nor you, me~ that's why I ended my first post with "IMO".

You seem to be the kind of guy who goes out of his way to miss the point~ a non sequitur with legs, essentially. 

"IMO".

J.M. Barrie's wishes are completely irrelevant for two major reasons:

First, and most obviously, he's long dead.
                                           ********************************

Hmmm... how to put this? Wrong!

Your second point has absolutely nothing to do with anything, aside from being a cheesy attempt to justify swiping by claiming "it's part of our environment, so that makes it ok". What a load of shit. 

The Internet has given people the idea that everybody else's ideas are theirs for the taking. They're not, as lawsuits by everyone from Metallica  to Harlan Ellison have proven. 

"IMO".

However, I just don't see anything there that's likely to damage a child.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Michael, if a parent wants to let his/her child be aware of masturbation, I am sure there are better ways to do it, via a documentary, a professional book, the works. NOT by showing characters who have a completely different function and origin.

Having the child exposed to these images while trying to find a picture of Dorothy on the Internet, for say, reference to make a costume or for a school work, and ending up finding her mastrubating through the tornado is plain wrong, for the simple reason it's confusing and a little harsh for the children's fragile psyche. And in case you didn't know, not all children mastrubate before the age of 12 or 15, and a big chinck of those who do, aren't even doing it consciencely.

Btw, your point is only about masturbation. What happens when the child sees an image of Wendy engaged in sexual act with Peter? Don't you think that's confusing and dangerous?

The artist (or the writer, in this case) is responsible for his choices and all their results. He is and must be free to express himself, but in any case that must have limits. Not censorship, not prohibitions. Limits. The art is merely a way to express ourselves. When the line of violence is crossed, that's where I cross my line as well. Violence isn't just striking someone with a fist. It's also an insult, a misspoken word. In no way are psychological traumas less severe than physical ones. Moore, or the publisher, should have put the afore-mentioned limits on their own, the way we restrict ourself from hitting someone, considering the repercussions.

I doubt Moore or the publisher are unaware of the danger I described above. They are well aware, but just don't give a damn. They plan to take a few dimes in the process, though....

Michael Garve wrote: I agree that if you're going to make an argument against Lost Girls, the copyright argument is much weaker than the appropriateness/obscenity argument. However, while I don't know whether or not I'm personally going to buy it, I would strongly support the book being made available to those adults who are interested, and I will never in my life argue that a book shouldn't be written or a work of art, however offensive to some or even most, should not be produced.

When I said Lost Girls was inappropriate for the characters, and so I wish it weren't made, I was intending the comment to be similar to "I wish JMS had never written a story where Gwen Stacy had two kids by the Green Goblin."

That is, I'm expressing unhappiness with Moore's judgement in the way he used the characters.  If the book is deemed "obscene," or if a comic book dealer is arrested for selling it to a person of appropriate age, I'll be in support of the right of the book to exist, even if I am disappointed with the material in the book.

Okay, I've been out of the loop for a few days. But I read something a couple of pages back that just boggled my mind and I have to ask about it.

Bendis wrote what kind of Luke Cage story?!? Please tell me this is some type of running joke here on the JBF and not an actual story. I follow D.C. much more closely than Marvel these days, but I was a big fan of Power Man/Iron Fist growing up. Is this possibly true?

And as far as Lost Girls goes, I'm a huge Moore fan who has read just about everything he's written. But I'll skip this one - in fact, I'll avoid it.

I personally have no problem with someone doing a new take on classic characters in the public domain - I think fans understand that is is just one creator's version of these characters and not a definitive, canonical story. For example, the comedy "Men in Tights" doesn't cheapen the Robin Hood mythos in my mind.

However, I do have a problem with involving children's characters to tell a pornographic story. That is not an artistic gripe, but a moral and ethical one. Sure, artists always have pushed the bounds of society's mores, but shouldn't there be some limits? Can't certain stories and characters be set aside for children to enjoy?

That's a joke, Jason, right?  I'm beggin' ya, tell me that's not true.

Otherwise, I may have to rethink this whole, "I'm a comics fan" thing.

I was waiting for someone to bring up Negativland.  In bringing them up, you forgot to mention that, as part of thier campaign to steal U2's music, they also printed up shirts that said "KILL BONO". 

I lose no sleep over those fuckers going broke.

An important point lost when people cry tears for Alan Moore and Negativland's loss of artistic freedom is that the laws that are in place regarding trademark and copyright and so on are there to protect the artist and their artistic freedom.  It's hard for fans of Moore and Negativland to come to terms with this, but in these cases, it's the Barrie beneficiaries (Ormond Hospital) and U2 that are the artists that need protecting, whose artistic freedom that has been encroached. 

No one here is saying that artistic freedom should be supressed - but that artists should play by the rules, and do something creative that doesn't involve stealing from other artists.