Alan Moore/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(clean up)
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{workcreator}}
* There has always been one thing that kinda bugged me about the adaptation thing: If Moore's so convinced that his work does not translate well to other mediums, why does he keep allowing them to translate it to other mediums? I know that in some cases it would be out of his hands (I can't say for which books, not knowing DC's policy on creator ownership and all), but shouldn't he have at least been able to draw the line with his independently published stuff?
** DC owns pretty much everything he's done. They published V For Vendetta and Watchmen, so they own those. They also bought America's Best Comics (Publishers of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
Line 16:
** More has indeed spoken (in my view, plausibly) to that very question: "In literature, I would say that it's different. I would say, and it might be splitting hairs, but I'm not adapting these characters. I'm not doing an adaptation of Dracula or King Solomon's Mines. What I am doing is stealing them. There is a difference between doing an adaptation, which is evil, and actually stealing the characters, which, as long as everybody's dead or you don't mention the names, is perfectly alright by me. I'm not trying to be glib here, I genuinely do feel that in literature you've got a tradition that goes back to Jason And The Argonauts of combining literary characters [...] It's just irresistible to do these fictional mash-ups. They've been going on for hundreds of years and I feel I'm a part of a proud literary tradition in doing that. With taking comic characters that have been created by cheated old men, I feel that that is different [...] And that's my take on the subject." http://www.avclub.com/articles/alan-moore-stands-up-for-stealing-other-peoples-ch,68911/
*** Ignoring the fact that Moore's logic is really stupid (the only thing different is that all of the original creators are ''dead'', which makes it suddenly alright), it doesn't make what Moore does any different. How would H.G. Wells react to hearing that his Invisible Man was violently sodomized to death by Robert Louis Stevenson's Mr. Hyde? Or how would Lewis Carrol, L. Frank Baum, & J.M. Barrie take reading ''Lost Girls''? The last part is really self-serving: "I don't mind stealing characters from others because it's from literature, but doing the same to comics characters is bad because it's happened to me and I don't like it. Hypocrisy is only wrong when other people do it. When I'm hypocritical its okay."
*** Indeed, Moore's logic can be summed up as "Well it's okay when ''I'' do it." You can tell that he knows it, too, with his hemming and hawing about "splitting hairs". Almost none of Moore's work is truly original... even Watchmen is based on other people's characters that he was forced to reskin when they saw that he was going to completely destroy most of them (some of them apparently just for the mean-spirited glee of it). It really all boils down to Moore's arrogance... he thinks that the things he loves (classic literature and some knockoff superhero he read when he was a kid) are only improved by his masterful touch, while anyone that would dare to translate his own work in such a way is defiling it most crassly.
 
{{reflist}}
[[Category:CreatorsCreator/Headscratchers]]
[[Category:Alan Moore]]
[[Category:Headscratchers]]