Alan Moore

[Spiderdancer]

I just read Watchmen recently. On the one hand, I thought it was vastly better than LXG (yes, the comic) on a number of levels. On the other, I absolutely hated the ending and I never want to read it again.

See, my biggest problem with Alan Moore isn't that he's a bad writer. Far from it. He's very good at what he does. The problem is that I'm a character-driven reader, and he's a story-driven writer. That is to say, I don't read something because I'm curious how it's going to end. I read it because I want to know what happens to a given person in the story.

So when I say Rorschach was by far my favorite character, you can sort of see where I'm coming from with the above. Not only that, but SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

...SPOILER

...after all of the discussion above, his allowing himself to be killed is fairly pointless given the epilogue, which implies Veidt may not get away with it after all due to what Rorschach did with the diary. I think Rorschach simply found himself unable to deal with the dilemma caused by all of the above.

For me, the bottom line is that Alan Moore characters can have absolutely anything happen to them (including, say, being butt-raped to death by a literary character, and yes, I AM still bitter about that thank you so much) and I don't particularly like that in a writer.

[PoolMan]

Drew: You make compelling arguments, except I don't believe Rorschach hated everything and everyone. He actually shows a noble respect and gratitude towards Nite Owl when he decides to take action. However, I'd be hard pressed to find another example... he clearly doesn't reserve the same respect for the Silk Spectre, except most grudgingly towards the end, and he obviously does hate everyone else. (with the previous exception of the Comedian, because at least he realized the truth about what he was doing)

I do like the parallel to Batman-without-a-moral-compass, though, very much. I think you're really on to something there. He's a keen detective, an excellent improviser, and has a strong desire to see justice. But you're right, he's all those things without the support and love of a healthy surrogate family, and it shows.

Shalen: I actually truly respect that Moore is willing to kill characters. While literary butt rape is perhaps not the most dignified way to go, I think holding back on real repercussions to character robs stories of any real power. Remember when the Death of Superman was a big, news-worthy deal? Yeah, well, the second it became obvious that Supes was coming back, the story was no longer at all powerful.

DarthMadler loaned me a Batman/Superman TPB that featured a reboot of the Supergirl story. It was pretty decent, except for one glaring scene: where the heroes are forced into a conflict with multiple "clones" of Doomsday. We're talking about a character that was able to destroy Superman all alone, but here, an entire legion of him is wiped out by Superman almost singlehandedly. Not only does Superman overcome his own death, he is suddenly able to take out multiple versions of the creature that was his only previous mortal threat. Booooring. Superman is obviously not in any lasting danger, so why do I care about the fight?

If Moore is willing to impose real and lasting consequences on his characters, unlike so many serialized comics and stories, to me it makes his stories better and his characters more precious.

[Al]

poolman said:

I do like the parallel to Batman-without-a-moral-compass, though, very much. I think you're really on to something there. He's a keen detective, an excellent improviser, and has a strong desire to see justice. But you're right, he's all those things without the support and love of a healthy surrogate family, and it shows.

I read somewhere that Moore originally approached DC about using existing superheroes for his story but was pretty quickly shot down. As a result, a lot of the characters correspond heavily to 'real' heroes: Dr. Manhattan = Superman, Silk Spectre = Black Canary, Ozymandius = Thundersomething -bolt? -clap? I dunno. Rorschach is supposed to be based off of The Question, presumably because pre-DKR Batman still dominated the marketplace, and, 70s revamp be damned, he was still most associated with Adam West and Bat-shark repellent.

[TheLuckyOne]

gunslingeral said:

I read somewhere that Moore originally approached DC about using existing superheroes for his story but was pretty quickly shot down. As a result, a lot of the characters correspond heavily to 'real' heroes: Dr. Manhattan = Superman, Silk Spectre = Black Canary, Ozymandius = Thundersomething -bolt? -clap? I dunno. Rorschach is supposed to be based off of The Question, presumably because pre-DKR Batman still dominated the marketplace, and, 70s revamp de damned, he was still most associatd with Adam West and Bat-shark repellent.

You're close, Al. In 1983, Charlton Comics sold all of their superhero characters to DC Comics. At first Moore planned to use the Charlton characters in Watchmen, which is why many of them are direct analogues: Rorschach is the Question, Nite Owl I and II are Blue Beetle I and II, the Comedian is the Peacemaker, Doctor Manhattan is Captain Atom, and Ozymandias is Thunderbolt. However, while Moore was in the planning stages, DC decided they instead wanted to use the Charlton characters in the DC Universe proper (since having them in Watchmen would kill some and end the viability of the rest), so instead Moore created new characters... some of them nearly identical to their forebears, some more drastically removed. Silk Spectre was originally going to be Nightshade from Charlton, but once the edict was passed down, her character changed into more of a Black Canary/Phantom Lady hybrid (both DC characters).

