Why does Alan Moore hate Harry Potter?

[Scott Harris]

I disagree. Still holds up for me. It's still the best story that examines Batman and Joker as mirror images and shows that Batman might be just as crazy as his enemies. The unreliable narrator angle from Joker's POV is great. And it has incidents like Babs getting paralysed which were expanded upon over the years and made her into a great character as Oracle.

I have a hard time crediting Moore for work that Ostrander and Simone actually did. Shooting and paralyzing Barbara Gordon was in my opinion little more than a cheap stunt. The fact that other writers later made a silk purse out of Moore's sow's ear is beside the point. Further, and ironically considering this topic and the discussion of both Harry Potter and Watchmen, it was at least in part editorially mandated by editors who didn't think Batgirl fit into the grim n' gritty post-Dark Knight world of Batman.

The cover is a classic. The rest of the book is overpraised and has been since day one.

[Lord Bravery]

I don't think it was a cheap stunt. It was a villain, one of the most villainous in the Joker, doing a... villainous thing. And it made sense with the story, how Joker was trying to push Gordon over the edge. I think shooting someones daughter and taking provocative pictures is a great way to try and screw with their heads.

[GavinR]

Also, as a stand-alone work, The Killing Joke comes across as insensitive and narrow. It hardly even cares about the victim of the crime, in clear contrast to V for Vendetta.

Well of course, that is the whole point. Moore writes the Joker as someone who had everything taken from him in his life and so he just wants to destroy what others have. There's no real reasoning behind what he does. It is all just to cause murder and mayhem. The lack of care for the victim as you say is just reflective of the Joker's motif. He doesn't give a damn.

[dr chimp]

didnt moore himself say that he thought killing joke was a bit of a mess? (there is no way in god's earth i am finding a quote tho)

[Slam_Bradley]

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.

Beyond what Ben had to say (which was well said and spot on) the Baum, Barrie and Carrol have a few things going on that Moore doesn't. First they're all dead, Moore isn't. They don't care one wit what is done or isn't done with their creations. Second, their creations are all in the public domain. So they are subject to reinterpretation at the whim of the creator. Moore's work is not in the public domain and, barring asshattery by DC Comics, would be controlled by Moore.

Baum, Barrie, Carrol, etc. knew full well that their creations would cease to be under their control. They had a maximum of 58 years before they ceased to control them and they were let loose in the sandbox of public domain.

[Slam_Bradley]

Killing Joke is considered a classic and very influential, whether you like it or not is up to you.

Even Moore recognizes that it's outdated and largely rubbish. It's influence has largely been negative. Though to be fair that can be said of most of Moore's work, even the good stuff.

[Lord Bravery]

Well of course, that is the whole point. Moore writes the Joker as someone who had everything taken from him in his life and so he just wants to destroy what others have. There's no real reasoning behind what he does. It is all just to cause murder and mayhem. The lack of care for the victim as you say is just reflective of the Joker's motif. He doesn't give a damn.

Moore wrote Joker as an unreliable narrator though. His "origin" might have been a load of old cobblers. Not disputing that Joker doesn't give a damn, just saying that he may not have suffered "one bad day".

[Lord Bravery]

Even Moore recognizes that it's outdated and largely rubbish. It's influence has largely been negative. Though to be fair that can be said of most of Moore's work, even the good stuff.

I wouldn't say it's negative. Oracle was a great character. The idea that Batman and Joker are intrinsically tied together because of them being mirror images is an essential part of the Batman mythos now. As is the idea that Joker is an unreliable narrator and has that whole "super sanity" thing going on which Morrison expanded upon. Pretty much all of Joker's characterisation from Killing Joke is what defines the character as we know him today.

[Judomaster]

I genuinely shocked that there is someone on this forum who has never read an Alan Moore comic. Watchmen, Swamp Thing, V for Vendetta, From Hell, MarvelMan/MiracleMan, Promethea, The Killing Joke. These are all classics that i'd say are essential reading.

For a whole variety of reasons, I gave up buying and reading new comics in the early 80s. I remember Watchmen coming out and people talking about Swamp Thing around the time I gave up, but was too busy buying Invaders, Spider-man, MLJ and Action Hero back issues at the time.A limited budget meant that I had to make the choice between buying Peacemaker #1, or Watchmen #1. Peacemaker won for several reasons...




I'm not sure I understand how an anarchical bent to the comic that is missing in the film would make too much of a difference to the complexity of the story. In terms of political ideology, anarchism is about as simplistic and juvenile as it gets. But again, I haven't read the comic, and likely never will.

[DebkoX]

Jealousy...Or maybe he just doesn't like Harry potter.

[Slam_Bradley]

As to the original question, it's a very cursory reading of Moore and LoEG to decide that he "hates" Harry Potter. Somebody has to be the Anti-Christ in 2009. Who else would be a more reasonable option than one of the few pervasive cultural icons of the period?

Whatever Moore or anyone else may think of Rowling's writing (I think it's serviceable if uninspiring) there's no insult in saying it's juvenile. She was writing for pre to early teens. What was for decades called the "Juvenile" market.

There is no question that Moore is commenting on the homogeneous cross-media culture that we currently have. And that has, to an extent, run through the entire LoEG, so it's hardly surprising that he'd take a knife to the most recent and arguably largest culprit.

And even if he does hate Harry Potter...so what?

[DebkoX]

It doesn't make any difference....

[dan bailey]

In terms of political ideology, anarchism is about as simplistic and juvenile as it gets.

I have met my archenemy, I see.

[Dizzy D]

Point 1: It's a comic book, it's not a diary. Anything characters may say or do has no bearing on anything Alan Moore does or thinks.

Point 2: any adaption of any work is generally dumbed down, streamlined or in other ways changed. So let's use Halle Barry's Catwoman movie to judge Brubaker and Cooke's comic.

So on to point 3: why is this in classic comics? League 2009 came out like a month ago?

[Slam_Bradley]

So on to point 3: why is this in classic comics? League 2009 came out like a month ago?

Alan Moore = instant classic.