|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 6, 2015 14:26:06 GMT -5
Ok, so you have read it, the whole of it (I don't understand what "Dealer has it means ). Please believe me, I'm just having a discussion with you, not putting a target on you at all. I'm strongly disagreeing with your rhethoric, but that's what discussion is for. So after reading it, you don't think it's a highly innovative masterpiece of comic book art and storytelling?
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 6, 2015 14:33:35 GMT -5
BTW, the strongest objection people usually have with bestiality in fiction is with movies, with the fear of having animals hurt or exploited. With comics, no one gets hurt, and Moore's use of it is perfectly justificable within the ojectives of this very specific narration. Bestiality has a long lasting tradition in erotica litterature, avoiding it in tis work would have been odd considering the complete range of sexual behaviours Moore investigates within 24 chapters.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 6, 2015 14:59:16 GMT -5
I haven't read all of Lost Girls. I read it when it started (I think it was in Taboo magazine) and then I pretty much forgot about it for a while. But one of my friends really got into Alan Moore (Watchmen, Lost Girls and especially Promethea!) a few years ago and I used to visit her two or three times a year and I started reading one or two chapters every time I visited. So I probably read about half of it. (But then I moved too far away to visit very easily and didn't finish it.)
I love it! About the best erotic literature ever. (I hesitate to call it "pornography" because I feel that any definition of pornography that includes Lost Girls is far too broad to be useful in a meaningful conversation.)
Now this makes me want to see if it's available from my library system.
And I should also CONFESS that I didn't actually read all of Before Watchmen. The last issue of Comedian was so late and the project had become such a HUGE disappointment that I didn't really care. So I haven't read the last issue of Comedian but it's the only issue of Before Watchmen that I didn't read.
Aside from Silk Spectre (and I also liked Minutemen at first, but it was pretty bad by the end), Before Watchmen was pretty bad. (I also like the issue of Comedian where he went to the Watts riots. That's the Eddie we know and love!) I bet that even Alan Moore - if he ever read it - was surprised that it was so bad even below his expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 6, 2015 15:06:40 GMT -5
I have a feeling that if Carroll, Baum and Barrie were still alive and made disparaging comments about Lost Girls, Alan Moore would say "Fair enough."
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Dec 6, 2015 15:08:47 GMT -5
It is techically pornography as it portrays the explicit acts of sexual intercourse. Yet I agree with you that with the kind of pornography that has become the norm, it makes little sense to include it in that category. But it is such a strong oeuvre that it should withheld hte "attack". On that topic, I remember reading an interview of Neil Gaiman ( in the Comics Journal?) expressing his fascination with pornography, or more like his fascination with how much of it is unsuccessfull, especially in comics : it doesn't arouse you, especially the well written one. The he did an issue of Cherry But it proved as unsuccessfull in the very areas he observed were tricky. When Gaiman fails at that and Moore successes so much, I think Lost Girls deserve the masterpiece qualificative (not even cataloguing the various accolades it got). So yes, I confess to having been unwillingly aroused by a few pages of Lost Girls Man... A 4$ price tag in 1998, just like every current Marvel title. You really had to have smut to have the balls to ask for such an admission price! (Oops, I just called Gaiman "Balls")
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 20:37:46 GMT -5
I am not going to debate the merits of Lost Girls vs. Before Watchmen-haven't read either don't plan to.
However, in terms of using characters created by others, the characters Moore used in Lot Girls were protected by copyright for the duration of its term, and the authors had control during that period. When the copyright expired and they entered public domain it became fair game to use them. Moore has been hired to work on characters owned by others giving him fair use (Swamp Thing or what have you), he has honored the use of his creations done on a work for hire basis and not complained (hello Constantine) but he was made assurances of ownership and control over the stuff he did with Watchmen that were not honored by DC, who outright manipulated the terms of the agreement when they did not break it, and he was justifiably upset and outspoken over it. Baum, Carroll and others didn't get screwed over by someone using their creations once they entered the public domain. Moore got screwed over by DC when they gamed the terms of the agreement they made with him when the characters were no where near entering public domain and the control of the characters expired. There is a huge difference there.
