Well, Alan Moore didn't lose ownership of Watchmen so much as he had to be talked into creating it by DC instead of using their characters. And if he had told his "Charlton Elseworlds" story, he wouldn't have been entitled to any revenue from licensing.

What he's doing with "Harry Potter" and LoEG isn't really that different from "Astro City" or any other story that uses archetypal characters. A form of fanfic, if you will, albeit with a much greater level of skill.

The Harry Potter stuff in the latest LOEG didn't bother me so much for the use of the characters. What bothered me was Moore apparently criticizing the Potter books for not nourishing children's imaginations, or some such incoherent nonsense, while not seeming to have any clear understanding of the books to base any kind of sharp parody on. It was a sloppy, unjustified attack on the character, rather gratuitous and lazy really.

I reread the earlier LOEG books recently, and it was great how the characters were brought to life, with their old familiar personalities cast in a new light. This latest LOEG series has lost that feeling, maybe because a lot of the characters are more obscure, so I can't even judge whether Moore is using them well or not. But since the famous characters like James Bond and Harry Potter seem to be portrayed with scorn and derision rather than respect or insight, that colors the whole enterprise and makes it less fun.

Hmm, interesting review, Peter. The only other review I've read is on ComicBookResources.com, which was a rave as are most of their reviews.

Up front, I enjoyed LOEG 2009 more than the previous book and I liked that quite a bit. One of the main themes this time is that current culture is just reiterating previous creations which are never as high in quality as the originals. I don't know if I agree, but I believe that's how Moore really feels. That seems to offer a direct comparison of Harry Potter to hmmm,


SOME KIND OF SPOILER HERE



A Much Peloved character from earlier children's literature. I'm only familiar with the movie version of that character though, and the character's author absolutely hated that. I wonder if that series of books was of incredible quality or did the character suit Moore's needs for a

ANOTHER SPOILER IF YOU"VE GOTTEN THIS FAR



Deus ex machina ending that he had in mind?
His use of the Potterverse characters didn't bother me either. Use for parody & satire certainly protects Moore legally though not as much in Britain as here interestingly enough. He seemed pretty familiar with Rowling's stories to me. The different perspectives on the characters or, like in Harry's case, outright changes, I just chalked up to a wicked sense of humor.

[quote=MightyQuin]One of the main themes this time is that current culture is just reiterating previous creations which are never as high in quality as the originals. I don't know if I agree, but I believe that's how Moore really feels. [/quote]

Maybe part of it is because more fans are becoming professionals in the entertainment industry and want to do "their" version of characters they grew up with.

The other part is that corporations and investors want their investments to be less risky so they want to put out properties that already have some name recognintion or built in fan bases.

T

That's definitely true on both counts, Gerald. Actually, you'd think Moore might cut Rowling's creations a little slack because while they may not be completely original according to him, and what is?, she certainly wasn't backed by any corporations during their creation. Maybe he has personal respect for her accomplishment even if he doesn't seem to have much artistic respect for the material itself.

[quote=Gerald]...However, it's to a degree, creative exploitation. Alan Moore said he only uses other writer's characters after a certain amount of time has passed when they become public domain. But he also wants to use other writer's characters that are relatively still new, but can't so he finds a legal way to do it. It's not Harry Potter (wink wink).[/quote]

Which sets him apart from other writers who tend to not be so obvious or don't spend so much of their careers playing with sooooo many other authors creations.

I just think his use of sooooo many other author's characters over the years, in soooooo many different books, making up sooooo much of his career, whether public domain, satire, or homage, whether it be writing mainstream DC, re-inventing Swamp Thing, Marvelman, LOEG, Supreme, Lost Girls, or whatever else, I just think it tends to muddy the waters a little when it comes to any righteous indignation about other people using characters he's created.

I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to use them or to complain either, not saying BEFORE WATCHMEN is right or wrong, I'm just finding it hard to empathize with him when soooo much of his career is use in some way or another, of the creations of others.

I agree. He starts splitting hairs when it comes to his own work or even other author's work whom he enjoys.

He critizes lack of new stories but what about lack of new characters? Why not create new ones? Why rely on Bram Stoker's characters or H. Rider Haggard's when you could be creating your own Mina Harker or Allan Quatermain?

Joe: "I'm just finding it hard to empathize with him when soooo much of his career is use in some way or another, of the creations of others."

Then don't. Move on. Fuck off.

Wait, Alan Moore uses other people's characters?! Why is this just coming up now?!?