The craven and bitchy hostility of a Scottish tribute band
January 9, 2014 4:22 PM   Subscribe

A lengthy interview with Alan Moore on the Gollywog ("a strong, likeable and positive figure"), his film Act of Faith and sexual violence, and the "herpes-like persistence" of Grant Morrison.
posted by Shepherd (117 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite

 
Jesus, Alan. Give the Morrison shit a rest already. Shit got tiresome years ago.
posted by middleclasstool at 4:28 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]


I know when I think "person who should decide if golliwog imagery should return to common usage," I think "aged British writer"
posted by mightygodking at 4:31 PM on January 9 [21 favorites]


Jesus, Alan. Give the Morrison shit a rest already. Shit got tiresome years ago.

Ctrl + F reveals 30 occurrences of "Grant Morrison" in that interview. Alan may have a sigil coming his way soon...
posted by MikeMc at 4:42 PM on January 9


Holy shit like a good third of the rather lengthy interview is just throwing shade at GM. I now have the sincere impression that Alan Moore spends the portion of his free time that isn't occupied by coming up with apologias for his more controversial content is spent coming up with ways Grant Morrison's words or actions have slighted him. There's some insights in this interview but holy shit most of it is straight-up Old Man Yells At Cloud territory. Which, I mean, considering the things coming out of Alan Moore in the recent years isn't terribly surprising but my god I feel like I need a shower after getting covered in all that spite.
posted by griphus at 4:43 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


One of the biggest lies about the Golli white people cling to is that the original was somehow less racist than the later versions, and if it wasn't for the whole failing to copyright thing everything about the Golli would be just peachy.

But if you've read any of the Upton Golli books - which! I! have! - that claim is clearly a lie. It is a demonstrable untruth. It is a delusion.


(From an interesting five part essay about Alan Moore's use of the golliwog that starts here, which I found via this China Mieville essay)
posted by dng at 4:43 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]


I can't be the only person who thinks that Warren Ellis was more than a little inspired by Alan Moore when writing the character of Spider Jerusalem - both in physical appearance and behaviour.
posted by dotgirl at 4:55 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


I'm still a bit confused as to what's happened to Moore over the last few years. His storytelling on the LoEG books went from reliably dense-yet-readable to bafflingly impenetrable somewhere between Black Dossier and the Century trilogy. I think trying to go from the public-domain 19th century to the franchise-storytelling 20th/21st might have been a bridge too far.
posted by Strange Interlude at 4:56 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


alien entity from that sizeable majority of the universe’s missing mass and substance that is hypothetically described as ‘dark matter’; from a dark matter cosmos with little light and thus with sound being the most probable carrier of information, and where heat is generated by the greater and more compacted mass of the dark-matter bodies themselves.


you fail physics forever
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:57 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


Warren Ellis was more than a little inspired by Alan Moore when writing the character of Spider Jerusalem

I never thought of it before, but Spider spends most of the first issue looking like Moore (bearded and gruff) and then spends the entire rest of the series looking like Grant Morrison (bald w/ body mods).
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:00 PM on January 9 [15 favorites]


Pinky: "Gee, Alan, what do you want to do tonight?"

Moore: "The same thing I do every night, Pinky—I'm going to go on a bit."
posted by biffa at 5:01 PM on January 9 [21 favorites]


There's an issue of Planetary devoted to British Invasion/early Vertigo taking place at John Constantine's funeral where it turns out he faked his own death to become Spider Jerusalem.
posted by griphus at 5:02 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


Poor Alan Moore, always the victim.

You think it'd be hard to get your head that far up your own ass with a beard like that.
posted by davros42 at 5:27 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]


The thing that kills me is that this man is one of the most important writers in the history of comics. Granted, not quite as important as he'll tell you he is, but very important nevertheless. But when you are trying to make points that you want people to take seriously, and when you have a legacy and a body of work like his, to completely fucking undercut the credibility and goodwill that comes from that by alternating between 1) EVERYONE IN MAINSTREAM COMICS IS TERRIBLE AND ALSO STEALING FROM ME and 2) AAARRRRGH THE SCOTSMAN BLARGITY BLARRRGH for literally decades is just beyond painful to watch.

Some of us would almost literally murder a drifter to have the work and renown he does, and he's beefing over who-gives-a-shit from 25 years ago.

Not that Morrison hasn't played his part in this. He should know better too. It's like watching large, British versions of my kids going at it.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:38 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]


There's an issue of Planetary devoted to British Invasion/early Vertigo taking place at John Constantine's funeral where it turns out he faked his own death to become Spider Jerusalem.

Actually, that was 'Jack Carter'; a Constantine homage character.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:44 PM on January 9


Ouch. I like Alan Moore, I generally like his eccentric screeds, but this one diminishes him. Who the fuck cares about his feud with Morrison?

On the "Golli" thing... what rankles is his complete lack of curiosity about what people like BGF were objecting to. It's cute to avoid the Internet, but not cute to just make up what his opponents are saying. BGF is extremely digressive (come to think of it, that's something that she and Moore could bond over), but also devastating on why the "Golli" isn't a fun safe figure. Moore's defense is an infuriating straw man.
posted by zompist at 5:47 PM on January 9


Actually, that was 'Jack Carter'; a Constantine homage character.

Yeah, that is right. I've taken to talking about the characters in Planetary in terms of who they actually are rather than whatever they're written as I'm too lazy to remember two sets of names.
posted by griphus at 5:50 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]


I never thought of it before, but Spider spends most of the first issue looking like Moore (bearded and gruff) and then spends the entire rest of the series looking like Grant Morrison (bald w/ body mods).

I can't remember where, but I read an essay that touched on this years back. Really hard not to see it once you see it.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:50 PM on January 9


Grant Morrison > Alan Moore

Moore is just so arrogant and self-centered it's hard to find him likeable, and therefore even harder to take him seriously. (And his work is wildly overrated. There, I said it.)
posted by zardoz at 5:53 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


He's also railing against a self-proclaimed "Batman scholar," which...uh...is there more than one of those?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:54 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


Grant Morrison > Alan Moore

I've always thought of it as "Grant Morrison is Alan Moore if the outside world didn't terrify and enrage him."
posted by jason_steakums at 5:59 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


Only one that would get his notice.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:00 PM on January 9


He's also railing against a self-proclaimed "Batman scholar," which...uh...is there more than one of those?

