Alan Moore says that if you buy BEFORE WATCHMEN, please don't buy anything else he writes, ever, because he can't bear the thought of his audience including the likes of you.


I have to say that if you are a reader that just wanted your favorite characters on tap forever, and never cared about the creators, then actually you're probably not the kind of reader that I was looking for.

I have a huge respect for my audience. On the occasions when I meet them, they seem, I like to think, to be intelligent and scrupulous people.

If people do want to go out and buy these Watchmen prequels, they would be doing me an enormous favor if they would just stop buying my other books. When I think of my audience, I like to have good thoughts and think about how lucky I am to have one that is as intelligent as mine and as moral as mine. The kind of readers who are prepared to turn a blind eye when the people who create their favorite reading material, their favorite characters, are marginalized or put to the wall -- that's not the kind of readers I want.

So, even if it means a huge drop in sales upon my other work, I would prefer it that way. I mean, there's no way I can police this, of course. But I would hope that you wouldn't want to buy a book knowing that its author actually had complete contempt for you. So I'm hoping that will be enough.

The New Frontiersmen -- ugh, you can't even exaggerate to make a joke about DC.

1. LOEG and Lost Girls?

2. Alan, you ain't an author. You're a comic book writer.

3. I'm pretty sure Dave Gibbons is fine with me, so I guess it all evens out.

Mike

Moore's an author of comics and a novel. Hunh?

It's more likely that Gibbons is fine with making a decent living.

Such a delicate flower.

Sorry Alan, but my morality equates both "BEFORE WATCHMEN", "LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN" and "LOST GIRLS". And I view splitting hairs to differentiate between them as mere sophistry.

1. He's talking about his comic work here.

2. I don't think self-interest is any worse than childish petulance.

Mike

I'm not buying BEFORE WATCHMEN but not because Moore says not to. It's because I don't want the original story ruined by the prequels. I already have an idea of what the Minutemen era was like, and what Rorshach was like before he snapped. Moore and Gibbons showed us just enough to let our imaginations fill in the blanks.

Was LOEG or Lost Girls based on spitting in the face of the guy behind the originary material? That's not a question of sophistry.

At the same time, one could reasonably question the degree to which Moore's work at DC was rooted in the same business practices that he's now decrying in regards to his own treatment.

Anyway, as an aesthetic principle, but not necessarily a moral one, I don't see much of a difference in the use of someone else's characters in BW and what Moore's done. In practice, though, the quality will surely be different.

1. So what? He's still an author of comics.

2. I wouldn't base justification of whether or not to buy this shit on either.

1. Those guys are dead and even if they were alive, who knows if they'd have the same attitude toward their work?

2. DC isn't "spitting" in Moore's face, no matter how much and whines and cries about it.

Mike

This entire thing is about creative integrity and ownership. The fact that Moore has to share both with other people, most of whom seem to have different views or at least levels of concern on these issues, is at least somewhat relevent.

Mike

I wish Alan Moore would stop talking. It gets so uncomfortable when I'm trying to enjoy some delightful corporate art, and that jerk starts twisting things around until the whole idea feels empty and grotesque.

He's such a meanie!

We know what Moore's opinion is, though. Let's face it: a big, important reason for people being interested in BW is the continuation of Moore's story. That's really not the case with LOEG or Lost Girls, both of which were mostly of interest because Moore was writing them. (I do grant that there are some fans of the individual creators behind BW who'll be buying them for that reason alone. But the commercial impetus for the series is for people to buy the whole lot, because it's a continuation of Moore's story.)

Eh, I was not at all impressed with the first issue of Minutemen and it won't take much else to get me to bail on the whole project, "corporate art" or not.

Mike

Ah, your point was that he's a co-author?

No, it's that calling him the "author" of WATCHMEN or other comic work is like calling Joss Whedon the "author" of The Avengers. It's not absolutely incorrect technically, but is an inappropriate use of the term and all the suppositions that go with it.

Who was the author of Watchmen, then?

Of course Moore is the big reason to check it out, but using well known characters is what helps pull people in as well. Would people have taken an interest in Lost Girls if it hadn't involved Wendy from Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc?

