Alan Moore

[blinkfan]

So about a week ago I bought "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller, and Watchmen and DC Universe: Alan Moore (The latter only for The Killing Joke)

and although DKR was mind blowing, Watchmen is even more so from what I read so far and I absoloutley loved Killing Joke, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tommorow and Vigilante: Fathers Day.

So essentially, this thread is to discuss Alan Moore.

and please if your going to reveal a spoiler in Watchmen please label it as I'm not finished it yet.

[PoolMan]

So you DON'T want to know the Comedian is really his own father?

[TheLuckyOne]

Alan Moore, Alan Moore... hmm.

Alan Moore is one of, if not the, most gifted comic writers who has ever lived. (And with Neil Gaiman around, I don't throw that term around lightly.) He is also crazy. And I know it's standard hyperbole to describe a really out-there creator as crazy, so let me clarify: he is probably, by all accounts, at least slightly insane. However, he's also brilliant. I haven't liked everything he's written, but darn near. Watchmen is outstanding... it would probably be better if the hype machine didn't have everyone convinced it heals cancer and grants wishes upon reading, but it's still damn amazing. Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow is the definitive Superman story, period. For The Man Who Has Everything is also great, and was even adapted into an episode of the Justice League show. The Killing Joke is pretty dark and even Moore has admitted he thinks he went too far with it, but there's no questioning it's powerful.

If you continue liking his stuff, blinky, there's a bunch of other stuff you should check out. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is an English major's wet dream, filled with references to pretty much every character who has ever appeared in literature, ever. (Yes, including that talking armadillo you once wrote a fanfic about.) It's unquestionably mature and there's an occurence in the second miniseries that will disturb anyone who isn't dead (and make you think twice about betraying anyone), but it's quite good, not to mention educational. There are two miniseries' of that, along with a just-released new hardcover volume covering the team's later years and earlier incarnations.

Moore's run on Captain Britain is among his earliest comics work, and it shows- it's a bit rough around the edges, plus he inherited a story midstream from the departing previous writer. Still, some fans (like myself) consider it the definitive Captain Britain story and one of the better X-Men-related stories of all time. These days you can't spit at Marvel without hitting 5 uber-mutants with godlike powers, but not a single one of them has ever been half as threatening as the insane (and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland-fixated) Mad Jim Jaspers, the Crooked Man. His creation, the Fury, gives off the same vibe the Terminator did in the first movie- relentless, emotionless, unstoppable. Except compared to the Fury, the Terminator was a frightened, weeping schoolgirl. (For crying out loud, Arnie couldn't even survive the destruction of the universe... weak.)

And then there's Swamp Thing. I'm only a recent convert on that one because to be honest, the character held zero interest for me. Alan Moore is the only thing that got me reading, but it was worth it. Completely jettisoning the original concept of the character in his second issue on the book, Moore changed Swamp Thing from Alec Holland, a scientist who through a horrible accident was transformed into a plant creature, into a swamp that decomposed Alec Holland's body and his formula, absorbing his brain like a planarian worm until it grew to think it actually WAS Alec Holland... until it finally learned the truth. I won't say much more about that one except to say that it's the best gothic horror comic that existed before Sandman, and that Sandman would certainly never have happened without it.

So that's Alan Moore. He's written loads of other good stuff, of course, much of which I haven't read, but I'm glad to hear you like him, blinky. Try some of this other stuff I mentioned, from before Moore swore to never again work for Marvel or DC, and see how you like it. (Although the Captain Britain volume is out of print, you might have to buy it used through Amazon or eBay.)

-D

[blinkfan]

Thanks Drew!

You actually got me interested in LXG, perhaps I'll pick it up when I go out of town.

[sirgallahad2]

I've been a fan of Alan Moore since I bought "Watchmen" in 2004 as a spur-of-the-moment thing. I have since upgraded to the $80.00 Absolute edition so needless to say, I love Watchmen. (No spoilers out of me). I have since picked up From Hell, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, V for Vendetta, his complete run on W.I.L.D.C.A.T.S., and of course, The Killing Joke. There is just SO much mad genius to his work. You should REALLY check out "From Hell" if you can afford it. Absolutely brilliant story telling and a nice little bit of Masonic history to boot.

[Al]

My only caution about From Hell would be that you really need to stick with it. I borrowed my friend's copy for what turned out to be for over a year because I couldn't get through the first 1/3 of the book. It's fantastic when you break that barrier, but the opening just draaaaaaaaaaags.

