Why does Alan Moore hate Harry Potter?

[dan bailey]

Is there anything Moore doesn't hate?

His hair & beard, evidently.

Otherwise, he appears to be a bitter old curmudgeon.

(Takes one to know one, in my case.)

[emb021]

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.

But Harry Potter is but the latest (and probably the largest) of this tend currently.

People forget (or don't know) that other characters had the same thing happen to them in the past.

Two that jump to mind are Oz and Tarzan. Baum's "Wizard of Oz" book sparked a whole slew of sequels, almost coming out annually. And when Baum wasn't doing them, there was a succession of authors who did so. Before the MGM Oz movie, there were stage plays, comic strips, and even a silent movie. Baum himself wrote a lot of non-Oz works that many aren't aware of.

Tarzan also had a host of sequels by ERB, and several unauthorized ones as well. There is the long-running comic strip, the comic books, movies, tv series, etc etc. (heck, I recall during the Ron Ely tv series tv ad for Tarzan loincloths being sold).

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

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

but slum this r srs biznuss d00d

Is there anything Moore doesn't hate?

Tell me, do you see any interesting names here?

[Jezebel Bond]

Is there anything Moore doesn't hate?

He seems to love 'intelligent porn', which is featured in Lost Girls but does nothing much to impress this girl. And before those who hold Moore in some kind of holier-than-thou reverence can tear me a new orifice, yes, I read through an on-line PDF of LG but would sooner consign it to the dustbin than afford it accolades.

And yet again...Moore helps himself to the creations of others...namely Alice, Dorothy and Wendy but starts heehawing like a jackass when others want to use his. His latest tirade is aimed at fans who are interested in reading DCs Before Watchmen prequels...he's actually got the temerity, audacity and arrogance to dictate to fans not to buy his material if they choose to buy DCs books.

Can't wait for those who want to place a plaster on every Alan Moore sore to come running to his defence...as if I give a rat's ass.

[Slam_Bradley]

He seems to love 'intelligent porn', which is featured in Lost Girls but does nothing much to impress this girl. And before those who hold Moore in some kind of holier-than-thou reverence can tear me a new orifice, yes, I read through an on-line PDF of LG but would sooner consign it to the dustbin than afford it accolades.

And yet again...Moore helps himself to the creations of others...namely Alice, Dorothy and Wendy but starts heehawing like a jackass when others want to use his. His latest tirade is aimed at fans who are interested in reading DCs Before Watchmen prequels...he's actually got the temerity, audacity and arrogance to dictate to fans not to buy his material if they choose to buy DCs books.

Can't wait for those who want to place a plaster on every Alan Moore sore to come running to his defence...as if I give a rat's ass.

Why would Moore need any defense from such a ridiculous and uninformed opinion?

[Jezebel Bond]

Why would Moore need any defense from such a ridiculous and uninformed opinion?

Well he has you carrying his water to the point that you are getting a big head about it.

Tread carefully junior, you were banned a while ago for being rather disgusting so please go blow your Alan Moore hot air elsewhere.

Puts this "I'm a lawyer" character on ignore...total waste of time.

[benday-dot]

He seems to love 'intelligent porn', which is featured in Lost Girls but does nothing much to impress this girl. And before those who hold Moore in some kind of holier-than-thou reverence can tear me a new orifice, yes, I read through an on-line PDF of LG but would sooner consign it to the dustbin than afford it accolades.

And yet again...Moore helps himself to the creations of others...namely Alice, Dorothy and Wendy but starts heehawing like a jackass when others want to use his. His latest tirade is aimed at fans who are interested in reading DCs Before Watchmen prequels...he's actually got the temerity, audacity and arrogance to dictate to fans not to buy his material if they choose to buy DCs books.

Can't wait for those who want to place a plaster on every Alan Moore sore to come running to his defence...as if I give a rat's ass.

Whether you like intelligent or unintelligent porn is of course your business, and not much more can or probably ought be said on the matter.

Regarding your second point, you may have missed our friends Roquefort Raider's very intelligent reply indeed, illuminating the very difference between Moore's use of literary characters in a "non-sequel" theatre of work, and the Before Watchmen project which is seeking to further Moore's own narrative. Moore isn't trying to add to the narratives of Carroll, Baum or Barrie; whereas, continuing Moore's own story is exactly what the Before Warchmen creators are trying to do. The difference is significant.