Had I tried a little harder in college, there may have been one more.
posted by griphus at 6:02 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


God, imagine the interview if Bob Kane were still alive.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:05 PM on January 9


What is the actual stuff that Morrison has said about Moore? I'd be interested to read it...
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:10 PM on January 9


What is the actual stuff that Morrison has said about Moore? I'd be interested to read it...
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:10 AM on January 10 [+] [!]


Here's some of it, and a follow up here with additional comments by Grant Morrison on it all.
posted by dng at 6:22 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]


This is just Alan Moore unsuccessfully arguing semantics at length.

"How dare you use the word prevelant! The OED defines prevelant as..."

Ugh.
posted by Gin and Comics at 6:26 PM on January 9


I've tried to like Grant Morrison's work. Really I have. But I read all of The Invisibles and The Filth, and apart from his weird fascination with dead cats (in both those works and his run on Animal Man), it was like being told a story by a five-year-old Hunter S. Thompson:

"....and and and there was LSD and TANTRIC SEX and FREEMASONS and and and QUANTUM PHYSICS and VOODOO and TAROT and and and ALIENS and FOUR-DIMENSIONAL LIQUID ARMOR and THE MARQUIS DESADE and..."
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 6:32 PM on January 9 [20 favorites]


I can't think of anything Grant Morrison has written that I've enjoyed as much as Alan Moore's work on Tom Strong and Supreme. All-Star Superman comes close.
posted by straight at 6:39 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Holy shit like a good third of the rather lengthy interview is just throwing shade at GM.

This is the third time I've heard the phrase"throw shade" in two weeks, after never having heard it before. Did everyone else just learn this too or am I late to the party?
posted by jayder at 6:43 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


"....and and and there was LSD and TANTRIC SEX and FREEMASONS and and and QUANTUM PHYSICS and VOODOO and TAROT and and and ALIENS and FOUR-DIMENSIONAL LIQUID ARMOR and THE MARQUIS DESADE and..."

This basically describes everything that Warren Ellis has ever done.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:51 PM on January 9 [7 favorites]


Alan, I'm declining your request that I choose between your work or Grant's. I'm frankly shocked that you thought this a reasonable thing to request. Nor do I much care what revisions you may have to make in your estimates of my intelligence or integrity as a result. We aren't friends, after all, and if you don't want your work read, your only option is not to publish it. That was true even before the internet.
posted by Ipsifendus at 6:54 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


If I had to choose between Alan Moore's body of work and Grant Morrison's, I'd choose Moore. If it was just the work they're doing now I'd take Morrison and it's not particularly close.

Luckily I don't have to choose.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 6:57 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Did everyone else just learn this too or am I late to the party?

Here's a surprisingly comprehensive history of the term.
posted by griphus at 6:59 PM on January 9


He's also railing against a self-proclaimed "Batman scholar," which...uh...is there more than one of those?

Well, there's Kevin Smith. Here's Smith's giving Grant Morrison a handjob in two parts. And, to close the circle, here's Smith and Morrison discussing Moore's "The Killing Joke".
posted by MikeMc at 7:00 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


I've liked things Morrison has written, but he's always had this gormless earnestness to him, like a kid with his eyes wide and mouth agape in a half-page ad for some kind of send-away laser toy.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 7:06 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


I agree with that entire sentence except replace "but" with "because."
posted by griphus at 7:07 PM on January 9 [12 favorites]


If I had to choose between Alan Moore's body of work and Grant Morrison's, I'd choose Moore. If it was just the work they're doing now I'd take Morrison and it's not particularly close.

Luckily I don't have to choose.


Geez, I don't even know how I'd choose there, that's a tough one. My kneejerk reaction would be Moore just on the strength of his stuff up to around the time of Promethea, but then, among everything else Morrison's done that I love, I especially couldn't bear losing "The Empire of Chairs" from Morrison's Doom Patrol run. That one issue alone almost makes me want to choose Morrison.

I've liked things Morrison has written, but he's always had this gormless earnestness to him, like a kid with his eyes wide and mouth agape in a half-page ad for some kind of send-away laser toy.

The optimism is a huge part of the appeal for me.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:08 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


Yeah, fair.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 7:09 PM on January 9


I don't like Grant Morrison either but, geez, I'm still going to pick up the Animal Man omnibus next week and stopped looking forward to Alan Moore books around the time of Neonomicon. I just need Supreme and Tom Strong to be released in single editions and as far as I'm concerned my Alan Moore collection is complete.

The Miracleman reprints are kicking off next month, too. FINALLY.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:14 PM on January 9


Moore increasingly seems to be turning into a character from Gaiman's Sandman run.

Yeah, I'll keep buying stuff from both of them, but that will be the last interview I read from Moore. The more I read of his interviews in the last decade, the less I like him.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:14 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Were I like forced, with like a gun to my head or dangled above sharks, to choose between the two, it'd have to be Morrison. Moore, with all his honest-to-goodness genius, doesn't have the same intuitive understanding of what fun means in a comic book. And I understand that demanding a quality like "fun" from comics as a whole is treating a medium of literature as a genre of literature but, like I said, this is if I had to choose.
posted by griphus at 7:16 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Good god, fuck this guy. This is just the epitome of masturbatory self-delusion. The platonic ideal of Rich Old White Man Says.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd have picked Morrison because his work is overall a lot better - Moore hasn't had anything worth saying since the 80s - but Moore being such a colossal tool is enough to swing it too.
posted by kafziel at 7:24 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Yeah, the more I'm thinking about the things I'd miss, the more I'm leaning Morrison. Morrison is just so thoroughly anti-cynicism. His fictional worlds may get bleak and bloody and weird, but cynicism cannot survive in them. It's actually like the main enemy in almost all of them.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:26 PM on January 9


Guys, you know we don't have to choose whose work we need to like more. And we certainly don't need to choose between them.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:28 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Well obviously not, but it's an interesting thing to think about, which of two giants in the field are more essential to you and why.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:30 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


I think this needs to be settled by a death match. It makes sense.
And it might look something like this.

