Alan Moore: The man himself

[JET ACE LOGAN]

i agree with the above post, and i have to say that moore himself from his writing and what interviews i have seen of him, he seems a decent bloke, i don't think he is the best comic book writer ever , frank miller in his prime was a better writer to me, and warren Ellis would write now more than moore, but still Alan moore is a gifted story teller,and i would buy nearly all his work but i just wish he would write more stories!!

[Ogami]

Alan has written a novel, Voice of the Fire, which came out in 1996. He's currently working on another novel, Jerusalem, which he claims is his 'big work', or something like that. It's gonna be about 1500 pages long apparently. I can't wait to read it, personally, but I'm pretty sure it will be far away from Gaiman in terms of style and content.

[Netley]

I like this one interview when he was talking about religion. I expected him to kind of criticize Christianity but he was just pointing out a certain revival in the early 1900s and how it has affected the country today.

I thought that was an interesting point he made, too! Instead of criticizing Christianity, he points out the fact that the Protestant/Evangelical/American Christianity is a relatively recent creation, having more to do with Depression Era US "tent revivalism" than it has to do with events from 2000 years ago.

I dislike ignorant the big two fans that automaticly think Moore hates comics because he doesnt want to work with DC. That he is a nut for that and disliking what happens to his comics in hollywood.

Absolutely. The man may not hive high marks for the businesses running the industry, but Moore definitely loves the medium of comics!!! Additionally, he has more than enough good reason to distrust DC, they've stabbed him in the back at every chance they could (including BUYING WILDSTORM right after Moore signed with WS to put out his ABC line!)

Alan has written a novel, Voice of the Fire, which came out in 1996. He's currently working on another novel, Jerusalem, which he claims is his 'big work', or something like that. It's gonna be about 1500 pages long apparently. I can't wait to read it, personally, but I'm pretty sure it will be far away from Gaiman in terms of style and content.

I am currently trying to get past the first chapter of Voice of the Fire. The way it's written is ery difficult to read (but obviously that itself is art of the story). I know the rest of the chapters take place incrementally later in history, and I am so looking forward to getting to that point, but damn, I can only read about 5-10 pages at a time of chapter one haha (and no dis towards Moore, I think the idea of it is brillint!).

I have a feeling that Jerusalem will be an absolutely amazing piece of work! Perhaps his opus (which currently I consider Promethea to be...or maybe From Hell).

[Libaax]

Alan has written a novel, Voice of the Fire, which came out in 1996. He's currently working on another novel, Jerusalem, which he claims is his 'big work', or something like that. It's gonna be about 1500 pages long apparently. I can't wait to read it, personally, but I'm pretty sure it will be far away from Gaiman in terms of style and content.

By Gaiman i meant a great comic writer becoming a very good novelist and wasnt talking about content.


Im a big fan of SF and his writing style sometimes reminds me off the great Philip K Dick so i hope Moore writes SF in the future.


It doesnt matter what genre he writes i will read the book.


What kind of book is his 1996 one ?

[Netley]

What kind of book is his 1996 one ?

I haven't gotten past the first chapter yet (I get like 20 pages in, don't pick it up for a couple weeks, and then start over again haha), but it looks like it's a really interesting idea. Each chapter is set in a different time period and seem to be separate stories (though I have no doubt they will tie together in fascinating ways...this is Alan Moore we're talking about here!).

There are 12 total, and the first is set in 4000 BC, the second in 2500 BC, all chronologically leading up to the last chapter, set in 1995 AD. The first chapter is just a little difficult to get through, since it's written from what appears to be the POV of a lost child in 4000 BC (and is quite sad). The whole idea is wonderfully original, and I'm anxious to see how it all fits together!

(And it was published by Top Shelf, if that helps you find it.)

[Gothos]

I can't speak to that stuff.

There's a lot of deep stuff in those contentions concerning non-sensory knowing and the collective unconscious; things that, though unquestionably real, I just don't understand as functioning in those ways.

Guys like Moore and Jung make strange contentions about that stuff that I don't understand, but it's undeniably true that those guys understand that stuff on a level of sophistication that I just don't...

Either way, I wouldn't call him a nutcase. He seems very well balanced and reasonable to me.

Niall,

For Jung (and probably for Moore as well), Jung's concept of synchronicity is expressed whenever one has an experience that does not seem explicable by pure causality. Indeed, in one essay Jung proposed synchronicity as a universal principle opposed to causality, which is probably one reason the scientific community doesn't esteem him, in that science doesn't recognize non-causality, at least in the macroverse.