That's a fair question, Gerald. It's not one we can test with stats. My guess is that most people are buying those Moore appropriations for him, not Carroll, Baum or whomever, whereas Moore's shadow is the reason people are mainly interested in BW, not its actual creators. It was a marketing idea, not some individual creative impulse. People were asked to work on it. The idea being, as with most corporate superheroes, to continue the adventures of these characters, not provide a forum for the creative expression of artists.

I'm willing to bet that if the characters from Watchmen were used how the existing characters were used in Lost Girls... as a metaphor to drive the remixed characters he was constructing, rather than a straight up cynical exploitation of the original stories... Moore wouldn't have minded.

I'm actually willing to bet a great deal on this because he didn't object when that exact thing already happened.

exactly.

I think C.C. Beck would have objected to Moore's use of Billy Batson in his TWILIGHT proposal:

The creators of WATCHMEN were Moore and Gibbons, with editor Len Wein adding a little something to the mix. I don't think you can apply the term "author" and all that comes with it to a collaborative work like that.

And let's remember that WATCHMEN is based on the work of others. You can argue about The Comedian and The Peacemaker, Silk Spectre and Nightshade or even Ozymandias and Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt. However, Dr. Manhattan is based on Captain Atom. Nite Owl is based on Blue Beetle. Rorschach is based on The Question. While Moore took those concepts in his own direction, would the characters have ended up the same if he'd started out with The Comet, The Shield and The Black Hood?

Mike

Since C.C. Beck is dead, I doubt he's able to care one way or the other.

However, I don't see how that contradicts what I just said. Do you seriously read that and say, "Okay, clearly Moore isn't telling his own story, he's just trying to flog C.C. Beck's material?"

S

How is that relevant? Would Moore's objections be any more or less valid if he had died a week before DC started work on this project.



Again how is that relevant? Moore is drawing his own lines about when it is and is not OK to use another writer's creations when it clearly goes against the other writer's intent. As much as he might like to think so, he is not a special case.

I'm not actually saying anything about the original writer's intent, but whatevs. The obvious sticking point, far as I'm concerned, is the creatively bankrupt reflogging of someone else's comic, not the use of a character.

Heck, here's another example... a character from Invincible named Damien Darkblood. Even apart from the appearance, the character subjects random punks to ruthless interrogation, and uses the word "hurm" a lot.



To my knowledge, Moore doesn't say boo about it. If I had to take a guess why, I'd say that it's because the story being told is clearly Kirkman's, and the obvious Rorschach knock-off is a tool to tell that story... not an attempt to appropriate Moore's story.

I agree with you on how BW is advertised and sold, compared to LOEG and LG, and I agree with Moore as well on that.

But the mentality seems to be the same in mainstream comics. Popular writers playing with other people's creations. Of course Moore is far more creative in that regard than others. However, he's using other people's characters, and people can enjoy the story because of their familiarity they have already. So he has the advantage of not having to come up with brand new characters, and histories for them.
Well, I think there can be a balance between commercialism and creativity.

But yeah, Before Watchmen is not in that balance, and is just about exploiting every aspect of the original series.

I think Twilight of the Superheroes was just a big superhero event story, as opposed to Watchmen's commentary on morality, politics, etc.

The pitch itself says otherwise; he's pretty clearly doing a meta-analysis of open-ended serializations.



Either way though, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't need to be a commentary on anything to be Moore's story, not a reflogging of Beck's.

I might add that "author's intent" is so far off my radar here that if DC published an absolutely ludicrous Watchmen sequel that completely, hilariously violated the hell out of Moore's original goals for the story, I'd be first in line for it. Among some of my more awesome recommendations:

-Rob Liefeld's Rorscach
-Jill Thompson's Bubastis Adventures
-Jaime Hernandez's Silk Spectre
-Milo Manara's Doctor Manhattan

I've stopped trying to defend Alan Moore from fanboys who apparently hate him (though they often nonetheless buy his comics). He is a cranky cuss; he can be prickly. So it goes.

Putting aside Moore's personal ethics and anything he has ever produced, I ask myself: Is BEFORE WATCHMEN, a sprawling package of corporate-made sequels to a 1986 classic story, something that I care to support with my money? Is this the sort of project that excites me?

No.

I'll admit, the fact that WATCHMEN's writer has begged people not to touch WATCHMEN -- and the artist, let's admit it, is at best grudgingly tolerant of the sequels -- also turns me off. Moore and Gibbons planned it as a stand-alone story. I read it as a stand-alone story. Let it stand alone.