I think this has put me off reading Lance Parkin's book on Moore for a while.
posted by Mezentian at 7:31 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


I went to Bleeding Cool to find some info on the book (here) and it seems like someone has cast Summon Lawyers because of this interview.
posted by Mezentian at 7:33 PM on January 9


*reads interview*

Oh Alan no.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:37 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


For somebody who claims multiple times (and has, I recall, in every single interview I've ever read) to not give a shit about Grant Morrison and to never even think about him, Moore sure has a lot of information about, and a lot of opinions on, him.
posted by turbid dahlia at 7:55 PM on January 9


dng's links to comments Morrison has made about Moore are very informative. Must-reading, actually; it seems like essential backstory and goes a long way toward explaining, if not justifying, Moore's ridiculously bitchy tone:

dng: Here's some of it, and a follow up here with additional comments by Grant Morrison on it all.

The 2nd link, from November 2012, is Grant's detailed response to the first, with his comments interspersed in red. I can see why Alan would feel the need to respond to stuff like this:

...I’ve grown tired of the widely-accepted, continually-reinforced belief that Moore’s work either predated my own or that he inspired or encouraged me to enter the comics field when it’s hardly a chore to fact-check the relevant publication dates.

So I’ll repeat until maybe one day it sticks; I was already a professional writer/artist in the late ’70s, doing work-for-hire at DC Thomson alongside “creator-owned” sci-fi and superhero comics. This was at the same time as people like Bryan Talbot, Peter Milligan, Brendan McCarthy, and Brett Ewins, making us some of the earliest exemplars of the British new wave. If Alan Moore had never come along, if he’d given up halfway through his ground-breaking turn on “St. Pancras Panda”, we would all still have written and drawn our comics. We published our own fanzines, and small press outlets were popping up everywhere. “2000 AD” was at a peak. Marvel UK was in a period of expansion and innovation. I’d already submitted art and story samples several times to both DC and Marvel, along with a pitch for a crossover entitled “Second Coming” to DC’s New Talent Programme in 1982. I was on the files and I didn’t stop angling for work. DC would have found all of us, with or without Alan Moore, who seems curiously unable or unwilling to acknowledge that he was part of a spontaneous movement not its driving force or sole font of creativity.


Morrison makes a lot of other compelling arguments, too, and more importantly seems to stick closer to facts and dates than Moore does in the main link above. YMMV. I don't see any reason to choose between the two (I'll take Flex Mentallo *and* Top Ten, thank you) but to me both writers have published enough boring shit along with the genius stuff to rate just about equally.

But seriously, read dng's second link.
posted by mediareport at 8:04 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


This is not quite like watching Mum and Dad fight, but I do almost feel like a divorce lawyer, reading endless vitriol-filled transcripts and snipey e-mails.
posted by Mezentian at 8:08 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


From dng's second link"
"the only bone of contention between me and Michael Moorcock is which of us Grant Morrison is ripping off the most."

I think we have discovered peak bitchiness, but it's hard to tell.
posted by Mezentian at 8:11 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


I mean I guess if a bunch of panels in The Invisibles had a little note on the bottom that said "This is a Michael Moorcock pastiche - GM" it may have been more obvious what he was alluding to, but I can't imagine honestly claiming he ripped Moorcock off any more than your can accuse Moore of ripping off a half-dozen literary characters in LoEG.
posted by griphus at 8:17 PM on January 9


Yeah, Morrison's response to Moorcock's plagiarism accusation (about the obvious and clearly sourced Jerry Cornelius homage in a handful of issues of Invisibles) is one of the things that makes me tilt toward Grant in this whole mess, when I bother to tilt at all. It really does seem like Alan is holding some strange sort of grudge that goes way beyond the facts of the various situations.
posted by mediareport at 8:19 PM on January 9


I rate Moore the better of the two writers for structure, and seamlessness between plot and theme. I rate Morrison the better in terms of insight into character and setting. That makes for as close to an even score as I can imagine. Purely subjectively, Moore always presents the ideas embedded in his work in the tones of a doomsday prophet, whereas Morrison seems enthralled by every new idea that comes to his attention, and by the universe that gives rise to them. That seems like the wiser of the two responses to me.
posted by Ipsifendus at 8:21 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Moore always presents the ideas embedded in his work in the tones of a doomsday prophet...

Yeah, absolutely. Morrison and Moore are both amazingly talented and inventive storytellers. But I first read Flex Mentallo at what was at the time the emotional and psychological nadir of my young life. Nothing I have ever read of Moore's -- as much as I genuinely enjoyed and will continue to enjoy his work -- ever actually gave me hope like Morrison did through his work. They've both made genuine works of art that, I hope, will long outlive them, but between the two, I'd never expect Moore's work to be a helping hand out of a ditch to me or anyone. It isn't being written to do that, sure, so it's not a failing on behalf of Moore or his abilities. But on a totally emotional and subjective level (which, honestly, is the level on which I, personally, most appreciate art) Morrison's art succeeds in ways that Moore's doesn't even try.
posted by griphus at 8:41 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Just by reading "A lengthy interview with Alan Moore . . ." I didn't even have to click on the first link or read any of the comments in this thread to know that Moore was going to be grinding his axe about Morrison again, It's all Moore seems to want to talk about when it comes to comics these days. Every interview with him sounds like a recitation of an enemies list.
posted by KingEdRa at 8:52 PM on January 9


Guys, you know we don't have to choose whose work we need to like more. And we certainly don't need to choose between them.

You're trying to tell comic book fans that a "Who'd win in a fight?" conversation is pointless?
posted by straight at 8:54 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]


You're trying to tell comic book fans that a "Who'd win in a fight?" conversation is pointless?

It's the 1 horse-sized duck. Ducks can be vicious motherfuckers.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:55 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Well, there's Kevin Smith. Here's Smith's giving Grant Morrison a handjob in two parts. And, to close the circle, here's Smith and Morrison discussing Moore's "The Killing Joke".

But what you should really listen to is Smith's two part interview with Mark Hamill, who is famous for doing the best Joker voice ever in various cartoons and video games and who is a great story-teller and possibly an even bigger comic book geek than Morrison.
posted by straight at 9:00 PM on January 9


Ducks are motherfucking sinister.
They can't be trusted.
And yet Alan has mostly kept silent about these monsters. Mostly.