This is what RR said above:

Comparing Moore's reinterpretation of classic literary figures to the exploitation of the Watchmen characters is furthermore comparing apples to oranges. Reinterpretation in a new, creative way is an old and honored approach that gave us many, many interesting reads in the past: from Philip Jose Farmer's Wold Newton stories to Kim Newman's Anno Dracula, from Gregory Maguire's Wicked to Christopher Priest's The space machine, from David Lodge's pastiches in The fall of the British Museum to West Side Story's retelling of Romeo and Juliet, we've seen established characters take a new and different form, sometimes in a funny way, sometimes in a tragic way, sometimes with success and sometimes not, but always in a spirit of creativity. Putting out more Watchmen comic-books is just exploiting a franchise. It makes sense from a commercial viewpoint, and it is legal; but from an artistic point of view, I can understand why Moore would rather people left Watchmen alone. There would be little sense in putting out "the further adventures of Ishmael" if he just went on hunting more whales, and from what little I've seen the new Watchmen books are just what you'd expect: more super-hero stuff.

Regarding your last point, I rather think the act of explaining the differences in Moore's approach and that of others has not much to do with defending Moore (he hardly needs it), but rather in simply trying to rationally explain those very differences. No need to "protest too much."

[Jezebel Bond]

Regarding your last point, I rather think the act of explaining the differences in Moore's approach and that of others has not much to do with defending Moore (he hardly needs it), but rather in simply trying to rationally explain those very differences. No need to "protest too much."

My point is, Moore's career has included use of creations which weren't originally his. He took those same characters, squeezed some juice out of them and envisioned them in his own works. And this to no protest from anyone. People actually appreciated his takes on much of the material.

But there always seems to be a problem when someone wants to use his creations, especially where The Watchmen are concerned. He gets angry, almost hateful. As I said before, he has this 'you're either with me, or against me' mentality where the prequels are concerned. He has gone so far to turn on anyone who would buy the books. You've eloquently split hairs about the difference in Moore's approach but I wonder, if the original creator of Dorothy was alive, would there be an endorsement to her having anal sex while simultaneously jerking of a horse?

Then again, I wonder if there's any point asking that to anyone who only seems to agree with Moore's opinions....

[Aaron King]

I wonder, if the original creator of Dorothy was alive, would there be an endorsement to her having anal sex while simultaneously jerking of a horse?

For me, at least, that's exactly the situation. The creator is dead and gone and the work is in the public domain. If a creator of a character Moore wanted to use were still alive, Moore would probably try to get permission from him/her, like he did in the case of Mick Anglo, or he would use the character much more loosely or satirically, like he did with most of the characters in the most recent issues of League.

[Slam_Bradley]

For me, at least, that's exactly the situation. The creator is dead and gone and the work is in the public domain. If a creator of a character Moore wanted to use were still alive, Moore would probably try to get permission from him/her, like he did in the case of Mick Anglo, or he would use the character much more loosely or satirically, like he did with most of the characters in the most recent issues of League.

No! It's the exact same thing. Even if people can intelligently show a half dozen ways it is completely different, It's the EXACT SAME THING!

[Mr. Holmes]

I guess for me, Harry Potter was just way too overhyped for me to ever get into. I hate to say "overrated" because it's kind of become a blanket statement, but that's honestly how I feel. I never felt the books really delivered to how much craze it gets from everyone - even a lot of people I know personally. I mean yeah the books are "imaginative" and can be fun, but I guess having read so many fantasy novels and even Vertigo books, I just don't find it nearly as impressive as everyone else seems to.

I doubt that has anything to do with what Moore may feel, though I like Fanboy Stranger's theory that it's a critique on how the character has been exploited.

Some other thoughts on this thread regarding Moore:

- Yeah Moore says he dislikes Killing Joke, but it's Moore. Even if it's bad by his own standards, it's a classic and the definitive Joker tale for more general standards. Although I think Morrison's Arkham Asylum (the super-sanity concept) and Heath Ledger's Joker perfected the ideas there.

- I'm mostly neutral on the Before Watchmen issue, and kind of tired of that issue, so I'll skip that. I'm still a fan of Moore's works, but I don't have any personal issue with what DC is doing there.

- V for Vendetta's movie adaptation was obviously updated from the classic 1984 setup to the more post 9/11 paranoia taken to its logical extreme. I actually liked that since I kind of agreed with it.

[benday-dot]

My point is, Moore's career has included use of creations which weren't originally his. He took those same characters, squeezed some juice out of them and envisioned them in his own works. And this to no protest from anyone. People actually appreciated his takes on much of the material.

