Alan Moore is Overrated
If you're familiar with comics outside of what's just in the cinemas, then you've probably heard of Alan Moore, a British comics writer responsible for Watchmen, V for Vendetta, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and others. Alan Moore is peddled as some sort of intellectual superman amongst supposed literary midgets. Entire books have been written about his influence, about how he deconstructed the modern superhero, made comics "grow up," and introduced the medium into the realm of "real" art. According to some, he's the most significant comics writer of the century.
Hogwash.
Yes, Alan Moore was influential, but so is an STD; and I don't see anyone lining up to give AIDS a Pulitzer. Having influence is not synonymous with being great at something. Personally, I find Alan Moore to be the beginning of one's discovery of the artistry in comics, not the end. He's a flashy showman who perhaps gets you interested in criticism, but he is by no means the end-all of artistic depth in the field. If anything, he's a beginning, a jumping-off point. But to hear some of his adherents squawk, he's supposed to be the da Vinci of comics.
I hate to break it to you, but he's just a writer. he doesn't even draw the comics that he's known for. At most, he can only be given half credit on his own work.
Secondly, his ideas, although interesting, aren't infallible artifacts of artistry, Grant Morrison and many others have noted how Watchmen, supposedly a masterpiece, is dependent on some pretty goofy and flimsy plot elements. I would also add to that criticism that Alan Moore tends to tell the same type of story, repeatedly. After reading a few of his tales, they start bleeding together.
Is he good at what he does? I suppose. But even his literary modus operandi, the deconstruction and critical approach to superheroes, was better done by Frank Miller, a man who writes and draws his own work. Miller effortlessly embodies what Moore is trying to be: artistic, deep, and significant.
Simply put, Alan Moore is to comics what Starbucks is to coffee. Sure, it's better than what you get at the grocery store, but you're deluding yourself if you pretend it's more refined than it truly is.
In short, he's overrated.
He also looks like a hobo.
.jpg/220px-Alan_Moore_(2).jpg)
Hogwash.
Yes, Alan Moore was influential, but so is an STD; and I don't see anyone lining up to give AIDS a Pulitzer. Having influence is not synonymous with being great at something. Personally, I find Alan Moore to be the beginning of one's discovery of the artistry in comics, not the end. He's a flashy showman who perhaps gets you interested in criticism, but he is by no means the end-all of artistic depth in the field. If anything, he's a beginning, a jumping-off point. But to hear some of his adherents squawk, he's supposed to be the da Vinci of comics.
I hate to break it to you, but he's just a writer. he doesn't even draw the comics that he's known for. At most, he can only be given half credit on his own work.
Secondly, his ideas, although interesting, aren't infallible artifacts of artistry, Grant Morrison and many others have noted how Watchmen, supposedly a masterpiece, is dependent on some pretty goofy and flimsy plot elements. I would also add to that criticism that Alan Moore tends to tell the same type of story, repeatedly. After reading a few of his tales, they start bleeding together.
Is he good at what he does? I suppose. But even his literary modus operandi, the deconstruction and critical approach to superheroes, was better done by Frank Miller, a man who writes and draws his own work. Miller effortlessly embodies what Moore is trying to be: artistic, deep, and significant.
Simply put, Alan Moore is to comics what Starbucks is to coffee. Sure, it's better than what you get at the grocery store, but you're deluding yourself if you pretend it's more refined than it truly is.
In short, he's overrated.
He also looks like a hobo.
Comments
Post a Comment