« How to Boycott a Company Without Really Trying | Main | Genres in American Literature: Superheroes »

January 10, 2014

Comments

sean

Actually, you raised Superfolks....

Marc

And you had no qualms about focusing on those details instead of discussing the substance of Moore's interview, Sean. But your last couple of responses don't strike me as being geared towards further discussion.

George Bush (not that one)

Some one named Richard Johns is claiming that Moore saw a 58 page email that was hostile to Moore, provoking him. Claims he directly quotes from it.???in comments http://technoccult.net/archives/2014/01/14/on-race-and-sexual-violence-in-the-works-of-alan-moore/#comment-928897

Marc

I've just recovered two comments from my spam filter--my apologies to George Bush (but not that one!) and Sean Michael Wilson, whose comments are restored above.

GB, by now you've probably seen the update on that Technoccult post. I'm fascinated to learn that the roundtable actually exists, and would love to see it. And while I understand why the participants don't want to position it as a reply to Moore's subsequent outburst, I think their discussion would be enlightening in its own right.

Right now, however, it serves primarily as a bludgeoning tool to be used by certain of Moore's defenders to beat down any criticism by invoking a mysterious transcript that only they have seen. One of the commenters at Technoccult claims Moore quotes directly from it; I would be interested to know which parts, and what the original context was.

But I don't know how much that changes about the Ó Méalóid interview, in which Moore still defends his use of the Golliwogg by taking the character out of its historical context and misrepresenting the original Upton books; still assumes that critics of the Golliwogg are saying creators can't write any characters of different races (we can see him conjure that up before our very eyes in the first block quote in the post above); still offers a condescending and passive-aggressive response to Noles without addressing her substantive points; still fabricates any number of interview quotes and imagined plagiarisms in his vendetta against Morrison; still issues a mealy-mouthed non-apology apology for his comments about Gordon Brown; and still presumes to tell his readers which other writers they are or aren't allowed to read.

(I didn't comment on his interactions with Laura Sneddon because I wasn't familiar with those stories and couldn't judge their veracity--although his record in the rest of the interview raises some serious doubts. Now I see Sneddon has posted a lengthy list of corrections that directly contradict his account.)

I have a hard time imagining any transcript, however long, that could excuse all these flaws. Indeed, in some ways Moore's comments to Ó Méalóid come across as even more petty and vindictive if he's read his critics' actual words (his utter misrepresentation of Noles and refusal to mention her or Brooker's names, for example). So while I'd appreciate the context of the roundtable, I don't know how much it actually changes in terms of Moore's arguments--they are still intellectually and factually dishonest, no matter what triggered them.

Marc

Sean, I have to disagree (belatedly, with apologies!) with your comment. Moore has filled his comics with racist caricatures (primarily in League--seriously, one of his own defenses against the Golliwogg criticisms boils down to "but I also used an Oriental stereotype") and with misogynistic violence (quick, how many Moore series published this century don't include some kind of rape?). That doesn't mean that every comic has those elements or that they only have those elements, but they are certainly recurring features in his work, the rape and violence against women in particular.

These observations may not be held true by most fans, but as I've learned the last few weeks, some of Moore's remaining fans are apparently willing to excuse a lot. I would rather look to the work itself; the comics are their own proof.

MikeCr

Marc,

I don't know if you'll see this but I'd almost added the same comment on Padraig's blog before deciding not to.

While your point about Obama is well taken, it's also worth noting that even in the incredibly narrow world of North American superhero comics Moore's assertion that "the United States, surely embarrassingly, would be nearly a decade-and-a-half into the 21st century and still without any positive examples of mixed-race marriages producing mixed-race offspring anywhere in its media" is incorrect. Unless I imagined the marriage of Luke Cage and Jessica Jones and the subsequent birth of their child. It was a fairly major plot point in mid to late 2000s Avengers comics.

Now, I don't expect Alan Moore to necessarily be familiar with the work of Brian Michael Bendis and his collaborators but I don't think it's unfair to expect him to know that he doesn't know enough about North American superhero comics anymore to make such a grand sweeping pronouncement. Particularly one that has the effect of making him (and his collaborator) appear uniquely noble.

Marc

Thanks for the comment, Mike.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2004