Alan's Golli Problem—And Ours

Alan Moore is well known for his groundbreaking comics, his mistreatment at the hands of his former publishers, and his tendency to respond to any sort of criticism or disagreement by abruptly and dramatically cutting off all contact with the offending party. Unfortunately, this post is about the last of these.

I don’t follow Twitter, so I hadn’t realized until last night that comics scholar Will Brooker took to that outlet to criticize some of the more unsavory elements of Moore’s recent work. Moore has now responded in a lengthy interview with Pádraig Ó Méalóid where he doggedly lays into rank after rank of straw men while refusing to acknowledge the real reasons Brooker and other readers have criticized his comics.

To unpack every bad-faith assumption, projection, or inaccuracy in this interview would be a month’s work, but I hope a few examples will show why I found this interview so profoundly disappointing (while also sadly typical of Moore’s public statements in recent years). For reasons that I’ll explain below, I want to focus on his response to the criticisms of his use of the Golliwogg in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier, criticisms that were first and most substantively expressed by Pam Noles in a series of blog posts from 2007. This is how Moore (with a helpful prompt from Ó Méalóid) represents those criticisms:

PÓM: How do you respond to the contention that it is not the place of two white men to try to ‘reclaim’ a character like the golliwogg?

AM: The idea that it is not the place of two white men to ‘reclaim’ (although I’m not certain that’s exactly what we were doing) or otherwise utilise a contentious black character, unless I am to understand that this principle only applies to white men using black characters, would appear to be predicated upon an assumption that no author or artist should presume to use characters who are of a different race to themselves.

Pam Noles has not been shy about her criticisms of Black Dossier. It would be easy to read her work and discover that Noles never makes the assumption that Moore generously attributes to her. (In fact, I’m not familiar with any critic of Black Dossier who has made that assumption. Brooker criticized Moore and his fellow panelists for defending the Golliwogg as a “strong black character,” not for writing characters of a different race.) It would be easy to learn that Noles cites several examples of artists and writers who she feels use blackface characters and imagery in an appropriately critical or historical context, including white artists like David Levinthal and white writers like Paul Theroux and Bill Willingham. It would be easy, in short, to grapple with the actual criticisms Noles made and not the ludicrous arguments Moore makes for her—but that might require recognizing that Noles has a point.

I also have to point out Moore’s historical revisionism when he claims he’s not certain that he and Kevin O’Neill set out to reclaim the Golliwogg. He seemed pretty certain when he told Jess Nevins,

Now, it seemed to us on looking over this material that the Golliwog as a figure had been grossly misrepresented. […] So what we thought we’d like to do is take this perhaps needlessly controversial figure, strip him of the minstrel clothes that he was later, and not in any of Florence M. Upton’s narratives, but he was later dressed in, to take all of those elements away, to restore him to the original figure (Nevins, Impossible Territories 201-2)

Moore seemed pretty certain when he told Nevins “We mainly wanted to dispel any racist notions. […] we wanted to further distance our character from any Golliwog that the readers may have previously come across” (Impossible Territories 203). O’Neill seemed pretty certain when he told Noles to her face that “he and Moore want to rescue the Golliwogg by reintroducing it to the mix in a new form.” Not only is Moore not being honest about his critics’ statements, he’s not being honest about his own.

And he is supposedly responding to Noles’s statements, as indicated by his reference to the “American photographer” who met Kevin O’Neill at a signing. I also want to point out the unctuous manner in which he feigns respect for Noles and her views while refusing to represent them honestly or accurately. (Or, you know, learn her name.) From later in the interview:

Now, 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. I would hope that in my lengthy response to the first several questions on your list that I may have perhaps allayed some of her misgivings, although my feeling is that this is frankly unlikely.

Apparently Moore is just conscious enough of the racial politics of the situation that he doesn’t subject Noles to the same scorn he visits on other critics. Instead he goes through all the outward observances of respecting her opinion while slipping in little passive-aggressive digs, like the implication that she’s too close-minded to have her misgivings allayed.

I at least hope that in having raised her concerns and been listened to in a personal encounter with the book’s artist, and now having these issues addressed to the best of his ability by the book’s writer, that she will accept that her concerns have been engaged with to a degree that is greater than most readers could or would reasonably expect. I would point out that while everyone is entitled to their informed opinion, this is actually the full extent of their entitlement.