What horrible hold do these ducks hold over Alan? Does anyone know the score on that front?
posted by Mezentian at 9:00 PM on January 9


It's almost touching reading an internet comics sociologist trying to wrap his head around the work of an actual great artist. As with so much internet yammering about what's "problematic", I keep picturing the schoolgirls talking Ionesco from The Book Of Laughter And Forgetting.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:10 PM on January 9 [3 favorites]


It really bugs me when Kevin Smith is given cred as some kind of Batman expert.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:12 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


Also, "I fear that this gentleman may have understood the film too quickly," may be one of the best/truest put-downs of this decade.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:21 PM on January 9 [4 favorites]


We need guidance from Amanda Palmer on such weighty matters.
posted by benzenedream at 9:41 PM on January 9


I reckon we'll get it.
Because Palmer raised the spectre of Gaiman, who replaced Moore on Marvelman.
What ungodly deal happened there?
posted by Mezentian at 9:45 PM on January 9


I wish Alan Moore would get a hate-on for Frank Miller. That would be fun to watch.
posted by dotgirl at 10:37 PM on January 9 [13 favorites]


One of the comments I read today suggested a reality TV show of Alan Moore, Grant Morrison and Frank Miller living in a house together.

I have never, ever wanted to see a reality TV show more.
posted by Mezentian at 10:41 PM on January 9 [6 favorites]


It would have to be Alan Moore's house, obviously.

I'm only a quarter in, but QFT:
I am relatively certain that we will never be allowed to elect a man or woman of any race or persuasion who is poor.
posted by Leon at 10:46 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


Well aside from Niall Alexander, who is evidently the person Moore was referring to, there is Will "Dr. Batman" Brooker who earned a PhD on his studies of the Batman comics. There's also Sarah Zaidan who earned a PhD in "The Adventures of MetaMan: The Superhero as a Representation of Modern Western Masculinity (1940-2010,)". Along with Suze Shore, they have put out a webcomic/comic that is pretty damn awesome. It features a strong yet imperfect and heroine, and excellent art. I think I like it more than "The Killing Joke". ...and I think I just screwed myself out of an FPP.

Anyway as for Moore, has he turned his mind to something besides Real Person Slashfic, and badly done fanfic of classic literary characters? Dare I hope?

No wait. He's actually standing there, and telling black people that a racist caricature isn't actually racist.

Ah fuck. He's turning Dave Sim, isn't he?
posted by happyroach at 10:48 PM on January 9 [5 favorites]


*adds Dave Sim to his planned reality TV show*
posted by Mezentian at 10:58 PM on January 9 [1 favorite]


Orson Scott Card as the obligatory gay housemate?
posted by benzenedream at 11:21 PM on January 9 [2 favorites]


I can't tell whether it's been mentioned above, but Philip "Tardis Eruditorium" Sandifer has begun work on a typically exhaustive work about the extended Morrison / Moore whateveritis called The Last War in Albion.

It does seem that Alan Moore should get out more, and possibly scale back on his cannabis use. If this interview were spoken rather than written, I'd have been willing to guess it was an extended audition for Just A Minute. That said, he's gloriously rude, isn't he? I couldn't read all of it - I honestly don't care about huge swathes of it, but the occasional mauvais mot leapt out at me.
posted by Grangousier at 2:58 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


So, what you are saying is that there is a Moore/Morrison War scholar?

Are there scholars for such a small realm? I hope they find Enlightenment.
posted by Mezentian at 3:24 AM on January 10


I'm quite a fan of Moore and Morrison and this is the first interview of Moore's which has made me like him a bit less. I was at the Melinda Gebbie talk in Edinburgh and should point out that it was held in exactly the same tent/halls as the rest of the book fest at the same time as the book fest. It really wasn't a separate thing at all.

I got to chat to Melinda briefly and she was kind enough to do a lovely wee sketch in my copy of Lost Girls.I had a quick pint then started queueing for the Morrison talk. I joked to folks in the queue that we might hope to see a bit of handbags if Melinda's hubby had made the journey up north and the two wizards bumped into each other in the quad.

It was not to be.

After his talk, Morrison happily signed my copy of the UK Batman 86 annual and pointed out that Bryan Talbot had painted the end papers and that Talbot was around somewhere if I could find him. I couldn't see him around so met up with my wife and headed to the beer tent where Neil Gaiman was judging a literary deathmatch thing. We got sloshed.

As we were leaving at the end of the night I spotted the distinct figure of Bryan Talbot out on the pavement and asked if he would be so kind as to sign my book. It turned out that he hardly remembered painting the piece and was delighted to be reminded of it. One of my favourite things of last year was his northern accent declaring to his wife - "Mary! Look at this! Batman riding a shark!"


Anyway, Moore was also a perfect gent when I met him but I was wary enough to only bring my copy of Voice Of The Fire for him to sign.

Why can't they all just get along?


( To complete the set Laura Sneddon recently walk passed me at a bus stop. Do i win a no-prize?)
posted by gnuhavenpier at 3:35 AM on January 10 [7 favorites]


Are there scholars for such a small realm?

I'm assuming that was tongue-in-cheek, but have you read Tardis Eruditorium? If there's anyone running pellmell towards enlightenment-by-long-running-tv-series it's him.

(FWIW, Sandifer appears to be an professional scholar who's turned his attentions to Doctor Who and, now, Moore/Morrison. I don't think his PHD was in Doctor Who, I think it was in Blake, but I might be wrong, and it was certainly more traditionally directed. He does reference Blake a lot.)
posted by Grangousier at 3:39 AM on January 10


No.
You have to run up to her and cast Lightning Bolt.
posted by Mezentian at 3:40 AM on January 10


I'm assuming that was tongue-in-cheek, but have you read Tardis Eruditorium?