[CrypticMyth]

gunslingeral said:

My only caution about From Hell would be that you really need to stick with it. I borrowed my friend's copy for what turned out to be for over a year because I couldn't get through the first 1/3 of the book. It's fantastic when you break that barrier, but the opening just draaaaaaaaaaags.

Aye. It was quite taxing to get through the first bit of the book, but after that it's just something you CANNOT put down.

Also, has anybody read Spawn's issue #8, which was by Moore? That was downright fabulous! And I totally loved 'Blood Feud' as well.

[PoolMan]

I'm rereading Watchmen right now (no spoilers, don't worry), and what really strikes me about it is the depth of character he affords his subject. I mean, most comics (especially earlier ones) focussed on powers and abilities to tell the story. When the X-Men and Spider Man started dwelling on human issues, comics got way more interesting.

What Moore's done is populated the Watchmen universe with (largely) unpowered heroes. Aside from Dr Manhattan, the superheroes are just people driven by different motivations to change the world as best they can. They're no more "super" than Batman, so what really drives the story is the environment (a Cold War where the USA has the clear upper hand but can't maintain the status quo) and the characters themselves.

Man. Now I want to start a Watchmen chat. Did we do that already?

[tommutate]

I liked the short stories he wrote in 2000ad. "Future Shocks". One of them was a turnaround on his green lantern story, where the guy realises the alien might be the planet and flies away, only to realise that the alien has turned into his ship, which promptly swallows and licks its lips.

Blinkfan, it sounds as if you are just getting into comics, and reading the classics for the first time. I envy you.

[bladestarr]

poolman said:

I'm rereading Watchmen right now (no spoilers, don't worry), and what really strikes me about it is the depth of character he affords his subject. I mean, most comics (especially earlier ones) focussed on powers and abilities to tell the story. When the X-Men and Spider Man started dwelling on human issues, comics got way more interesting.

What Moore's done is populated the Watchmen universe with (largely) unpowered heroes. Aside from Dr Manhattan, the superheroes are just people driven by different motivations to change the world as best they can. They're no more "super" than Batman, so what really drives the story is the environment (a Cold War where the USA has the clear upper hand but can't maintain the status quo) and the characters themselves.

Man. Now I want to start a Watchmen chat. Did we do that already?

SPOILERS BLINK READ NO FURTHER.

I disagree with the common assumption that Batman and most of the characters in Watchmen have no "super powers". The way I see it, super powers are anything that allows a man to do what a normal man could not. I think that Batman and the second Nite Owl have that with their toys. Their inventions and their intelligence make them BEYOND normal men, and that IMHO gives them super powers.

Rorshach. The man himself is a walking super power. I'm not going to go into his morally gray and possibly psychotic motivations, but I do want to say this, any man that can have the WITS to think so far outside the box that he can use a SMASHED toilet to subdue 3 large men that are trying to hill him without actually smashing the toilet ON them... well that's MacGuyver-level super-hero thinking right there. Rorshach thinks so far outside the box that he doesn't even SEE his limitations, thus they no longer exist. He can do the amazing things that he does, make the amazing leaps of deductive reasoning, because he is BEYOND all assumptions of what is and is not possible.

And he is my own personal, insane, hero.

I DEFINATELY think the characters in the Watchmen are superheroes, and not just normal people.

[blinkfan]

I actually finished it like 2 months ago. SO spoilers are allowed. Just mark them so curious bystanders dont get blinded by the spoilers.

Who else was bummed by the ending of Watchmen? Drew tells me its better the second time around.

[PoolMan]

Interesting argument about superheroes not requiring superpowers. I see your point. But I was probably just being lazy about how I was describing the Watchmen. I guess it would have been clearer to say "they're no more superpowered than Batman".

Now, that said, yes, I consider Batman a superhero, unpowered though he is. I wouldn't ever call his willpower, wealth, drive, and detective skills "superpowers". I would merely say they're all instrumental in the construction of his character, and that he's an awesome character at that.

Blinky, I WAS bummed about the ending of Watchmen the first time around, but I also agree that repeat reads put a less depressing and more challenging spin on things: is Veidt justified in killing so many people when the entire world is already halfway down the toilet? If he does nothing, regardless of the presence of Dr Manhattan, millions (if not billions) of people would die if the nuclear standoff ever broke down, which it clearly was very near doing. By intervening the way he does, morally reprehensible as it is, he really does save an uncountable number of people.