But there always seems to be a problem when someone wants to use his creations, especially where The Watchmen are concerned. He gets angry, almost hateful. As I said before, he has this 'you're either with me, or against me' mentality where the prequels are concerned. He has gone so far to turn on anyone who would buy the books. You've eloquently split hairs about the difference in Moore's approach but I wonder, if the original creator of Dorothy was alive, would there be an endorsement to her having anal sex while simultaneously jerking of a horse?

Then again, I wonder if there's any point asking that to anyone who only seems to agree with Moore's opinions....

Like I said its not a matter of agreeing with Moore's opinions. I really don't know what the precise nature of his opinions are.

Speaking for myself I see a huge difference in the two approaches. Its certainly not splitting hairs. Imagine if you wrote a dramatic story with a beginning, middle and end featuring characters you created. Then imagine I decided you didn't really end your story properly and I figured I would end it for you or proceed to change your beginning. That's the Before Watchmen approach. But with Lost Girls it's a very different creature. So going back to your story... what if I now saw something interesting in a character you created and I thought, very much like satirists or fantasists do, what if it were a different affair altogether. Maybe now a humour or a horror story. Or a drama of an altogether different nature. It would no longer have any pretense of being your story at all. It would be a new creation. That is the Lost Girls and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell approach. Very different indeed.

[jesse_custer]

Jezebel, do you understand the difference between editor- and business-mandated material vs. individual creativity in regard to existing characters? I think that's the simple point you're missing in the argument. Moore has never said you can't use existing characters. Do we see him bitching about Hellblazer or the new Top Ten?

Your "I'm a lawyer" comment made you look like a moron, by the way.

[Roquefort Raider]

My point is, Moore's career has included use of creations which weren't originally his. He took those same characters, squeezed some juice out of them and envisioned them in his own works. And this to no protest from anyone. People actually appreciated his takes on much of the material.

That is true, Jez, but as was said above there are two ways to take someone else's characters and use them. You can take corporate characters like Batman and Superman and do more or the same with them, perhaps with a smidgen of originality. Most work-for-hire writers do this, and Moore did too. And he never complained about the travesties that were made of the ideas he brought to the DC universe under a work for hire contract (witness the shameless and unimaginative proliferation of elementals, parliaments and colored dimensions in the DC universe following Moore's run on Swamp Thing). Even when bad movies were made with his creations (Hellblazer comes to mind), he'd just dismiss them as irrelevant. The exception is when the producers of the movie "V for vendetta" claimed that Moore was enthusiastically endorsing the film, which was simply untrue.

The other way to take someone else's characters and work with them is to offer a totally new and creative take on them. That's what he did with the classic literary characters that people LoEG. Usually that's done either when a character's in the public domain, or by asking permission of the actual creator, or by making a caricature (Doc Caliban in Philip Jose Framer's work, the fake Harry Potter here).

DC's use of the Watchmen characters is neither of these things. It's treating the properties as if they had simply been work-for-hire material, simple additions to the teeming world of people in spandex.

But there always seems to be a problem when someone wants to use his creations, especially where The Watchmen are concerned.

As I just said, he doesn't have a problem with people using his creations (John Constantine, Mogo the green lantern, the parliament of trees, etc.). He has a problem with being screwed. The new type of contract he signed for Watchmen stated that he'd get the rights back a year after it had been out of print, which at the time meant something like 2-3 years, tops. But then DC kept reprinting the book, an unprecedented move that certainly went against the spirit, if not the letter, of the contract. That's a lesson to future creators, but I can understand why it would stick in Moore's craw.

As I said before, he has this 'you're either with me, or against me' mentality where the prequels are concerned. He has gone so far to turn on anyone who would buy the books.

Yeah, he's probably being needlessly antagonistic to people who, by and large, don't give a hoot about who should own the rights to what; people who basically want good stories about good characters. But I can certainly understand why he'd be upset. For my part, I don't intend to read any of the new Watchmen books; not so much because Moore says I shouldn't, but because I hate the franchise mentality and lack of originality that went behind the whole project. It's a great example of what's wrong with mainstream comics today: do the same thing again and again and again, but in a shinier package.

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

But there always seems to be a problem when someone wants to use his creations, especially where The Watchmen are concerned. He gets angry, almost hateful.

You wanna trot out this tired-ass point, feel free. Because when Neil Gaiman, Jamie Delano, Peter Hogan, Zander Cannon, Rick Veitch, are all on record over the years as to exactly who it was that pushed for them to write/take over Miracleman, John Constantine, the ABC characters, etc., you're already off to a bad start.

But hey, feel free to ignore this in favor of more whining horsedump, too.

EDIT: Oh, a Coke to Custer.