Interestingly, Moore has mentioned that in very early planning of the story, he instead intended to use the old Archie Comics superheroes, which is why Hooded Justice still resembles the Hangman.

And that's one to grow on!

-D

[bladestarr]

...or as Paul Harvey would say... "and that's the rest of the story."

HEY! I think I just saw "The More You Know" star shooting over yonder!


*runs off chasing it* ;D

[PoolMan]

[Spiderdancer]

poolman said:

If Moore is willing to impose real and lasting consequences on his characters, unlike so many serialized comics and stories, to me it makes his stories better and his characters more precious.

I've heard people express something similar about Joss Whedon. I just don't see that as a positive trait in a writer because, if I'm into a story because of a given character, that story is going to cease to be interesting to me once he or she is horribly killed.

I like stories that continue - even if that means mortal characters become effectively immortal, the way Batman has (or the way Robert B. Parker's Spencer has, to mention a noncomics example). I like Agatha Christie as well, but I will probably never read Curtain, because I don't want to see Hercule Poirot as having died. A character's death is a story that has come to an end.


I do understand and respect your perspective, and I know it's shared by many Moore (and Whedon) fans, I just thought it would be an interesting contribution for someone who isn't a fan to weigh in.

[PoolMan]

Oh, it certainly is an interesting contribution. And it's not like I can't relate... there are characters I'd be horrified to have die on me. I just think for a closed ended story (like Watchmen) the technique works well.

I think for a serialized format, people always want their characters back for one more story, so death should be a bigger deal. Sadly, the comics have turned death into a dodge to be cheated rather than a permanent thing, which robs it of its seriousness.

Tricky question.

[CheshireKat]

Anybody read LXG: the Black Dossier yet?

[TheLuckyOne]

cheshirekat said:

Anybody read LXG: the Black Dossier yet?

Whoops, didn't see this.

Yep, I read it. On the one hand, it was pretty interesting: the look at the different Leagues through history (Fanny Hill's memoirs are hilarious), the glimpse at the throwdown between the League and Les Hommes Mysterieux, the knowledge that Raffles and Thomas Carnacki joined the next incarnation of the League... those were all cool. I haven't used the 3-D glasses to look at the final section yet, but I'm sure it'll be amazing.

But on the other hand, I was really fond of the Victorian setting, and as much as I like Mina and Allan, 1950s London isn't as inherently interesting of a setting to me... particularly a version of it that occurs in the wake of 1984-style events. I wasn't getting all of the references, maybe because I don't know the literature it draws from as well as I do the stuff from the first 2 LoEG minis.

Still, it was good, I definitely recommend it to anyone who liked the earlier League stuff; I just think it'll make more sense with Jess Nevins' footnotes, just as the first 2 minis did.

-D

[aargmematey]

I bought The Black Dossier but haven't got around to actually reading it yet (I keep not bringing it to school with me). I started it, but then just sort of let it fall by the wayside. Both of my favorite characters died in the previous book (hint: one of them was butt-raped to death by the other :< ) so I don't know how much I'll enjoy Dossier since they aren't in it.

Actually...Rorschach was my favorite character in Watchmen...and he died too (although luckily he wasn't butt-raped to death). Dangit, Alan Moore!

[CheshireKat]

Well I gotta say I thought the ideas were interesting if something of a WAY out departure from the previous adventures in terms of surroundings and story. The final 17 pages in 3D were pretty amazing visually, but honestly overlong for an epilogue. Yes, 3D is cool but 17 pages is a tad excessive.

I also thought the views into previous leagues, and Orlando's involvement in all of them was a nice touch. I also found the jabs at the the Bond mythos nothing short of hilarious (hehehe Oodles O'Quim.....priceless). Altogether an entertaining story that kinda falls short of the tongue in cheek action of the first two installments, but does make a nice coda to the Allan/Mina story.

and it's ok, aargmematey...nobody gets butt-raped to death. It's safe to read.

[sarahbot]

Guys. I finally read Watchmen.

WOW.






Okay, I suppose I should say more. I thought it was okay for the first half. I don't really read superhero comics, and Neil Gaiman's Sandman is the only comic book I reread. So maybe I wasn't noticing the difference between the standard stuff, or I need to reread the first half (which I definitely will be nonetheless).
But the second half - AMAZING. My jaw was hanging open at the part where it's revealed that SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Veidt's already released the . . . thing. I loved the way the stories overlap - most commonly with the Black Freighter storyline, which I really hope makes it to the movie, as stomach-turning as it is.
Simply put, this book was fantastic. I can see why it gets so much acclaim, and I really, really hope the movie can live up to it.