I guess it falls down to whether the reader agrees with Rorshach. If there's "no compromise" as he repeatedly says, then no ends ever justifies that kind of means. What always makes me wonder about this, though, is why Rorshach chooses to let Manhattan kill him, and why he dies with this "face" off. If he truly means that there's no room for compromise on telling the rest of the world what's really happened, why doesn't he go down fighting, or trying to escape?

It's never going to be a cheery ending, but it'll always be a very challenging one.

[blinkfan]

My take on your final question about Rorschach is this:

I think that the reason Rorschach took of his "face" and let Manhattan kill him is because "Walter Kovacs" (The man behind Rorschach) knows that veidt ultimately saved more and that maybe he realizes that Rorschach is doing more harm than good. Or maybe he realized there was no way that he would survive anyway and was just too tired to continue and he threw off his mask because he was ashamed of himself for giving up and not dying a hero's death.

[TheLuckyOne]

poolman said:

I guess it falls down to whether the reader agrees with Rorshach. If there's "no compromise" as he repeatedly says, then no ends ever justifies that kind of means. What always makes me wonder about this, though, is why Rorshach chooses to let Manhattan kill him, and why he dies with this "face" off. If he truly means that there's no room for compromise on telling the rest of the world what's really happened, why doesn't he go down fighting, or trying to escape?

This is just one man's opinion, so don't attach any more import to it than you would any other armchair psychologist's; but I saw it as the final culmination of Rorshach's endless self-loathing. Let's face it, he was an incredibly, incredibly disturbed individual, all along really but especially in the wake of the dog incident. There were really only two traits to his personality, hatred and a desire to see justice done... and I think by the end, the latter had become simply an excuse for the former. He hated everyone and everything, but I think the bulk of that loathing was reserved for himself.

Alan Moore has a real penchant for writing extremely self-destructive, self-loathing characters who nonetheless won't give anyone the satisfaction of killing themselves. (See: Mister Hyde.) And when you get down to it, Rorshach is basically Batman carried out to the ultimate extreme. What if Bruce Wayne's parents were abusive alcoholics instead of loving socialites? What would Batman be like without Alfred, or Robin, or Commissioner Gordon? How would he react if the Justice League disbanded one day and Superman retired, letting the world go to hell while he sat in his apartment? Well, we'll never know because that didn't happen to Batman... but in a sense it did, and he became Rorshach. One of my favorite Batman quotes of the last few years is as follows:

"People think it's an obsession. A compulsion. As if there were an irresistible impulse to act. It's never been like that. I chose this life. I know what I'm doing. And on any given day, I could stop doing it. Today, however, isn't that day. And tomorrow won't be either."

But Rorshach doesn't have that luxury. He has no butler, no mansion, no adopted son, no money. His only friend abandoned him and he can look around and see that no matter what good he's done, the world is on the brink of armageddon and even if he saves it, is it really worth saving? Would Batman have fought back if the Spectre were trying to kill him, even if he didn't have a prayer? Sure. But without that support system, without friends and family to keep him grounded, Walter Kovacs isn't Batman... he's just Rorshach, a man who is very, very tired of fighting.

And that, to me, is why he tears off his mask and begs Doctor Manhattan to kill him at the end- it's a breakdown that is really a breakthrough, a final, desperate acceptance of the hatred he feels toward himself. Is it because he couldn't allow himself to be killed by "bad guys," but Manhattan is a "good guy"? Is he just finally exhausted of forcing himself to live? Who knows? But just as Batman's cowl is the armor that shields Bruce Wayne, so too is his mask (and the good he does with it) Rorshach's only defense against his own self-loathing... and by removing it and asking Doctor Manhattan (quite literally) to kill him, he's finally putting an end to his own monster. (Even though, ironically, that monster might still prevail if his journal happens to be published and believed.)

Like I said, just my opinion, but that's how I see it. It's fun to watch Justice League Unlimited episodes and watch the Question go off on his right wing conspiracy rants, knowing he's who Rorshach owes his existence to.

-D

[bladestarr]

I'll buy that Drew, except I would say that he "picked" Dr. Manhattan because he's a monster, just as he sees himself as being a monster inside. A bit of ironic symmetry, all the thugs he's taken down in the past have probably been bad guys, but they were still human inside, with human motivations and desires. Manhattan and Rorshach were the only two characters in the book that weren't really human; Manhattan literally and Rorshach psychologically. Rorshack left the human race years ago, and has been an outsider ever since.

I think that's why he picked that moment, and why Manhattan was the only one that "deserved" to kill him.