But I no longer feel it necessary to defend Moore to the angry yip-dogs every time BEFORE WATCHMEN is discussed. On its own merits, it's a piece of shit.

I sort of agree.

If Darwyn Cooke had produced a sci-fi tale teaming the Watchmen characters with the original Star Trek crew, I'd think he was fucking insane -- but you know, I might check that out, because that story would be coming totally out of left field.

Instead, Cooke & Co. are just throwing their stories down on the bones of the WATCHMEN story. I saw one online preview of the Silk Spectre mini-series in which Cooke and Amanda Conner (who should be doing better work than this) go into more detail about that one time young Laurie dropped her mom's snow globe, breaking it. Guh. I haven't waited 25 years to learn what happened after Laurie broke the snow globe.

OK Ceci, I'll bite: What makes you think Rob Liefeld's RORSCHACH would be better than Brian Azzarello & Lee Bermejo's version.

It can be fun to provoke a bit, though. When Didio and others involved in this project as well as some of its fans are forced to answer to these issues they often come up with some truly nakedly reprehensible quotes that are nice to have on the public record attached to this endeavor.

It seems like taking corporate characters created by others to tell a story with Alan Moore's name on it.

I guess the difference is whether it's good or not. Kind of like how the majority of people here disliked all the graphic violence and sexual themes of recent DC but had no problem enjoying Moore's Batman where Barbara Gordon is shot in the spine, and stripped naked to be photographed by the Joker. Or Miller's Batman that featured a Batman who uses a gun to shoot a gang member, a Neo Nazi villain with bare breasts with nipples stretched to form swatzikas, a prostitute Catwoman or the Joker killing hundreds in one issue.

It would be frikkin' hilarious. Not on purpose, but still. A lack of self-awareness on that epic scale only turns out awesome.

Not to me. I don't think Denny O'Neil is a very good writer, but I have no objection to that Question story.

Oh my god, I would read that so hard. Even moreso if it was TNG. The best part would be where Picard is all proud of himself for finding a compromise to ensure peace between the timelines, and we get a tight close-up on Rorschach who says, "No. Not even in the face of inter-dimensional armageddon. Never compromise."

Isn't that what most comics are today? Basically fan fiction. Artist's and writers endlessly exploring aspects that fascinated them as fans? Guys like Bendis grew up obsessed with Hawkeye screwing all the female cast in the Avengers, is that any different than Geoff Johns creating the "Blackest Night" storyline because he was obsessed with an old Alan Moore "Tales of the Green Lantern" story. It's ALL glorified fan fiction now.

Sure maybe Watchmen wasn't intended to have a sequel or prequel or whatever. But is it the intent of all of these serialized characters to go on endlessly? Often repeating the original stories over and over?

And why does intent matter?

I know the eventual cast would become characters Moore and Gibbons had created, but wasn't the whole Watchmen story originally going to feature Charlton characters?

Moore had intended to kill off most of them, these corporate owned characters he didn't create. What if they hadn't eventually decided to substitute these characters? I'm sure Steve Ditko fans wouldn't have been thrilled with Moore killing off the Question. At least not any more than Watchmen fans being pissed about the prequels. Hell I'm pissed about what they did to Hank Pym. Why should Alan Moore's now corporate owned creations be treated with more reverence than anyone else?

Yes. Which is why most superhero comics today are, like Before Watchmen, creatively bankrupt wastes of time and paper.

To a degree, sure, no argument.

And I'm not buying those comics, either.

Can't argue with that.

I picked up Minutemen in the comic shop, largely because of the controversy/publicity, very much expecting to hate it, but I didn't. Not sure if I'll like any of the others, just saying if they wanted to get a guy like me to give it a try starting with Darwyn Cooke was smart.

First DC or Marvel comic I've picked up in years. (not counting reprints).

Because Moore & Gibbons intended Watchmen to be a stand alone story and MAYBE an additional prequel in the form of a 6 issue Minutemen prequel. It dealt with themes like politics, moral absolutism and questioning the idea of the "greater good," among other things.