Jung's best-known example was something like: he in some office, having a conversation with a patient who related having had a dream about a death's head moth. Moments later, a real death's head moth appeared at the window of Jung's office. Assuming that this account is veracious, then there can be no causal connection between the two events, unless one posits the notion that the patient psychically drew the moth to him, which would probably seem no less improbable to a materialist than the synchronicity theory.

The only response of the hardcore materialist must be: Jung either imagined the whole thing or lied outright. And that's an understandable reaction from anyone who has never had such an experience. I for one have had a few mild experiences of that kind-- maybe nothing as dramatic as Jung's-- but I see no reason to dismiss the synchonicity worldview outright. I don't expect the hardcore materialist to change his POV because of my experiences, but why should I automatically devalue mine because the materialist (hi dancj) hasn't had them?

[chastmastr]

Jung's best-known example was something like: he in some office, having a conversation with a patient who related having had a dream about a death's head moth. Moments later, a real death's head moth appeared at the window of Jung's office. Assuming that this account is veracious, then there can be no causal connection between the two events, unless one posits the notion that the patient psychically drew the moth to him, which would probably seem no less improbable to a materialist than the synchronicity theory.

Oh, one could posit that the patient sensed the moth being nearby, or the moth's future arrival, without drawing the moth as such, too.

The only response of the hardcore materialist must be: Jung either imagined the whole thing or lied outright.

Surely a hardcore materialist could respond that the events really happened, but was a pure coincidence that Jung honestly (but mistakenly) made more of than was warranted? (For that matter, a believer in the supernatural could also respond the same. Nothing about believing in the supernatural requires a person to disbelieve in coincidence. Even if everything is ultimately connected, mystical, providential or symbolic, we might still get all kinds of things wrong if we try to connect all the apparent dots. One thing that drives me nuts about certain of my co-supernaturalists is the way some of them -- not the majority! -- take absolutely everything as Deep and Meaningful, or every momentary feeling or mood as a Sign Of Something Psychic. Heck, for that matter, just because something is a genuine psychic perception of something doesn't mean it's useful, helpful, good or even spiritual, and could even be a distraction from something ultimately more important; while something apparently boring and earthly might be the quickest path to a more genuinely deep spirituality.)

David

[niall mc cann]

Niall,

For Jung (and probably for Moore as well), Jung's concept of synchronicity is expressed whenever one has an experience that does not seem explicable by pure causality. Indeed, in one essay Jung proposed synchronicity as a universal principle opposed to causality, which is probably one reason the scientific community doesn't esteem him, in that science doesn't recognize non-causality, at least in the macroverse.

Jung's best-known example was something like: he in some office, having a conversation with a patient who related having had a dream about a death's head moth. Moments later, a real death's head moth appeared at the window of Jung's office. Assuming that this account is veracious, then there can be no causal connection between the two events, unless one posits the notion that the patient psychically drew the moth to him, which would probably seem no less improbable to a materialist than the synchronicity theory.

The only response of the hardcore materialist must be: Jung either imagined the whole thing or lied outright. And that's an understandable reaction from anyone who has never had such an experience. I for one have had a few mild experiences of that kind-- maybe nothing as dramatic as Jung's-- but I see no reason to dismiss the synchonicity worldview outright. I don't expect the hardcore materialist to change his POV because of my experiences, but why should I automatically devalue mine because the materialist (hi dancj) hasn't had them?

I've read what I assume is the same story, with a beetle instead of a moth. I didn't understand it at the time.

I've since had an experience that caused me to go back and consider what Jung was saying, but it doesn't make it clearer to understand, for me. Sometimes, what is happening within me and what is happening outside me contain elements that, viewed through the prism of my perceptions, are analogous. Those moments, one way or another, are of heightened spiritual importance to the individual percieving them.

That's not a lot to go on. And there's an element of self-fullfilling prophecy. Are they of heightened spiritual significance because there's invisible strings of connection, or because I choose to invest a heightened importance in them? You come back to Chas's point - some people will see everything as portentious, and if one accepts that synchrony is a matter of individual will, then everything in fact is portentious. That's not something I invest a great amount of confidence or faith in.

Jung's not much help in any direct way; his answer is a shrug - this isn't a rational position; you have to feel it with your irrational self. When I first came to Jung, I wasn't very comfortable with the idea of an irrational self. If I'm honest, I'm still not, but the truth is that it can't rationally be denied.