I am completely unsure if you got my reference from the long-running-tv-series or not, but I hope the PhD was in Blake's Seven. If not: I have a new academic goal.
posted by Mezentian at 3:41 AM on January 10


Ah, sorry. Am git.
posted by Grangousier at 3:44 AM on January 10


No Enlightenment for you! Or soup!
posted by Mezentian at 3:48 AM on January 10


Ensoupenment.
posted by Grangousier at 3:48 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


Come to think of it, it was when Dave Sim gave up marijuana and got out more that it all started to unravel, so it's not an automatic panacea.
posted by Grangousier at 3:51 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]


Interesting. I think Moore's decision to stop giving interviews and concentrate on art is actually a very good one, despite the fact that his interviews have always been well worth reading. It will give him more time to make interesting things and provide less ammunition to people who want to attack him.

Much of what he writes rings true to me, at least. Moore is not the first person to come in for holier-than-thou mobbing online, and not the first person to be upset and offended by it. Some of the people involved in the so-called "social justice" movement on Tumblr appear to be genuinely horrible - narcissists or even psychopaths. Moore is not very charitable to his critics, but even if one were being charitable it is hard to see any other intellectually legitimate way of assessing the use of a character than to pay attention to the particular context in which it is presented - and it isn't heartening to see that even on Metafilter the first response to that point is an intellectually lazy comment like "I know when I think "person who should decide if golliwog imagery should return to common usage," I think "aged British writer", as if that were what Moore was proposing.

Interestingly, this comment comes from a Mefite who has a blog that talks at length about what he would do if he were allowed to write Doctor Strange and other such comics. Moore suggests that what his critics are actually motivated by is not perceived racism or misogyny, but rather his dismissal of comics as being for 12 year old boys and the emotionally stunted. I thought that Moore was reaching a bit here, since how could he know? - but actually this coincidence makes Moore seem depressingly insightful.

Moore's other major point that seems to me to have a grain of truth to it is that fan entitlement is toxic. Whether or not Grant Morrison is, in fact, the entitled fan that Moore paints him as is not for me to say, but I have definitely encountered this attitude elsewhere:

"his appreciation had evidently moved on from the mere ‘inspiration’ which he claimed to have found in my work during our only conversation in a Glaswegian curry house, to the remarkable statement that he had experienced such a strong response to my early stories that he’d felt, in a sense, that they were actually his stories."

Think of the ferocity with which fannish environments like the blog Making Light have argued for the legitimacy of fan fiction, and the idea that all art is really just recombining archetypes (which slides very easily into "all art is just getting better at recombining stuff you have read" which in turn quickly becomes "there is no such thing as talent and the real qualification for being a writer is having read a lot of stuff"). If that were the case, why don't the "fan fiction" writers just go away and invent their own archetype-based works? Because, of course, it is much, much easier to fill in the imagined gaps in someone else's work than to create something from nothing; and you get much more attention for using characters that others already know and love than you would do if you had to build up characters in the mind of your audience from scratch.

Morrison certainly plays the "one of us" card much better than Moore. Fans love artists who tell them that they are fans too, and they turn very nasty towards artists who don't see themselves as fans. I think it will be very good for fantastical art if one of its leading lights severs his relationship with fan culture. I only hope that more artists do the same.

So... this is long, yes, and debatable, certainly, but it is also insightful and often very funny.
posted by lucien_reeve at 4:41 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]


It's the 1 horse-sized duck. Ducks can be vicious motherfuckers.

I'm picturing one horse-sized Alan Moore fighting one hundred duck-sized Grant Morrisons. I wish I could draw, that would be epic.
posted by MikeMc at 5:21 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


But Golliwogs though, really?
For fuck's sake, it's like hearing of a friend drink-driving or falling for a Nigerian email scam.
posted by fullerine at 5:32 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]


Well more def seems to be well into cranky old man stage... he's made a few odd comments recently (odder than usual anyway) but this is going way out there.

Too busy/knackered to go into it at length (unlike Moore, eh... zing!) but in addition to what others have said (ie jesus wept give it rest re Morrison we get it now) I will say that at several he just seems to be making stuff up and stating it as fact (super-hero movie audience is skewed towards middle age blokes, likewise Who.. er no.) and jumping to ridiculous conclusions. The 'defence' of his insults re Gordon Brown is pathetic. And I follow Laura Sneddon on twitter and she says it's all lies and has the evidence to prove it... and she's been a lot more dignified about it than Moore has been to her ('so called journalist' - dear oh dear)

Anyway a while back I interviewed Morrison so I guess Alan has chosen which side I'm on... the fan fiction that is LOEG was cool when is started but I don't think I'll have much problem giving it rest now.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:55 AM on January 10


The 'defence' of his insults re Gordon Brown is pathetic.

He apologises for those, though. "I concede that this may have been thoughtless and I apologise for any offence unnecessarily caused by my remark... I was trying to suggest that while this condition in itself is one to be treated with understanding and compassion, it was perhaps not the best possible situation to have an undisclosed sufferer governing the nation. Still, if that’s what I was trying to say it was clumsily expressed for the sake of a funny conversational sound-bite, which is irresponsible. Again, I sincerely apologise..."

He doesn't like Brown, obviously, or agree with his policies. But he doesn't defend what was clearly a joke.

If you have evidence that he is not telling the truth about Laura Sneddon, please produce it. Unfortunately, Laura Sneddon's twitter feed appears to be protected (nothing wrong with that - if I had just had a major comics writer attack me I wouldn't want a lot of people descending on my twitter feed).

I'm not saying that Moore's position isn't debatable - I mean, he claims that "Upton dressed her creation [i.e. the Golliwog] in the black suit that was the standard formal attire of her day", whereas Wikipedia states that he was originally dressed as a minstrel - which is something I would like to see cleared up (maybe Wikipedia is wrong).

But come on - at least disagree with what he actually said.
posted by lucien_reeve at 6:03 AM on January 10


As I said on one of my social media feeds when it came up, I think there's a certain lack of awareness in accusing comics readers of an infantile retreat (which is not wrong) while devising an elaborate defense of a racist character using the same pedantic tricks as your standard Batman Scholar. I mean I get it; my wife has an only ambivalent relationship with Golliwog and she's from Trinidad. But there is really no defense to be had beyond the fact that when you're 8 you like the character that represents your dolly and marmalade and letting go of that makes you feel weird.

Also, he does not seem to understand that his defense of his short film makes it seem worse than the criticism of the short film.
posted by mobunited at 6:24 AM on January 10


As time goes on, Moore gets more cranky and obsessive and Morrison gets more smarmy and "teacher's pet"- like. Not much to choose from between the two.

