Why does Alan Moore hate Harry Potter?

[de Sosa]

I don't understand Alan Moore's dislike of Harry Potter. In League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Century 2009, he seems to have alot of hatred for Harry Potter and seemingly the in his mind juvenile writing of JK Rowling as well.
Why?

He makes Harry Potter the anti-christ makes him a banal mass murderer high on pills who murdered his friends and teachers and blew up hogwarts and platform 9 and 3/4
refers to the harry potter world as "Artificial, as if it's been constructed out of reassuring imagery from the 1940s, a story-book place gone horrible wrong
Refers to the train as running on "sloppily defined magical principles"
"Maybe this magical landscape mirrors the real world. That's why it's so awful"-"Yes, and it was meant to be marvelous"

I don't get why he feels a need to criticize Harry Potter? It's written in the tradition of English boarding school literature from the past. It got a ton of kids to read, and it's not like they are bad books, they mature in writing with the main characters and actually have alot of decent themes that come through in the final book, such as loss of innocence and acceptance of death. Does he hate it simply because it's popular? Do you think he has read all of the harry potter books?

He seems to be saying that the literature and heroes of today, represented by harry potter, are pale, inferior copies of stories from the past, and nothing that is new or recent is worth anything.

Very strange. It seems like he's commentating against stories being turned into multi-media franchises, while at the same time just making fun of Harry Potter.

Does he not like it because it's extremely popular? Does he not like it because it doesn't follow his own alistair Crowley ripped off interpretation of magic? They are well written, set in an original world, based off an old english literary tradition, Moore should love these things. He just seems like a gigantic hypocrite.


He has been so publicly against other creators making use of his characters in ways they haven't been intended, and yet he's the one who has made a career of that, turning 3 beloved children's book characters into porno heroines, harry potter into a mass murdering anti-christ, and Alan Quartermaine into a drug addicted homeless bum. Don't forget about the rest of the league of extraordinary gentlemen. Nemo is the only one who really stays true to the original writer's character.

He turned happy go lucky Miracle Man into a tale full of rape and mass murder

Not to mention the characters in Watchmen are just loose reinterpretations of old Charlton Characters that he didn't invent.

Alan Moore's whole career is based off dramatically reinterpreting other people's characters. So why is he so angry about people doing it to his own?

[CromagnonMan]

Perhaps he doesnt hate it, maybe he's just trying to be satirical. I dont know, ive never read HP and i dont know much about Alan Moore's work. I know he's a self confessed anarchist so anything that's a commercial success would be ripe for being attacked.

[The Confessor]

I think the OP is being over sensitive. I didn't get any sense of "hatred for Harry Potter" from the Century: 2009 book, or the impression that Moore was calling JK Rowling's writing juvenile (although I personally do think her writing is poor, but that's another debate). Moore was just using the Potter franchise in the same manner that he's used all the literary characters in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Throughout the series Moore has frequently twisted these literary sacred cows into grotesque forms -- look at how he turned beloved children's characters like Rupert Bear, Jumbo Elephant and Mr. Badger into zombie-like chimeras, doing the bidding of Dr. Moreau in LoEG Vol. 2. Did he do that because he "hates" Rupert Bear, no, of course not. It's just Moore's way of subverting the original source material he's drawing on to make for a more engaging read in his alternate history setting. To be honest, that is pretty much what the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen is in a nut shell -- alternate readings of literary charcaters, set in a world where these characters really existed.

[de Sosa]

I think the OP is being over sensitive. I didn't get any sense of "hatred for Harry Potter" from the Century: 2009 book, or the impression that Moore was calling JK Rowling's writing juvenile (although I personally do think her writing is poor, but that's another debate). Moore was just using the Potter franchise in the same manner that he's used all the literary characters in The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Throughout the series Moore has frequently twisted these literary sacred cows into grotesque forms -- look at how he turned beloved children's characters like Rupert Bear, Jumbo Elephant and Mr. Badger into zombie-like chimeras, doing the bidding of Dr. Moreau in LoEG Vol. 2. Did he do that because he "hates" Rupert Bear, no, of course not. It's just Moore's way of subverting the original source material he's drawing on to make for a more engaging read in his alternate history setting. To be honest, that is pretty much what the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen is in a nut shell -- alternate readings of literary charcaters, set in a world where these characters really existed.

If Moore's whole career is based off subverting and reinterpreting other people's characters, why is he so against people doing it to his own characters, like in Before Watchmen for example.