Or the implication that Noles’s criticism stems from her entitlement, with maybe just a hint that her opinion is misinformed.

Possibly because I’m typing this on Christmas Eve I feel inclined, despite the long hiatus between this person first airing her grievance and us hearing anything further from her, to take her stance at face value.

Or the implication that her failure to contact the notoriously private Moore in person, or to voice her criticisms continually over the past six years, means those criticisms are suspect. (If she had contacted him in person or voiced her criticisms continually over the years, perhaps he would accuse her of being a stalker, as he does Laura Sneddon and Grant Morrison.)

Also, taking somebody’s stance at face value isn’t generally a favor that you do them only in a burst of Christmas cheer. It’s a basic courtesy you show anybody who presents their views honestly, assuming you are interested in presenting yours honestly in return. And it requires that you actually read and respond to their words, not somebody else’s misleading summary of them.

I can readily imagine how justifiably angry the depiction of non-white characters in contemporary comics, or the relatively tiny number of artists or writers of colour compared to the number of non-white comic readers, could make anyone, irrespective of their colour or ethnicity. I simply feel – and this is only my personal opinion and in no way privileged over her own – that in this instance that anger is misdirected.

Now Moore wants to demonstrate that he’s a committed anti-racist who understands institutional racism and privilege. Earlier in the interview he tries to separate his use of the Golliwogg from the statements of Carol Thatcher and other right-wingers who cherish their golly toys and stickers (or, in Thatcher's case, their right to use the name as a racist insult without any consequences). But his separation boils down to his insistence that the original character wasn’t racist, only the later exploitations of the stereotype (Noles demolished that one six years ago), and his somewhat befuddled statement that “I would have hoped that it might be fairly obvious, with a little thought, that neither I nor Kevin are likely to be of that persuasion, but it appears not.”

Moore seems genuinely to believe that his own politics indemnify him against racism, that asserting or even hinting at his left-wing bona fides means he couldn’t possibly be lumped in with Carol Thatcher even though they both defend the same blackface imagery. Moore seems to believe—as many of us do—that racism is solely a matter of bad intentions, not actions or institutions, and that not having those bad intentions means his actions couldn’t possibly be racist. I’m sure he is quite sincere in this belief. I’m sure he’s honestly shocked at the criticisms of his use of the Golliwogg. (Although how surprised should you be that people in the twenty-first century might object to the use of a blackface character?) It doesn’t change the fact that he chose to use a racist caricature in his comics, free of any critical or historical context.

It also doesn’t change the fact that Moore seems to think any anger at racism is justifiable, provided it isn’t directed at him.

As I understand it from the questions I’ve been asked, the major bone of contention seems to be the question of whether white creators can presume to present possibly controversial material relating to black characters.

No. Just no.

I’ve addressed this more comprehensively above, but would only add that if I had adopted this attitude back in 1999/2000, there is every likelihood 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. Certainly not in its comic books.

Yes, if Alan Moore hadn’t written a couple of minority supporting characters in his book about a square-jawed white guy fifteen years ago, the United States wouldn’t have any positive examples of mixed-race marriages producing mixed-race offspring anywhere in our media.

Thank God we have Alan Moore to save us from ourselves. Which book was that, by the way?

(I’m referring to Tom Strong here, incidentally, which is apparently also distinguished by the fact that it is the one title in my oeuvre in which I somehow managed to restrain myself from depicting acts of sexual violence against women.)

No, that would be the one where Moore changed it up by depicting an act of sexual violence against a man.

The whole interview is like this—although to call it an interview is being generous. Ó Méalóid only asks six questions, apparently submitted ahead of time as a list, and Moore responds at length. It’s not clear whether Ó Méalóid asked any follow-up questions, but it looks like he lets Moore’s responses go unchallenged. And the questions he does ask, particularly on the Golliwogg, invite Moore to respond to the weakest possible version of his critics’ arguments. But perhaps I’m being too hard on Ó Méalóid—he asks Moore these questions more directly than anybody else has, and Moore’s answers reveal more about him than I, at least, have ever wanted to know.