Come to think of it, given the choice between Moore and Morrison I'd take Los Bros Hernandez.
posted by El Brendano at 6:41 AM on January 10


I mean, he claims that "Upton dressed her creation [i.e. the Golliwog] in the black suit that was the standard formal attire of her day", whereas Wikipedia states that he was originally dressed as a minstrel - which is something I would like to see cleared up (maybe Wikipedia is wrong).

I know Moore is concerned with that, but I think that's really a distraction. Here's one of the several problems with the fact that Moore writes a long polemic, rather than engaging in an actual back-and-forth. He keeps hammering at this point that the Golliwog wasn't, in his view, originally racist in its origins. You can't say, to the polemic, that it doesn't matter, that it isn't the point.

Maybe Upton's creation was racist in the context of the time and environment, and maybe not. Maybe it was an adorable Raggedy Ann. That doesn't make it OK today. There was possibly nothing inherently racist from the first use about "Chinaman" either, for example. When I was a kid I was told that the polite term for "black" was "negro," but today it's going to offend people. Times change. What makes the Golliwog racist is the long use of it as a caricature by racists to express hate -- so that its use now inevitably carries that connotation. The presence or lack of original sin no longer matters.

And Moore is plenty smart enough, and sensitive enough, to understand this, if he weren't so damned focused on being clever and superior in his understanding of the original source. You just can't say it to him, because it's wall-of-text triggered by a question, and not a real interlocutor.
posted by tyllwin at 6:54 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]


The thing that kills me is that this man is one of the most important writers in the history of comics.

Eh, it's happened to better/more important figures. The last volume of Frederick Douglass' memoirs is just endless overly defensive responses to some long forgotten expenses scandal. Just goes on and on and on and make you feel a bit embarrassed for him.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:55 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


Thank you Tyllwin - that's a very good point. I can certainly see how someone could argue that. I don't think its indisputable and I can see why Moore wouldn't want to get into a "back and forth" with self-selected internet experts, but it certainly seems like a perfectly reasonable disagreement with his position.
posted by lucien_reeve at 7:02 AM on January 10


The Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia has an informative page on the Golliwog Caricature:

The Golliwogg was based on a Black minstrel doll that Upton had played with as a small child in New York. The then-nameless "Negro minstrel doll" was treated roughly by the Upton children. Upton reminiscenced: "Seated upon a flowerpot in the garden, his kindly face was a target for rubber balls..., the game being to knock him over backwards. It pains me now to think of those little rag legs flying ignominiously over his head, yet that was a long time ago, and before he had become a personality.... We knew he was ugly!"

Upton's Golliwogg character, like the rag doll which inspired it, was ugly. He was often drawn with paws instead of hands and feet. He had a coal black face, thick lips, wide eyes, and a mass of long unruly hair. He was a cross between a dwarf-sized black minstrel and an animal. The appearance was distorted and frightening.

Florence Upton's ugly little creation was embraced by the English public...During the first half of the twentieth century, the Golliwog doll was a favorite children's soft toy in Europe. Only the Teddy Bear exceeded the Golliwog in popularity.


There's lots more, including Debussy, Agatha Christie, Enid Blyton, Little Black Sambo, etc. It's worth a read, as is dng's link to the rambling, 5-part discussion of Florence Upton, minstrelry and Moore's usage. There is a lot of good stuff among the excess in those 5 parts but it's a bit of a slog; this page seems to get to the meat about a third of the way down. The bottom line seems to be that Upton's books are full of blackface/jigaboo characters and the Golliwogg was racist right out of the gate, which conflicts with Moore's weak claim that Upton dressing the character in "the standard formal attire of her day" was "a shorthand suggesting that he was a dignified and respectable figure."

(Part 3 is also interesting, with neat stuff about the Fisk Jubilee Singers being a huge hit in Wales.)

Still, Moore's defense of running with Kevin O'Neill's suggestion to use the Golliwog as a character seems plausible to me, if a bit clumsy ("Well, no one objected to our Fu Manchu!") I think the recontextualization of a hugely popular icon is in sync with what Moore had done previously with the series, but I also think critics' concerns about white men removing a racist caricature from its roots and attempting to redefine it as heroic are more than valid, and deserve better than to be dismissed as "holier-than-thou mobbing."
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on January 10 [3 favorites]


The last volume of Frederick Douglass' memoirs is just endless overly defensive responses to some long forgotten expenses scandal. Just goes on and on and on and make you feel a bit embarrassed for him.

Oh God I'm glad I hadn't read that, then. I read Douglass in college and fell madly in love with the man.

This is the thing I love about people like the DeFractions and, outside of comics, guys like Bill Murray or Tom Waits. They seem to be able to through whatever means compartmentalize all the fawning and not let it go to their heads. Murray uses his celebrity to create random delight for people. Waits seems to see it as a sort of plaything for making stories.

But they're people and have their horrors too, I guess. Chalk it up to Don't Meet Your Heroes.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:05 AM on January 10


"Upton dressed her creation [i.e. the Golliwog] in the black suit that was the standard formal attire of her day", whereas Wikipedia states that he was originally dressed as a minstrel - which is something I would like to see cleared up (maybe Wikipedia is wrong).

I will defend Golliwogs to my death in historical context but I think they pre-date the B&W minstrel thing.

I expect at some point the two thinks got smushed together, but I might be wrong
.

I haven't real any LXG (saw the movie!) but even I wonder about bringing them into the present day media.

Okay, having scanned mediareport's link I was wrong (and hadn't hit post for once. Hooray me!)

I'm curious as to why it got so many remarks and Fu Manchu didn't. Is it just the relative size of the outrage lobby groups in the US for this kind of thing? That Fu Manchu is a modern modern and specific character?
posted by Mezentian at 7:14 AM on January 10


I would read the hell out of a comic that involved a sorcerous feud between Moore and Morrison.

Especially if Warren Ellis wrote it.
posted by Foosnark at 7:14 AM on January 10


I'm curious as to why it got so many remarks and Fu Manchu didn't.