Now, DC has made a 35 part prequel that SEEMS to be just filling in the blanks of Watchmen. Why did Mothman go nutty? What was Captain Metropolis like behind closed doors? It doesn't seem like it's going to tackle any new themes or bring anything new to the table.

I just don't agree with all of Moore's criticism of the industry and readers attachment to nostalgia when he takes advantage of that in much of his work.

I thought it was a little too typical. The previews make it seem like what I was expecting, New Frontier-lite.



About most superhero comics today being crap, I think every generation of older readers feels that way.

Like I said above, I know the eventual cast would become characters Moore and Gibbons had created, but wasn't the whole Watchmen story originally going to feature Charlton characters?

Moore had "intended" to kill off most of them didn't he? Charlton characters.

I'm sure most people don't create characters so they can be killed off by future writers and artists, just like I'm sure Jane Austen didn't write Pride and Prejudice so some guy could add zombies later.

I agree. DC bought the Charlton and Quality characters and Moore was planning to do his version of them. But maybe it's okay as long as they're utilized to comment on other themes, and not just the further adventures of The Question. What's interesting is that Moore argues that DC is going against the intentions of the original Watchmen story, because unlike other superhero comics, Watchmen was intended to end. And yet, he was planning to kill off other peoples characters, which were intended to be serialized in ongoing comics.



Moore's argument is that so much time has passed that they're part of the culture now, and legally available as well for use. And he says that he was wrong to work on DC and Marvel superheroes back then because they were stolen from the creators.

Easy for him to say now. But all the same info was available to him back then too.

You're offering the death of the author argument? Really? I thought you hated theoretical approaches to art. I can see where this is going. You're going to stick to your guns even if it means denying authorship to just about every writer who's ever written something. Who doesn't borrow from their predecessors? And why does collaboration mean you're not an author? Co-authors aren't really authors, only writers? You're just making up definitions.

exactly.

Close:

What Moore says about people who buy Before Watchmen should never buy his books is just silly. He'd have been better to advise them to download it, skim through it, recognize them for their general crapiness and delete them.

Secondly, Watchmen is different from other comics in that the ownership of them would go to Moore & Gibbons if it ever went out of print (though how you define what is and isn't in print, I don't know). What if there is an oversight in the DC offices and it goes out of print (one can but dream). What happens to all the Before Watchmen shit then?


Steve

Good question! I've been wondering that too, and similar questions:

- Are Moore and Gibbons receiving any kind of royalty or other payment for Before Watchmen?

- How about for all the promotional BW products like t-shirts and toasters?

We recall that Moore was angered back in the 1980's when DC sold some Watchmen wristwatches but did not give him any percentage of the profits from that. Decades later, Moore refused payments for the Watchmen movie and insisted that the money be given to Gibbons. Yet he was angered when Gibbons was inadequately grateful for those payments, leading to the end of their friendship.

- So if Moore is refusing money from BW, who would he want the money to go to now? Who is morally uncompromised enough to satisfy him?

I have to sadly and shamefacedly admit that I did buy Darwyn Cooke's first issue of The Minutemen, because I like Darwyn Cooke's work. I have already had to apologize to the staff at my comics shop and to both of my sons, all of whom were shocked and disappointed with me. I am disappointed with myself, and I apologize to all of my friends here at Comicon, to Alan Moore, and to all the rest of the world.

I am looking for ways to atone for whatever harm I have done. I have considered shredding the issue and sending the fragments to the DC offices. Perhaps I could copy some of the fight scenes from the issue, pasting the faces of Dan Didio and Jim Lee and Mickey Mouse over the faces of the characters being beaten up? I have already made some donations to the Hero Initiative in an attempt to make my viewing of The Avengers movie more carbon-neutral on a moral level, and perhaps there is a similar charity that could help me in this case?

Reading over the above, I realize that it may sound like I am joking. But sadly, I am not. What a messed up situation all around.

If you derive pleasure from Darwyn Cooke and wanted to read and own his latest work, then you have nothing for which to apologize.

If other people don't understand your pleasures, that is their problem, not yours.

What if Cooke were using the blood of murdered children for ink, would it still be okay to find pleasure in his work?

Don't be ludicrous.

Clearly, you don't care about Alan Moore or children.

If anyone wants Darwyn Cooke quality artwork, just peruse the racks of greeting cards. There's tons of that shit out there.