Noles, of course, is more than capable of answering Moore on her own and doesn’t need me or anybody else rushing to her rescue. I’ve focused on Moore’s defense of the Golliwogg because that happens to be the area I’m researching right now—literally right now, as in I would be wrapping up my section on the Golliwogg today if this rancid little ball of spite and denial hadn’t dropped from the ether—and I’ve spent the last month and a half looking over Black Dossier, the Upton books, Noles’s criticisms, and all the Moore and O’Neill interviews I could find on this subject. The distortions, the revisions, the straw men, and the outright lies jump out at me most clearly on this issue, and the evidence that exposes and disproves them is closest at hand.

But the whole interview is like this. Moore is just as evasive and intellectually dishonest in responding to criticisms of his frequent reliance on rape and sexualized violence. He’s just as misleading about Grant Morrison, fudging dates and inventing interview quotes and acts of plagiarism. (If anybody can identify the Morrison work that copies Lost Girls, let me know.) He’s just as defensive in his final paragraph on Gordon Brown, where he expresses something that could almost pass for contrition if he didn’t lace it with those hallmarks of the non-apology apology, “I’m sorry if anyone took offense” and “Some of my best friends are ____.”

All in all, this is not so much an interview as an increasingly ugly self-portrait of an artist who, for all his considerable gifts, cannot accept that he has said or done or written something offensive and does not know how to respond other than to double down on the original mistake.

Moore has been cutting off his acquaintances and announcing his retirements for some twenty years now. I have to say, I hope this one sticks. In this interview alone, he says no longer wants any contact with Morrison’s publisher or Sneddon’s employers. He doesn’t want any contact with their friends, artistic collaborators, or associates. He asked Lance Parkin, as sympathetic a biographer as any author could ask for, not to interview any of his friends and family. (Perhaps the book would’ve had fewer Morrison quotes if he had?) And now he claims he’s going to cut back on interviews and withdraw from what remains of his public life. I’ll believe that when I see it, frankly, but I think it’s a good idea and I hope he follows through with it. Certainly this last one has done him no favors.

He also asks if “admirers of Grant Morrison’s work would please stop reading mine, as I don’t think it fair that my respect and affection for my own readership should be compromised in any way by people that I largely believe to be shallow and undiscriminating.”

That one, I’m afraid I can’t oblige, at least when it comes to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. If there’s one thing this interview has made clear, it’s that Moore’s body of work needs more criticism and more pushback against his frequent recourse to sexual violence and racial stereotypes. Because we need to make it impossible for him to minimize or isolate or misrepresent the thoughtful and judicious criticisms that are already out there.

Because while Noles and Brooker and those other critics are more than capable of responding to Moore, the fact is they shouldn’t have to do it alone. When Moore fills his comics with racist caricatures and misogynistic violence—and defends them in such dishonest terms—he makes them everybody’s problem.

Comments

[bblackmoor]

On the one hand, I do think Moore is a a bit delusional and unreasonable (never judge art by the artist, by the way). On the other hand, when I read the Black Dossier, it was clear to me that the Golliwog was not only *not* a black man (they don't have "African-Americans" in the UK), he wasn't *human*. He was a unique creature. So I find this hand-wringing over a re-imagining of a 19th century fictional character to be a bit ... overwrought.

[Marc]

Well, as I said on Facebook, the Golliwogg comes from a tradition of racist caricature, and "golliwog" is still being used as a racial slur today (I even link to a recent example in this post). Criticism of Moore's uncritical and unthinking use of that imagery isn't "overwrought."

[Dandru]

Alan Moore is a melodramatic, self-important, remarkably un-self-aware jackass who is not nearly as talented or influential as he seems to think he is, and who hasn't been relevant to the comics scene in decades. His last great work was written during the Reagan presidency.

[Marc]

Yeah, I'm not looking to collect "burns" against Moore. One of the things that makes his recent comments so disturbing is his tendency to ruthlessly personalize any disagreement; I'd rather not mirror that.

Also, Clinton presidency, surely.

[Johnny Walker]

I can't believe you've written an article, and tried to condemn a man, based on nothing more than the vague recollections of someone else. Some of your criticisms are quite ridiculous (like failing to namecheck Noles -- as if that was some kind of deliberate slur by Moore!).

Moore was quite right that the Upton's Golliwog was a character in his own right. He wasn't written as a caricature of a black man, but rather based on a doll Upton had as a child. It's only the first book that he appears in minstrel attire (which is what the doll wore), and then for the rest of the time he appears in completely unique clothing.

He was his own character, not a grim stereotype (like the minstrels). The fact that he was based on a childhood doll of a minstrel is an unfortunate happenstance.