If I'm remembering correctly, Fu Manchu isn't referred to by name in that volume of the League (something about the Rohmer estate still claiming copyright I think). So there's that: it wasn't obvious to all/most readers what famous stereotypical character was being retooled here. Also, the version of the character in the league is given a bit more human background and depth, while the Galley-wag's alien and outsize nature doesn't really distance him too much from his stereotypical roots and presentation, though I don't think Moore and O'Neil totally failed to give the character a positive spin. There's just too much real world baggage for their effort to have been sufficient to meet all criticism.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:23 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]


Thanks Lentrohamsanin!
posted by Mezentian at 7:24 AM on January 10


Well, it looks like we're in standard operating mode for reacting to an Alan Moore interview here: reduce long, well-thought-out arguments and well-supported assertions to the most flame-baity soundbites possible, followed by fervent pearl-clutching and umbrage-taking. Take, for example, his argument re: the use of the Golliwog; he notes that LoEG had already used Fu Manchu, "a character who was actually intended by his original author as a crude racial caricature of the most negative and xenophobic strain", without objection, and takes some pains to compare the original work to the later wog caricatures. He even goes on at some length about the African-American woman that Kevin O'Neill met on the book tour, which he never met himself, respecting her opinion ("this person has an absolutely inalienable right to her reaction, and I am not suggesting or implying that her response was ‘wrong’ in any way. If that was her reading of the story, then she is fully entitled to retain her opinion"), and wonders if perhaps they should have handled the character better. But it gets boiled down to Moore being the "person who should decide if golliwog imagery should return to common usage," well done, mightygodking, nice quip, never mind that Moore doesn't seem to be arrogating that privilege to himself or any other.

And thus, of course, with his comments about Grant Morrison, which again, he goes to extraordinary lengths to explain and expand upon, but gets glossed over in an attempt to turn it into an arm-wrestling match between the two, with the winner being arbitrarily declared the one who gave you warm-and-fuzzies when you were a kid. Moore explains first about his history with Laura Sneddon, who broke her promise not to spoil LoEG Century: 2009, which one just might keep in mind when reading Sneddon's account of the Moore-Morrison spat. (I'd think that mightygodking, in particular, would know about authors not looking kindly on their works being spoiled.) Also, contra to what someone else said above, it's Morrison who's pushed this vendetta one-sidedly for decades, going on about Super-Folks (which is a really awful book, IMO) and such. Thus, you have the spectacle of a very derivative writer going on about another writer being derivative. Morrison also has the habit of being chronically full of shit in interviews; look up, for example, his insistence that The Matrix ripped off The Invisibles, rather than both of them basically being a postmodern redress of Star Wars and other prior art with some esoteric references thrown in (Morrison also owed a heavy debt to the Illuminatus trilogy). This interview strikes me as Moore wanting to basically put his version of events out, all at once, just to get it over with. He's not interested in an argument; his comments about readers choosing between him and Grant is his way of saying that he's simply not interested in having that argument, either in the press or in person. This, of course, is not a fan-friendly stance, and as lucien_reeve says above, the reaction from fans in general is about as predictable as it is here. But Moore isn't going to play the game and if you'd like to play it in his absence, well, have fun.

I'd like to add that I'm by no means an uncritical admirer of Moore's; I'm now in the process of weeding out quite a lot of my comic book and graphic novel collection, including things that either don't age well or weren't that satisfactory to begin with, and I'm torn between trying to sell or give away Lost Girls (I can't think of any of my friends who would appreciate it) and simply throwing it away, something I'm not inclined to do with any book, let alone a $75 one. I also tend to agree more with China Mieville's point of view (linked above) than Moore's. And, of course, I do like quite a lot that Morrison has done, especially when he's content to simply tell a story and isn't obsessed with his self-regard at his cleverness. (Although that excludes a great deal of his catalog.) But I've never thought that Morrison had much to say about comics, in general or about Moore specifically, that was worth reading.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:38 AM on January 10 [6 favorites]


Well, it looks like we're in standard operating mode for reacting to an Alan Moore interview here: reduce long, well-thought-out arguments and well-supported assertions to the most flame-baity soundbites possible

I, for one, read the whole wall of text (and I am on the fence as far as the Golliwog defence goes), but man, no. Moore is increasingly grumpy. He has issues.
posted by Mezentian at 7:50 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]


the Galley-wag's alien and outsize nature doesn't really distance him too much from his stereotypical roots and presentation, though I don't think Moore and O'Neil totally failed to give the character a positive spin.

I don't understand Moore's contention that the Galley-wag's dialogue had no racial associations. I don't have a copy of the book in front of me, but IIRC his speech was entirely composed of poetically-elaborate Amos & Andy-esque malapropisms. That, and the subject of his enormous rag-doll schwanzstucker seems to come up at least a couple of times in his single brief appearance. Whatever you think about Moore's intentions, he does seem to go out of his way to code the Galley-wag with some pretty pernicious and deep-rooted black stereotypes.
posted by Strange Interlude at 7:52 AM on January 10 [5 favorites]


reduce long, well-thought-out arguments and well-supported assertions to the most flame-baity soundbites possible, followed by fervent pearl-clutching and umbrage-taking.

That's an absurdly reductionist description of this thread.
posted by mediareport at 7:57 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


- And I follow Laura Sneddon on twitter and she says it's all lies and has the evidence to prove it

- If you have evidence that he is not telling the truth about Laura Sneddon, please produce it.

Bleeding Cool reproduces her tweets here. She has yet to post the specific emails granting permission but she's saying publicly she has them and is looking into a defamation lawsuit.

Alan Moore has told a series of lies about me in a bizarre bulling attack on me personally: http://t.co/hZbwv4oyvr — Laura Sneddon

Of course I have all the email correspondence that backs me up. But hey ho, let’s not let the facts get in the way! — Laura Sneddon

I’m actually astounded at how many lies are in that. Far beyond just being grumpy to being outright poisonous. — Laura Sneddon

For a creator to bully a reviewer in such a way is incredible. As I say I have all the permissions I was given saved. — Laura Sneddon

In fact, I don’t really feel the need to defend myself honestly because it is so over the top! — Laura Sneddon

@N1ghtwing17 looking into defamation laws atm as I have all the emails to prove otherwise. — Laura Sneddon (@thalestral)


Who knows what the emails actually gave her permission to do; it may be that she had permission to reveal some plot details but no one on Alan Moore's side believed she'd reveal as much as she did, or something like that. Seems a minor sidestorm from here.
posted by mediareport at 8:13 AM on January 10


deserve better than to be dismissed as "holier-than-thou mobbing."