There's always coincedence. But that's as irrepeatable and unprovable as the most bats-arse theories.

[chastmastr]

Oh, and of course everything might be portentious in itself -- just mostly incomprehensible to us. There might be reams and reams of meaning we can't possibly comprehend, and the danger might mainly be not in assuming meaning is everywhere, but that we can figure it out.

[Gothos]

Oh, one could posit that the patient sensed the moth being nearby, or the moth's future arrival, without drawing the moth as such, too.



Surely a hardcore materialist could respond that the events really happened, but was a pure coincidence that Jung honestly (but mistakenly) made more of than was warranted? (For that matter, a believer in the supernatural could also respond the same. Nothing about believing in the supernatural requires a person to disbelieve in coincidence. Even if everything is ultimately connected, mystical, providential or symbolic, we might still get all kinds of things wrong if we try to connect all the apparent dots. One thing that drives me nuts about certain of my co-supernaturalists is the way some of them -- not the majority! -- take absolutely everything as Deep and Meaningful, or every momentary feeling or mood as a Sign Of Something Psychic. Heck, for that matter, just because something is a genuine psychic perception of something doesn't mean it's useful, helpful, good or even spiritual, and could even be a distraction from something ultimately more important; while something apparently boring and earthly might be the quickest path to a more genuinely deep spirituality.)

David

Good points about coincidence. I should say that as I understand Jung, his idea of synchronicity wasn't meant to suggest to any causal connections in the incident, psychic or otherwise. In fact, I believe in one essay he posits synchronicity as an "acausal" principle opposed to causality.

Regarding the tendency to regard Everything is Meaningful, one of the Platonic dialogues-- the Philebus, I think-- might serve as a guide. Plato asserts that some "affects" (or whatever he calls them) have a transitory effect upon the soul, while others virtually imprint themselves on the soul because they are basically in tune with the soul's nature. I would think it viable to see apparent coincidences in a similar spectrum: some of them really don't add up to much-- "I almost ran over a white dog on the day I rented a car from the White Dog Rental Agency"-- while others would, in theory, have great impact on your life if you could understand them.

You mentioned the theoretical all-connectedness as being "providential," and it occurs to me that synchronicity may have something in common with the Christian notions of Providence, for what that's worth.

[david r]

One thing I like about Alan Moore is you read about his dark observations on the modern world, or his bitter struggles with DC & TimeWarner.......and then he turns around and does The Simpsons!!

He's shown a good sense of humor, and it's in all his works. I missed that Simpsons episode and really wish I could have seen it. Also, I read he's a Twin Peaks fan. I could see that show be his kind of thing. With demon/spirits, doorways to other worlds and a scathing view on our modern culture.

[Netley]

One thing I like about Alan Moore is you read about his dark observations on the modern world, or his bitter struggles with DC & TimeWarner.......and then he turns around and does The Simpsons!!

He's shown a good sense of humor, and it's in all his works. I missed that Simpsons episode and really wish I could have seen it. Also, I read he's a Twin Peaks fan. I could see that show be his kind of thing. With demon/spirits, doorways to other worlds and a scathing view on our modern culture.

I saw the Alan Moore Simpsons clip on Youtube a couple months back, but then went to show a friend and it had been removed. I would guess it gets put up and taken down randomly, so you might be able to catch it there. It's only about 2 minutes, and isn't really that funny (imo), but it represents a combination of two of the greatest things in storytelling (Moore and the Simpsons), so it's damn monumental in that sense!

Didn't know he was a Twin Peaks fan, maybe I'll have to check that out if it's on DVD. (I was a kid when it came out and my folks wouldn't let me watch it then haha.)

[Decepticons_Rule]

The Dude ROCKS.

[PoisonedV]

I love (some) of his work, but personally? I don't like him much. I've seen interviews, read overviews of his life, seen a documentary about him and he isn't eccentric, or crazy... he's different in a whole different way. I don't like him much. But This is all speculation, I can't judge him unless I really met hm.

[king mob]

Someday I'm going to visit Northampton and buy him a beer or three!

You'd be very lucky to find him. After the whole nonsense in the late 80's where fans would follow him to the toilet, and they'd pester him constantly he decided to guard his privacy against fans just turning up for a visit. When The Observer (I think) did an interview with him at his home some years ago, he mentioned that he did have visits and they did freak him out.