CBR: Alan Moore Elaborates on "Before Watchmen"

[Bruce Kent]

Pretentious was used because it was assumed that Michael was looking down his nose at superhero comics (and their fans) with his statement. Something that wasn't the case, it seems, as he's a fan of the things.

It was very much the case, if you actually read what was written instead of defending your buddy Michael.

[Mr. Holmes]

Who is Michael?

[Johnny P. Sartre]

You can almost say it's a labyrinth.

How meta and inter and hypertextual...

[Omega Key]

That's some great equivocation, but the obvious reason he didn't say "incorrect" or "exaggerated" or "unwarranted" in place of pretentious is because when you actually loo at the definition instead of just cherry picking a couple of words from it, it's pretty clear that pretentious doesn't simply mean "incorrect" or "exaggerated" or "unwarranted." If any incorrect claim can be said to be pretentious then the word has become so broad that its lost any descriptive power or meaning.

Funny how it fits with both definitions of the link you yourself gave, yet you're still going against it. Why don't you write a letter to Webster to change what the word means instead. I'm sure they'll find your explanation very interesting.

Wait, so to make the claim that corporate superhero comics are a vital and vibrant source of artistic merit you name one title and it's Gaiman's Sandman?

Was Sandman not published by DC? Is it not published by DC as much as 'pretentious' doesn't mean the definition given by Webster? :D Because I would be good in that case.

[Vidocq]

Was Sandman not published by DC? Is it not published by DC as much as 'pretentious' doesn't mean the definition given by Webster? :D Because I would be good in that case.

Just because it has ''man'' at the end of it doesn't mean that it's superhero book. Not to mention that there is a clear distinction between the creative freedom between DCU and Vertigo, Specially between Didio's DC and Berger's Vertigo.

[The Batman]

Just because it has ''man'' at the end of it doesn't mean that it's superhero book. Not to mention that there is a clear distinction between the creative freedom between DCU and Vertigo, Specially between Didio's DC and Berger's Vertigo.

... Or that even if we were to consider Sandman a superhero book, it's still one of a few exceptions that, when weighed against the countless other books out there, proves the rule, so to speak.

[The Batman]

Who is Michael?

Yeah, for whatever reason, I'd mistakenly called Darrell "Michael."

[Vidocq]

... Or that even if we were to consider Sandman a superhero book...

Which would be so much of a stretch you might as well call League of Extraordinary Gentlemen a JLA Spinoff.

[The Batman]

Funny how it fits with both definitions of the link you yourself gave, yet you're still going against it. Why don't you write a letter to Webster to change what the word means instead. I'm sure they'll find your explanation very interesting.

Yeah, not so much.

I mean, even if we were going to let you cherry pick two words to be synonymous with "pretentious" even though they're not, you've still not shown the claim to be incorrect, exaggerated, or unwarranted and, therefore, you've not shown it to be what you'd call pretentious. It doesn't work with the actual definition of pretentious either given that someone pointing out that while mainstream superhero books rarely exhibit high artistic merit but that they love them anyway doesn't really work as "making usually unjustified or excessive claims (as of value or standing)" nor is it "expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature" either. It's not even ": affected, grandiose, highfalutin, high-minded, la-di-da" or any of that.

It's just honest.

[The Batman]

Which would be so much of a stretch you might as well call League of Extraordinary Gentlemen a JLA Spinoff.

The Iceman Cometh is an X-Men crossover, right?

[jesse_custer]

Not to bust your balls, but you seem to do that a lot: going by a meaning besides the (primary) definition of a word. Just sayin'. :)

Somebody named From Hell, but I didn't really like that one as much as others did. So my list would perhaps be too long. My favourite non-superhero comic is Jimmy Corrigan, and with that it becomes much harder to find something I find on par with it. But then there's Sandman and I would definitely not say Ware's Corrigan is better than that.

I don't mind any ball busting, but remember, I'm only saying that your understanding of the primary meaning of pretentious is incorrect.

Is Sandman really a corporate superhero? I agree it has artistic merit.

[king mob]

I would consider questioning somebody who does not think superhero comics are good being on a superhero forum, less "playing the man" than saying somebody made an "idiotic" comment. Maybe that's just me.

You don't seem to have interpreted anything correctly.

Superhero comics can be good, or entertaining but they tend not to be genuine works of art.

I have enjoyed other comics as much if not more than Watchmen. The fact is you are basing this on your opinion, however your opinion has no meaning whatsoever in somebody else's perceived quality of a work. The problem of course is not that you have a opinion, but you apparantly feel that others should have yours as well.

I've enjoyed plenty of superhero comics more than Watchmen. None of them are better in terms of being a work of art.

Do you understand the difference?

Hmmm, Fables? You're acting as if the lack of these things can only be found at DC or Marvel, when I can name comics outside of the big two which I feel lack it as well.

Fables isn't a superhero comic, and it's one of the last comics DC/Vertigo have under a contract where the creators get decent remuneration for having an ownership in their work.

[king mob]

Also, for anyone who would like a good definition of smug and self-righteous, go no further than this:



Hopefully, one day everyone can be like Bruce Kent!

I wish to live the dream.

[king mob]

If Superheroes were creator owned or had the kind of leash DC Gave to books like Moore's Swamp thing, Miller's Daredevil and O'neil's The Question (in other words, nobody gives a f"ck so do whatever) and. to a much lesser extent to Hellblazer and Punisher Max then you could have art, maybe even High art, but now a days? Tough luck.

Creator owned superheroes isn't a guarantee of good superhero comics, let alone good comics let alone actually being art.

BTW I would say that Moore's Swamp Thing and O'neil's The Question are the closest to High art DC has ever being. I don't know if those count as Superheroes, though.

The Question was an excellent superhero comic that's been criminally ignored but it didn't get near high art because it was at the end of the day still stuck within certain storytelling and artistic restrictions it imposed on itself but it did have things to say which is more than can be said for most corporate titles then and now, while Swamp Thing tried and did new things with old concepts but in a way we'd not seen before, not even with genuine pioneers of the medium like Steranko or Eisner.

[Bruce Kent]

I wish to live the dream.

lol
The last member of the gang. Weird it took so long for this particular baby to join the party.