Why I DON'T like Alan Moore's Superman tales

[Superman Forever]

Very intersting take on Alan Moore's Superman stories. I think it's not only a thing of personal tastes, but of personal believes e worldview as well. After all, he's the writer of Watchmen, the deconstruction of the american superhero mythology. As I understand it, Alan Moore sees the 1960's Superman as a kid stuff that he likes to play with, but not what he believes in. That's because, even when he is doing "retro superhero" stuff, he still can be considered a cynical. He certainly knows about Elliot S! Maggin and Cary Bates Superman... he just doesn't agree with them on how to make Superman relevant. He woudn't have written "Must there be a Superman", or "Superman 2001". So, the Weisinger Era, yes, he loves it and like to pay homage, as a cool superhero of the past, but the Maggin/Bates is on the opposite direction of what he thinks of getting serious with his superheroes.

[Super Monkey]

Instead of putting thoughts (as if anyone could really knows what goes on in there) in Alan Moore's head and words in his mouth, I rather let him tell it:

Alan Moore, writer of Supreme and Tom Strong, on DC's 1986 Superman re-boot:

"Superman himself seems to have been a bit lost for a number of years, it's not the character I remember. What made the character appealing to me has been stripped away in a tide of revisionism. Given that I was somebody who sort of helped bring in the trend of revisionism in comics, I've got to take some of the blame for that. But it seems to me that there might have been a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater with the original Superman."

"What it was with Superman was the incredible range of imagination on display with that original character. A lot of those concepts that were attached to Superman were wonderful. The idea of the Bottled City of Kandor, Krypto the Superdog, Bizarro, all of it. These are fantastic ideas, and it was that which kept me going back each month to Superman when I was ten. I wanted to find out more about this incredible world with all of these fascinating details."

http://superman.nu/a/moore.php


From a great interview nearly all about Watchmen from TwoMorrows:

CBA: You're writing super-hero comics again.
Alan: My super-hero comics are very different, I think. After I finished doing Watchmen, I said that I had gotten a bit tired of super-heroes, and I didn't have the same nostalgic interest in them, and that's still very true to a certain degree. Even if I was actually writing for DC Comics again (and I often read Superman), I haven't got any interest in Superman now. I'd gotten interested in the character when I wrote it, but it wouldn't work for me now—the characters are different, the whole world is different. [laughs]

CBA: But you were able to purge yourself pretty quick, right? You didn't write that many, maybe four or five Superman stories?
Alan: And that was enough. Those were ones I wanted to write, but since then, most characters have changed so much that they no longer feel to me like the characters I knew. So, I wouldn't have that kind of nostalgic interest in those sort of characters anymore. At the time, I was also saying I didn't feel that if there was some strong political message I wanted to get over, probably super-hero comics were not the best place to do it. If I wanted to do stuff about the environment, that there didn't need to be a swamp monster there, for instance. When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know. And also, there did seem to be a rash of quite heavy, frankly depressing and overtly pretentious super-hero comics that came out in the wake of Watchmen, and I felt to some degree responsible for bringing in a fairly morbid Dark Age. Perhaps I over-burdened the super-hero, made it carry a lot more meaning than the form was ever designed for. So, for a while, I went off to do stuff that was very non-super-hero, and going into other areas I was interested in.

The super-heroes I'm doing now are not carrying strong political messages, and that's intentional. They're entertainment, and I think there are very few genres actually as entertaining as the super-hero genre. And entertainment can be emotionally affecting and intelligent, but I don't really want to lecture in the same away I did when I was younger. I'm not trying to break or transcend the boundaries of mainstream comics, because mainstream comics is in pieces, you know?

CBA: Well, you're about the only one left standing, I would think. [laughs]
Alan: There's no point in trying to transcend the boundaries of something that's already shattered, you know? [laughter] The thing to try and do is to surely try and come up with a strong form of mainstream comics, with some occasionally transcendent elements, but not, "Let's smash the envelope!" Perhaps I have more of a constructive approach than deconstructive.

full interview here: http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

[Aldous]

When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know.

The CIA did not exist during World War II.

[Permanus]

When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know.

The CIA did not exist during World War II.

This may be a transcription error in the interview; Brought to Light isn't about the Second World War at all, but concerns the CIA's involvement in Vietnam, Iran-Contra, etc. Odd.

[TELLE]

When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know.

The CIA did not exist during World War II.

Ah, but that's what they want you to think!

Alan Moore
knows the score...

[Great Rao]

According to Wikipedia, the CIA was founded shortly after the end of WWII.  Many former Nazi operational agents were granted exemption from any future prosecution in exchange for them becoming the first CIA agents.  So in a sense, what later became the CIA did exist in WWII - just not in the United States.

The creation of the CIA was opposed by the U.S. Military, the State Department, and the FBI.

[Permanus]

According to Wikipedia, the CIA was founded shortly after the end of WWII.  Many former Nazi operational agents were granted exemption from any future prosecution in exchange for them becoming the first CIA agents.  So in a sense, what later became the CIA did exist in WWII - just not in this country.

The creation of the CIA was opposed by the U.S. Military, the State Department, and the FBI.

Well, yeah, but Brought to Light still isn't about WW2!

[Aldous]

So in a sense, what later became the CIA did exist in WWII - just not in the United States.

"What later became"?  "Not in the United States"?  That doesn't make any sense to me, Rao. The CIA was not formed until after WWII, and I stand by my original statement.

On an unrelated note, much of the "Wikipedia" ought to be taken with a boulder-sized grain of salt.

Permanus:

Well, yeah, but Brought to Light still isn't about WW2!

Noted already!