Furthermore, Moore made sure that it was clear that Upton's character wasn't even human -- but rather some magical, alien being.

[Johnny Walker]

Since Upton's work has now entered the public domain, I can link you to the first of her "Golliwogg" books. I'd suggest reading it for yourself. I think you'll find that Nole's assertion that the character is racist portrayal is completely unfounded.

https://ia600306.us.archive.org/17/items/theadventureoftw16770gut/16770-h/16770-h.htm

[Marc]

I have read The Adventures of Two Dutch Dolls and a Golliwogg, and the biography of Florence Kate Upton by Norma S. Davis, who knows more about Upton and her work than either of us do.

Can I ask if you've actually read the Noles essays? Because they establish the minstrel tradition that the Golliwogg emerged from and that was present in Upton's books from their inception. Noles and Davis both point out exactly where that tradition surfaces in the Golliwogg books. You would also find that Noles's extensively sourced posts are anything but "vague recollections"--they include everything from a bibliography to photographic documentation of the signing where she met O'Neill. So you'll understand why I don't take your dismissal very seriously.

It's true that Upton doesn't write the Golliwogg as a racial stereotype (although Davis points out his tendency to fail in his schemes, requiring the dolls to rescue him--not quite the heroic adventurer Moore makes him out to be in his increasingly defensive justifications). Racist stereotypes appear elsewhere in the books, from the Sambo doll who pops up in the first volume to the cannibals who inhabit the African jungle, but the Golliwogg isn't written as one of them.

But the characterization is literally only half of the story--these are picture books, and to ignore the visual representation of the Golliwogg is as strange and misguided as ignoring the visuals of The League itself. (Not quite as odd, though, as attributing the Golliwogg's minstrel appearance solely to his clothes--as if his pitch-black skin, bulging eyes, bright red lips, and fright-wig hair were not also blackface stereotypes.) The Golliwogg is unambiguously a blackface character, undeniably a racist image--and the image is the part of the character Moore and O'Neill have altered the least.

I find it puzzling that you and Brandon both defend the Golliwogg by stating that Moore's version is an alien being. He's not a human being in the Upton books, either; he's an animate doll. Specifically, he's an animate version of a very real doll, owned by Upton, that was based on a crude and dehumanizing depiction of real live African Americans, which was part and parcel of a culture that dehumanized them every chance it got. When you cite his inhumanity as if that lets Moore off the hook--no, that's the Golliwogg's original sin.

He was always a racial stereotype. Moore and O'Neill have done nothing to change that or to put it in a critical context that might distance their use from the original. The more Moore and his defenders insist that he went back to basics, that he was true to Upton's work--well, yes. That's part of the problem. What you call "unfortunate happenstance," others call their history.

As for the name thing: if Moore truly wants to answer his critics, he owes it to himself and them to respond to their actual views, not to invent the arguments it would be easiest to dismiss. I invite you to do the same.

[Johnny Walker]

I'm afraid that I find that it's hard to argue with something that isn't there. You're absolutely right that the character was born out of a racist and offensive tradition and image. Nobody is saying otherwise, even Moore.

But it seems that the people on the other side of the argument are those who are refusing to acknowledge what's being said. The originally Golliwogg character was NOT a racist stereotype. He was VISUALLY based on a *depiction* of a racist stereotype, but he himself, was not. (This is where Nole completely loses me.)

The difference between this and old cartoons, minstrel shows and other depictions that actually ARE racist, is *huge*. The only reason not to use the original Golliwogg now is because of racial awareness of the pain that OTHER similar depictions caused people. Does that make sense to you?

That's an important difference that's apparently been lost by those who insist on viewing it through today's eyes. The original books were a product of their times, but they had an innocence to them. They were not malicious, vindictive or hateful.

So the question is NOT whether the original character was racist in his portrayal (you seem to acknowledge he wasn't) but that he is VISUALLY offensive. That his *image* has baggage that comes with it.

I do understand what you're saying, and this is where Moore knew he was on tricky ground. But I think Moore does a good job of knowingly addressing this issue by placing the character in pretty much the only world he should be allowed to exist in: Our collective societal subconscious. Somewhere, in the back of our minds, the Golliwogg exists. And rather be the horrible stereotyped version, Moore changes him into something else. Something far more positive (and so in keeping with the original author's innocence), actually.