If I am at a buffet and someone takes something I want at the buffet, so be it. It is the nature of the buffet where everything is up for grabs. If I am sitting down to eat my dinner that I cooked and someone comes and takes the food off my plate, because they said I used their ingredients and kitchen when they agreed it would be my meal even if I did so, that's a different story altogether. That's the difference between Moore using public domain characters and what DC did with Before Watchmen.
-M
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 6, 2015 20:48:58 GMT -5
If I am at a buffet and someone takes something I want at the buffet, so be it. It is the nature of the buffet where everything is up for grabs. If I am sitting down to eat my dinner that I cooked and someone comes and takes the food off my plate, because they said I used their ingredients and kitchen when they agreed it would be my meal even if I did so, that's a different story altogether. That's the difference between Moore using public domain characters and what DC did with Before Watchmen. Very well articulated, mrp. This, to me, is exactly the difference between Moore's use of public domain characters and DC's crass exploitation of his work in the Before Watchmen books.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 6, 2015 20:52:32 GMT -5
Your analogy almost works for me, mrp. You need to add the part where the people who stole your dinner then spit in it and served it to others.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 20:53:51 GMT -5
Your analogy almost works for me, mrp. You need to add the part where the people who stole your dinner then spit in it and served it to others. As I said, I'm avoiding commenting on the merits of the books as I haven't read them... -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 20:54:49 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with mrp when it comes to the difference between the use of public domain characters and characters whose creator is still alive and wants to control them.
There's also another issue and that is that DC used a legal loophole to retain control over Watchmen and the characters associated with it. The rights to Watchmen were to revert to Moore after a set period of time as long as the book was not in print. Prior to Watchmen no comic had ever stayed in print in perpetuity. So it was perfectly reasonable that the book would revert to Moore. Except DC has never allowed Watchmen to be out of print. Perfectly legal. And perfectly shitty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 20:58:31 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with mrp when it comes to the difference between the use of public domain characters and characters whose creator is still alive and wants to control them. There's also another issue and that is that DC used a legal loophole to retain control over Watchmen and the characters associated with it. The rights to Watchmen were to revert to Moore after a set period of time as long as the book was not in print. Prior to Watchmen no comic had ever stayed in print in perpetuity. So it was perfectly reasonable that the book would revert to Moore. Except DC has never allowed Watchmen to be out of print. Perfectly legal. And perfectly shitty. That is what I was referring to when I said they gamed the agreement when they didn't outright break it...yeah it's all yours Al as long as things go the way they always have and we don't do anything different(snicker, snicker, snicker). -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 21:04:48 GMT -5
I absolutely agree with mrp when it comes to the difference between the use of public domain characters and characters whose creator is still alive and wants to control them. There's also another issue and that is that DC used a legal loophole to retain control over Watchmen and the characters associated with it. The rights to Watchmen were to revert to Moore after a set period of time as long as the book was not in print. Prior to Watchmen no comic had ever stayed in print in perpetuity. So it was perfectly reasonable that the book would revert to Moore. Except DC has never allowed Watchmen to be out of print. Perfectly legal. And perfectly shitty. That is what I was referring to when I said they gamed the agreement when they didn't outright break it...yeah it's all yours Al as long as things go the way they always have and we don't do anything different(snicker, snicker, snicker). -M Sorry. I missed it. That's what I get for reading the forum, watching TV and playing EU4 at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 21:05:23 GMT -5
I would think, though, that a clause like that in a legal contract would have sent red flags up all over.
But I quite possibly don't know much.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 6, 2015 21:07:33 GMT -5
lets try not to get too personal in our debates here guys.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 6, 2015 21:08:53 GMT -5
I would think, though, that a clause like that in a legal contract would have sent red flags up all over. But I quite possibly don't know much. Now it would. Then it wouldn't. What DC did with Watchmen was completely unprecedented. Nothing like it had ever been done before in comics. I honestly don't know what kind of legal representation Moore had when the deal was negotiated, but a lawyer would have to anticipate DC doing something that had never been done before.
|
|