Why does Alan Moore hate Harry Potter?

[jesse_custer]

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.

The movie is a tired anti-Bush film that makes V a hero. The comic was about two ideological extremes colliding and how that collision destroyed lives. If you don't get how that's different and you say you'll never read the book, it's probably best to stop talking about something you know nothing about.

[dan bailey]

The movie is a tired anti-Bush film

Boy, I didn't get that. Were the people in power in the film a bunch of moron-level alcohol & cocaine casualties?

(I haven't seen it in a couple of years, so for all I know they might well have been.)

AFAIK, "fascist" doesn't necessarily = Bush. All Bushes (that I know of) are fascists, I suppose, but it hardly follows that all fascists are Bushes.

[jesse_custer]

When Americans saw V for Vendetta in the theater, it was a time when anti-Bush sentiment was very high, and the film had plenty of imagery and concepts to remind one of the follies of George W.

Hell, the film featured images of and references to the Iraq War!

[Slam_Bradley]

Ultimately the use of Potter is an indictment of publishing and mass media. Stories are no longer stories. They are "franchise starters" and springboards for multi-media opportunities. Every book and movie must be at least a trilogy. Stories can't have a beginning, a middle and an end because the consumer won't accept that they ever need to end. The prevailing wisdom is that comics exist merely as a vehicle to license movies, cartoons, lunchboxes and underwear. Potter is simply the pinnacle of this "achievement." Thus far.

[de Sosa]

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.

Moore is the one who actively signed away his rights to the characters. He actively signed a legally binding contract that allowed DC use of his characters in further comics or other media. He brought this all upon himself in the 80s. If he was so adamant about having complete control of his characters and stories, he should have gotten a better lawyer.

Lewis Carrol had absolutely no say (because he's dead) in Alice being turned into a lesbian who's fond of getting raped by horses, and from knowing what I do about Lewis Carrol he would have been actively against it and utterly disgusted had he still been alive when Lost Girls came out.

[dan bailey]

When Americans saw V for Vendetta in the theater, it was a time when anti-Bush sentiment was very high, and the film had plenty of imagery and concepts to remind one of the follies of George W.

Hell, the film featured images of and references to the Iraq War!

Maybe that's why I didn't get that angle. I didn't see it (a) in the theatre or (b) till a couple of years after it came out, probably.

[Slam_Bradley]

Moore is the one who actively signed away his rights to the characters. He actively signed a legally binding contract that allowed DC use of his characters in further comics or other media. He brought this all upon himself in the 80s. If he was so adamant about having complete control of his characters and stories, he should have gotten a better lawyer.

Are you really that naive? Or maybe just unaware? The contract that Moore and Gibbons signed was unprecedented at the time they signed it. No comic publisher had ever kept a book constantly in print. EVER! There was no reason to believe that the rights wouldn't revert to them. I'm a lawyer. Given the climate at the time there is no reason to believe that any lawyer would have anticipated DC keeping Watchmen in print in perpetuity. DC fucked Moore. That's the simple fact.

Lewis Carrol had absolutely no say (because he's dead) in Alice being turned into a lesbian who's fond of getting raped by horses, and from knowing what I do about Lewis Carrol he would have been actively against it and utterly disgusted had he still been alive when Lost Girls came out.

Yep he was dead. So what difference does it make to him? Add to that the fact that he knew full well that Alice would long since be in the public domain and you have no harm and no foul.

[Judomaster]

To be fair, I've only talked about the film, which was bad and offered one really nothing of any substance to think about.

I'm asking about how an anarchical bent in the comic adds complexity to the tale as represented by the film. Your descriptions have yet to convince me I've missed anything.

I'll be honest though, I care very little about this.

[de Sosa]

]


Yep he was dead. So what difference does it make to him? Add to that the fact that he knew full well that Alice would long since be in the public domain and you have no harm and no foul.

Yes he's dead. But if Alan Moore considers before watchmen as disrespectful to his own characters, what does he consider Lost Girls?

[Roquefort Raider]

Stories are no longer stories. They are "franchise starters" and springboards for multi-media opportunities.

That is the best indictment of modern pop culture that I've ever seen. Well said, sir.

[Slam_Bradley]

Yes he's dead. But if Alan Moore considers before watchmen as disrespectful to his own characters, what does he consider Lost Girls?

First, I don't think that Moore considers Before Watchmen as disrespectful. More silly and unnecessary. And if he were dead, like Carroll, he wouldn't care at all.

The difference is that Moore wasn't doing "Before Alice." He wasn't rehashing stuff that didn't need to be rehashed. He was using the characters in a completely different way, put in a completely different context to tell an entirely different type of story.

Anyone comparing Before Watchmen to Lost Girls or LoEG is comparing apple pie and orange flavored drink. They are comparable only in that they're funnybooks.

[Judomaster]

I have met my archenemy, I see.

Ha Ha!. I will concede that Anarchists have a proven superior knowledge of dirigibles, but beyond that I stand by my claim!




See George Chetwynd Griffith if the reference is unfamiliar.

[The Adventurer]

I think a lot of people glossed over the fact that the 'Boy Wizard Anti-Christ' figure in League 2009 is NEVER explicitly stated to be Harry Potter. Yes, there are several nods to that effect, but there are NUMEROUS other nods to other 'Boy Wizard' characters and stories. Most more explicitly shown then Harry Potter. You may not have picked up on them because Harry Potter is a cultural icon over these lesser know Boy Wizards but they are definitely there. Harry Potter didn't do the 'Boy Wizard' or the 'secret wizard school' or even 'magical train ride' first. In fact in a lot of ways THAT is what Moore is commenting on, that Harry Potter was built off a preexisting archetype that has repeated itself many times in British fiction.

People really should read Jesse Nevin's League Annotations more.

[jesse_custer]

Funny how Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were once just a couple of simple juveniles.

[The Confessor]

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

Never read any of his stuff, I'm afraid.

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.

Yeah, you just keep telling yourself that. Those artists and writers didn't love Moore, his creation and his characters enough to not take the almighty dollar from DC though, did they?

Charybdis and Scylla.

Nice use of a Homer's Odyssey reference there, RR. That might be the first time I've ever seen this phrase used in conversation, instead of the far more common "rock and a hard place" or "devil and the deep blue sea". I salute you, sir.

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.

I expect good writing of course! All the more so because of the age group those books are aimed at. Lewis Carroll, J.M. Barrie, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis et al didn't pen poorly written, grating shit just because they were writing for kids. Saying "they're only kids books" is a very poor defense of Rowling's shortcomings as a writer.

Also, I kind of agree with whoever said earlier that this thread really shouldn't be in the Classic Comics forum at all, since it's about a comic that's only a couple of months old.