Your argument that this somehow "dehumanizes" him further, and so makes him MORE offensive, is nonsensical. Moore is clearly saying: This character is SO far from reality, SO far from anything human, that we should just treat him for what HE (the Golliwogg, not black men) is, something bizarre, silly and alien. (And in that way he's actually mocking anyone who thought the Golliwogg visage (not the original character) was reasonable stereotype for a human being.)

It's worth adding that Moore had a choice to make when he brought the character into his narrative: Deal with the baggage of his image, or attempt to capture what the original author was trying to do: Innocently create a hero that audiences loved as much as she did.

Moore is not ignorant. Moore is not saying that he agrees with horrible portrayals linked with the image of a Golliwogg. He isn't saying such portrayals can't be hurtful. In fact, he's said the opposite many times. But he IS saying that he believed that mature adults could process seeing the image, and place it in its proper context, without it causing harm or offence -- if it was done correctly.

That's clearly what his aim was, and it's also clearly what his argument is.

[Johnny Walker]

Also, I have to respond to your final sentence:

"When Moore fills his comics with racist caricatures and misogynistic violence—and defends them in such dishonest terms—he makes them everybody’s problem."

Moore has been working in comics for 30 years. To say he's been prolific over this time is an understatement. I take absolute umbrage with the idea that his work is FILLED with "racist caricatures and misogynistic violence".

This is absolutely dishonest of you.

[Seán Michael Wilson]

You make some good points above, thanks, but on this:
"When Moore fills his comics with racist caricatures and misogynistic violence" - I agree with Mr Walker above.

This has not been clearly proven or even held to be true by most fans, I think - yet you state it like a fact. It's certainly a considerable exaggeration, at least. There is not much point taking Alan Moore to task for his own inaccuracies and exaggerations, but then pile on more of your own, is there?

[Marc]

Johnny, if you have to change the wording of my arguments to make them sound dishonest, perhaps they aren't as dishonest as you would like to think. (I assume this is meant to be some sort of tu quoque for the accounts of Moore's intellectual dishonesty that are cited throughout my essay.) I would also add that violence against women is in fact a recurring theme in Moore's 30-year career, and that while any individual example might indeed be justifiable on artistic grounds (or might not), thirty years does start to look a bit like a pattern. But I made no such claims about his entire career: I'm talking about this book, which is absolutely filled with racist caricatures from rapacious Arabs to sinister Orientals to the ever-vexing Golliwogg.

It seems like you still want to separate the Golliwogg's characterization from his visual representation and cultural traditions. But, again, the characterization is the part Moore alters, and the visual representation is what he keeps; claiming he's being true to Upton doesn't let him off the hook when Upton's character is visually stereotyped from the very beginning. And I'm afraid I don't see any sort of critical commentary on the traditions that produced or used the Golliwogg anywhere in League; I would question whether the mockery you attribute to it actually appears anywhere in the comic.

I notice that you spend a lot of time asserting the "innocence" of Upton's Golliwogg and the good intentions of Moore. This is something I already addressed in the post, the idea that racism is purely a matter of intentions and that it cannot exist without bad ones. But actions, institutional practices, clichés, and stereotypes can be racist in their execution no matter what their intention; what you call "innocence" I call ignorance of the racism that permeated Upton's culture and that she chose to perpetuate, however unintentionally. I am inclined to cut Upton a little more slack, however. That ignorance, though by no means universal, was much more socially accepted and reinforced in 1895. By 2007 (or 2014) there's really no excuse.

I think you also give Moore too much credit in insisting that his Golliwogg is as positive, innocent, and disconnected from racial stereotypes as Upton's supposedly was. (And I gave too much ground in not challenging this earlier.) Moore adds a racist stereotype that is nowhere present in Upton's books: the portrayal of the Golliwogg as an oversexed lover with a massive penis. This plays into the Western fascination with/horror at black sexuality, which Noles has already mentioned in her posts. Moore has managed quite a feat; he's made the Golliwogg more racist than the original.

But as I said, Noles already mentioned this, just as I've already addressed some of your other claims. I'm afraid I have no confidence that you've actually considered the arguments you're so quick to dismiss.

[Matthew J. Brady]

I don't think I would say that it is "in keeping with the author's innocence" to have the Dutch dolls state that the reason they hang around with the Golliwog is that he has a huge penis.

The dishonest terms of his defense are what I find especially tiresome; absolutely nobody is making the argument that white people should not be able to write black characters, but he spends a great deal of time arguing against exactly that and extrapolating it to matters of class. And then he basically says the Golliwog isn't a black character anyway, so it doesn't matter!

I think his argument about sexual violence works a bit better, and gives some reason for its prevalence, while questioning why it disturbs people more than "regular" violence. I'm sure there are plenty of good critiques of what he's written, but a lot of the complaints come down to "why so much rape?" which he does offer some justification for. I'm not so keen on the argument that middle class people are too Victorian to talk about sex, but saying that he's trying to make people think about the real world prevalence of sexual violence is a better one. Of course, complaining that people are trying to engage his work critically isn't doing him any favors...

[Matt Miller]

"If anybody can identify the Morrison work that copies Lost Girls, let me know."

The best guess I have (even though it's not actually a miniseries, as Moore asserts) is that he's referring to the second arc of THE INVISIBLES. It's really the only thing that even approaches the description.

[Johnny Walker]

Marc, it seems you're still not actually addressing Moore's (or my argument), so let's skip it. I think insisting that Moore made the Golliwogg character MORE racist is absurd, but I don't think we're going to made any headway here, so let's part ways, and agree to disagree.

One final thing: I think you should remember that Moore is only responding to Padraig's questions. He doesn't read the internet. He simply responded to what Padraig (presumably) faxed over to him. If you look at it from that point of view, you'll see that Moore gives each question a very careful and thorough analysis. He did his best to answer the questions from every angle. This ISN'T creating straw men to knock down, as you keep trying to claim it is, but merely trying second guess what people might be thinking. If he didn't guess your thoughts, then maybe you should be blaming Padraig for not asking precisely the right question.

[Marc]

Johnny, you'll note that I mention that very concern about Ó Méalóid's questions in the post. That doesn't let Moore off the hook for attributing positions and assigning motives to critics he hasn't even read. Much as "agreeing to disagree" doesn't let you off the hook for your habit of ignoring or misrepresenting my and others' criticisms. But by all means, yes, let's part ways.

Matt (Miller), that's an interesting guess, but "Arcadia" doesn't really fit any part of the description (it was three years after Lost Girls, not a few months, and isn't a miniseries or a "lengthy erotic work"). I've also seen Sebastian O floated as a suggestion, which is a miniseries and which is only two years off from Lost Girls and which is sort of vaguely set in the same time period (except it's not). The truth is, nobody would confuse either one of those stories with Lost Girls unless they were looking for an axe to grind.

I found it very telling that among all the crimes Moore attributes to Morrison, he never mentions the specific accusation that Moore plagiarized Superfolks--but he does manage to throw the charges of plagiarism back at Morrison.

Matthew (Brady): jinx!

The subject of Moore's treatment of rape and violence against women requires another essay in its own right, and more time than I can give it now. Suffice it to say that he's just as evasive and dishonest in his defenses there as he is elsewhere in the interview (including his by-now-routine insinuation that people could only object to his handling of the subject because he's a man). But that doesn't even begin to do the subject justice.

[Matthew J. Brady]

I had thought he might have been thinking of Sebastian O for the ripoff of Lost Girls, even if that doesn't make any sense. But what is the From Hell ripoff that he mentions? The Mystery Play?

His entire spiel about Morrison really just fuels any accusations of paranoia, since while Morrison did write some provocative attacks against him and took some inspiration from him in his early career, the idea that he's been stalking him for thirty years (as opposed to just commenting on the comics field, of which Moore is kind of an important part) seems really overblown and kind of nuts. The funny thing is, rather than maintaining his silence, he spends thousands of words detailing a bunch of perceived slights, then declares his utter indifference. And he wonders why people might call him a paranoiac recluse.

[Jake W]

"But what is the From Hell ripoff that he mentions? The Mystery Play?"

Bible John.

[Marc]

Yep. For what it's worth, I always thought the first arc of The Invisibles also owed a lot to From Hell, but in a much less interesting way.

[George Bush (not that one)]

Marc, thank you for this. I am not sure that Alan Moore is an expert on 'emotional maturity'. His carefully chosen words are full of contempt and arrogance for anyone who dares to question him.I don't believe anyone with a bit of empathy would try to use the Goli.He makes it appear that they discovered the Goli in their research-"This would presumably have been because it was a striking character that Kevin had stumbled across in his often strenuous research, and one that had origins in the late 19th century period we were then working with."- but it not something 'stumbled upon', its very now. And what about the Golli coming from a dark matter universe? A Dark Person from Dark Matter? Really ?WTF! The Golli is an inherent racist image. You can't use a burning cross and say its a plasma alien can you? I think his evasiveness and dishonesty speaks loudly. Peace.

[sean]

Superfolks? Really?!
Moore probably just forgot about that, but ok - just add it to the list of Morrison insults over the years. Because, yeah - nicking ideas from a badly written old 70s paperback, thats how you put together something like Watchmen.

[JamesMc]

Marc, correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire source for disgruntlement seems to stem from the notion that Moore is attacking "straw men", and therefore being "dishonest" in his responses.

You don't appear to be aware that the points Moore is responding to are actually taken from a (so far unpublished)roundtable discussion between Laura Sneddon, Pam Noles and Padraig O Mealoid.

http://www.comicworldnews.com/alan-moores-seven-most-painful-grant-morrison-burns/

I trust you will update your article accordingly, lest be accused of the same "dishonesty" you wish to accuse of Moore?

[Marc]

Sean: Moore definitely hasn't forgotten. He refers to "a number of unpleasant comments and insinuations regarding me and my work which Grant Morrison was making in the promotional platform/fanzine column that he was selflessly providing for one of these publications." That would be the Drivel column in Speakeasy where he made the charges. Moore nurses the grudge but he doesn't specify the insinuations, which would complicate his presentation of Morrison as a plagiarist. But anybody who's read Superfolks has seen the ideas that Moore used later in Marvelman and "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow."

And yeah, Morrison had no shortage of attacks on Moore over the years. I do wonder why Moore has chosen to respond now, when Morrison's been fairly quiet and even conciliatory for the past decade.

[Marc]

James, I don't think that roundtable ever left the proposal stage. As Heidi MacDonald describes it in her original post here, she says she planned "a proposed roundtable on Alan Moore’s writing among Sneddon, O’Mealoid, Pam Noles—whose discussion of the Golli-Wogg touched off some of this—and film critic Will Brooker." Ó Méalóid offered her the Moore interview but rejected the idea of publishing it as part of a roundtable, opting to publish it on its own without any critical respondents.

I regard that as a mistake: I think it would have done Moore some good to confront his critics directly (as directly as an internet roundtable allows, anyway) and respond to their actual criticisms instead of Ó Méalóid's reframing. I don't think Ó Méalóid has done Moore any favors by allowing him to remain in a bubble.

In any case, it's not clear to me that the roundtable even exists as a discussion to be published someday (although I would certainly love to see the other writers' response to the interview if they are ever so inclined). The only immediate contexts for Moore's latest interview are Brooker's tweets and Noles's essays, which are both mentioned and linked in my post.

Incidentally, I would say my "disgruntlement" (if you choose to call it that) arises from Moore's decision to use racist caricatures without any critical framework, to depict rape and violence against women in a frequently cavalier and trivializing manner, and to answer those who criticize these creative choices with a series of dishonest and misleading responses, including some very petty personal attacks. I hope this answers your question.

[sean]

Maybe I wasn't clear about Superfolks - by forgotten, I didn't mean that Moore might have had no memory of it whatsoever, but rather that maybe it just didn't spring to mind while he was listing insults. Like, say, that Morrison interview in Rolling Stone (somewhat less than a decade ago).
We could discuss the difference between plagiarism and influence at length, but Moore's generally been fairly up front about his sources over the years - and I'd suggest Brian Patten's Batman poem shaped his superhero stuff much more than Superfolks - but so what?
Responses to the interview that zero in on small details - like which is the Morrison book ripped from Lost Girls - as if that refuted the substance of what Moore had to say just seem like more axe grinding to me.
Btw Its worth noting that Moore never actually claimed any Morrison books were ripped from Lost Girls.

[Marc]

Sean, if you want to focus on small details like the Superfolks charges (which Moore absolutely recalls as the "unpleasant comments and insinuations" from the fanzine column) that's fine, and if you want to address the bigger picture that's fine too. It seems odd to start out tackling one very small detail and then pinwheel around and suggest any focus on other details invalidates the criticism.

The big picture is important, but the proof is in the details--especially when one of the criticisms is that Moore consistently distorts the facts to suit his narrative.