[T GUy]

I think the OP is being over sensitive. I didn't get any sense of "hatred for Harry Potter" from the Century: 2009 book, or the impression that Moore was calling JK Rowling's writing juvenile (although I personally do think her writing is poor, but that's another debate).

If you think Rowling's writing is poor, what do you make of Dan Brown?

[T GUy]

If Moore's whole career is based off subverting and reinterpreting other people's characters, why is he so against people doing it to his own characters, like in Before Watchmen for example.

I would imagine it is because other people don't subvert or reinterpret his characters but rather do new stories of them which are just like the previous ones in order to make money.

[foxley]

I have to agree with de Sosa. To me, it felt like real hatred and contempt from Moore for HP.

Perhaps he just doesn't like anyone postulating mysticism that doesn't centre around worshipping a giant snake god?

[de Sosa]

I would imagine it is because other people don't subvert or reinterpret his characters but rather do new stories of them which are just like the previous ones in order to make money.

The writers and artists behind before Watchmen probably had a huge love of the characters and original Alan Moore story, which was incredible. Yes maybe some of them are "just doing it for the money", but all of them are big names who are at a stage in their careers where they can do pretty much whatever they want, and they are choosing to put their effort into writing and drawing new stories based on Watchmen characters. If they were "doing it for the money", they would not have gone into the field of comics in the first place that is highly work intensive with little to no payoff.

DC, when they commissioned Before Watchmen most likely did it just for the money grab, but the artists and writers of those comics are doing it because they love the characters and love comics.

[T GUy]

DC, when they commissioned Before Watchmen most likely did it just for the money grab, but the artists and writers of those comics are doing it because they love the characters and love comics.

But not enough to respect Alan Moore's preferences.

[de Sosa]

But not enough to respect Alan Moore's preferences.

Do you think Frank L. Baum, J.M. Barrie and Lewis Carrol would have liked what Moore did with their characters? It's hard to say that Moore respected them when he has Alice getting raped by horses and whipped, Wendy getting peed on and Wendy's young brothers engaging in various sexual acts with the lost boys, and Dorothy having sex with everything that moves including her close relatives?Where Oz, Wonderland and Neverland are nothing but fantasies created in girls heads to cover up sexual trauma?

So in his head he has the freedom to turn internationally beloved children's stories into XXX porn, but no one is allowed to even touch his own characters, which in themselves are ripoffs of Charlton characters that he didn't create.

[Ahab]

If you think Rowling's writing is poor, what do you make of Dan Brown?

I agree with The Confessor's opinion that Rowling's writing is poor. Couldn't get past the first two pages of the first Harry Potter book.
Dan Brown's is even worse, imho. Just look at the first paragraph of 'The Da Vinci Code" - godawful. E.g.: "the seventy-six year old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself"

But, again, this is only my opinion.

[Roquefort Raider]

If you think Rowling's writing is poor, what do you make of Dan Brown?

Charybdis and Scylla.

[Lord Bravery]

Moore's probably pissed off that Harry Potter makes magic and wizardry for kids, when in reality, magic is SERIOUS BUSINESS!

[de Sosa]

I agree with The Confessor's opinion that Rowling's writing is poor. Couldn't get past the first two pages of the first Harry Potter book.
Dan Brown's is even worse, imho. Just look at the first paragraph of 'The Da Vinci Code" - godawful. E.g.: "the seventy-six year old man heaved the masterpiece toward himself"

But, again, this is only my opinion.

The first two harry potter books are written for 9-11 year olds. I don't know what kind of writing you expect for that target age bracket.

[Ahab]

Do you think Frank L. Baum, J.M. Barrie and Lewis Carrol would have liked what Moore did with their characters? It's hard to say that Moore respected them when he has Alice getting raped by horses and whipped, Wendy getting peed on and Wendy's young brothers engaging in various sexual acts with the lost boys, and Dorothy having sex with everything that moves including her close relatives?Where Oz, Wonderland and Neverland are nothing but fantasies created in girls heads to cover up sexual trauma?

So in his head he has the freedom to turn internationally beloved children's stories into XXX porn, but no one is allowed to even touch his own characters, which in themselves are ripoffs of Charlton characters that he didn't create.

Perhaps Moore is being inconsistent here and perhaps he hates all these cherished literary characters. I fail to see why that should affect my appreciation of his 'subversive' takes on these characters.