They might do, and certainly your comments do - thank you for the illuminating quotes about the history of the Golliwog figure. But please don't quote me out of context in a way that insinuates that I am dismissing anyone who disagrees with Moore as part of a holier-than-thou mob. What I actually said is -

Moore is not the first person to come in for holier-than-thou mobbing online, and not the first person to be upset and offended by it.

Which I stand by and which I think is exemplified by some of the less considered responses in this very thread. The internet encourages people to be self-righteous. I think by now that is a sufficiently commonly observed phenomenon on both sides of the political aisle to be indisputable.

I also said that Moore's comments were "debatable, certainly" and that "I'm not saying that Moore's position isn't debatable" and that someone else's comment "certainly seems like a perfectly reasonable disagreement with his [Moore's] position".

Reducing someone's position to a one-sided, loaded caricature for the sake of rhetoric is exactly the thing I'm arguing against, and you didn't like it yourself when you thought Halloween Jack was doing it.
posted by lucien_reeve at 8:13 AM on January 10 [2 favorites]


Thank you for posting those tweets from Sneddon. Unfortunately, of course, they don't contain any evidence, but it is useful to know what she said.

Seems a minor sidestorm from here

I don't think it is a minor sidestorm for her, or for Moore for that matter. I will be interested to see if she actually sues. If she is as offended as she says, and if she does have all the permissions and correspondence saved, and if the permissions were as extensive as she says, she could have a case.

If she wins a case like that, then Moore's reputation as a courageous truth-teller about the sordid side of the comics industry might well take a hit. On the other hand, if he wins, or if she doesn't sue, it might help to confirm that he is basically a trustworthy source, I would have thought?
posted by lucien_reeve at 8:19 AM on January 10


This will never go to court. It will probably never even settle. But as a self-proclaimed comics journalist, I will bet all the gold in Fort Knox she neither wanted to piss off Moore by spoiling League.

Whatever happened with the timing of her articles, I've no idea, but it is not hard to guess what she might have expected to happen.
posted by Mezentian at 8:34 AM on January 10


There are lots of reasons for not suing which might not have much to do with the veracity of her case. You can't take it as evidence of anything in particular.
posted by Grangousier at 8:35 AM on January 10 [1 favorite]


That's an absurdly reductionist description of this thread.

Rubber, glue, I know you are but what am I, &c.
posted by Halloween Jack at 9:05 AM on January 10


Also, for El Brendano, Los Bros, courtesy of Matt Fraction.
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:08 PM on January 10


One of the funnier responses to this that I've seen.
posted by Ipsifendus at 8:04 PM on January 10


Pot cricitising kettle for blackness, there.
posted by Grangousier at 1:15 AM on January 11


On Race and Sexual Violence in the Works of Alan Moore
posted by homunculus at 1:50 PM on January 16 [1 favorite]


There's an (I think) particularly good defense of some aspects of Moore's crankiness here from Greg Hatcher.
posted by Mezentian at 10:09 PM on January 18


There's an (I think) particularly good defense of some aspects of Moore's crankiness here from Greg Hatcher.

Ehhh, I think it totally falls apart at its baseline assumption. Moore still wants to engage with fans, but he wants to engage with them about his new stuff, not his old stuff, and the article assumes as a premise that this is a legitimate interest. The problem is, his new stuff is mostly unreadable garbage, and his fans are fans in the first place entirely because of his old stuff. By and large, people don't want to hear Moore talk about which pages of a series they haven't read drove him into such a lustful frenzy as he was writing and his wife was drawing that they fucked right there on the writing desk. They want to talk about the things they like, and he hates them for liking the wrong things.

And that's the big difference between Doyle and Moore. As they go to great lengths to point out, Doyle wasn't mad at people for enjoying Holmes, he just had no interest in having anything more to do with the character. But Moore hates the people who like his old work, and gets personally insulting when faced with them.

Also, the straight-up falsehoods and misrepresentations in the article kind of annoy me:
But– let’s get this said, it’s always left out– the interview was prompted by a moron comics fan taking to Twitter to complain that he didn’t get to ask Alan Moore about The Killing Joke (A Batman comic published in 1988) at a Q&A following a screening of Moore’s new film. If that isn’t a classic case of nerdrage over why won’t you come back and play the hits for us?? I don’t know what is.

See, no. What actually happened, according to the actual interview, was that someone came to the panel hoping to ask Moore a question about the disgraceful amount of sexual violence in The Killing Joke, and whether he'd have done it differently now - except, to quote, "But after the applause that greeted his (to me) gratuitous, exploitative, slut-shaming, disturbingly graphic short film about a woman’s suicide, I didn’t think it was the right time". That is a very different sequence of events than what this puff piece wants to you believe happened.

It's part of the same pattern of diminutive, insulting misrepresentation that Moore himself employs to people who dare to care about his older work. See also, describing the author of those tweets, a film studies professor who wrote his doctoral dissertation, later adapted into a full scholarly book, on the subject of Batman, as "someone in the audience, whose name escapes me but who is evidently pleased to identify himself as a Batman scholar". It's bad faith, it's insulting, and it's not "a very reasonable position" from someone who is "justifiably fed up".
posted by kafziel at 11:03 PM on January 18


In depth response from Morrison here.
posted by Wretch729 at 7:51 PM on January 28


That was linked and discussed near the beginning of the thread, Wretch729; it's from over a year ago. I'd love to see a Grant response to this latest from Moore, but that's heading into "let's you and him fight" territory, so I'll let it go.
posted by mediareport at 4:50 PM on January 29


Ahh fooie double fail, I just saw that Morrison was commenting on a Pádraig Ó Méalóid piece and didn't notice the date, AND I missed it was already linked up-thread. Sigh.
posted by Wretch729 at 8:36 AM on January 30


« Older I had done all the research I was going to do, ass...  |  Every Cocktail Bar Menu Ever. ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments