It is interesting seeing all of the hyperbole and hysteria surrounding the reception of this Alan Moore novel, within one or two days of release, claiming how this is in literary canon. "This is the peak of 21st century literature." Name dropping Joyce and every literary giant under the sun. Are comic book fans that desperate for credibility? Keep in mind it's from a bunch of XMen and Spiderman fans, who are incapable of appreciating a work of art unless it has macho cartoons, and big colorful pictures. These type of man-children consider cartoons meant for ten year olds as an important artform. These people have finally brought themselves to read their first novel and suddenly they are authorities on post-modernism and the history of literature? I only hope the actual literary community will see this as the fake it is, and is not influenced by the sea of comic book fans who pretend that we all have to consider this on the level of Joyce.
It is interesting seeing all of the hyperbole and hysteria surrounding the reception of this Alan Moore novel...
Other urls found in this thread:
vulture.com
twitter.com
>white
>make
Let's be honest, it's probably very, very good
>Keep in mind it's from a bunch of XMen and Spiderman fans
Moore never worked on X-Men or Spider-man, and he hates their fans.
>"To my mind, this embracing of what were unambiguously children's characters at their mid-20th century inception seems to indicate a retreat from the admittedly overwhelming complexities of modern existence,"
>"It looks to me very much like a significant section of the public, having given up on attempting to understand the reality they are actually living in, have instead reasoned that they might at least be able to comprehend the sprawling, meaningless, but at-least-still-finite 'universes' presented by DC or Marvel Comics. I would also observe that it is, potentially, culturally catastrophic to have the ephemera of a previous century squatting possessively on the cultural stage and refusing to allow this surely unprecedented era to develop a culture of its own, relevant and sufficient to its times."
At least pay attention before you memepost - Jerusalem is definitely sub-Joyce, if only because it uses him as a base to play with the postmodern style for a chapter or two before wandering off and doing something else, but it's still a pretty solid work. You're just trying to preserve your precious DFW enclave against an interesting new novelist by acting pompous.
For what it's worth, Moore is closer to Joyce than DeLillo or McCarthy at least.
Aww OP, did someone give you a swirly for reading comics in elementary school?
Anything with a notable enough name behind it that's appreciably different from the droves of literary books all going for the same banal kind of verisimilitude is bound to get a lot of attention.
vulture.com
I think you need to rethink this impression you have Alan Moore is some capeshit champion when he pisses on them at every opportunity.
Even his famous work Watchmen was a conscious deconstruction of the entire genre
>I am really in a bad mood about superheroes. I’m not the best person to ask about this. What are these movies doing other than entertaining us with stories and characters that were meant to entertain the 12-year-old boys of 50 years ago? Are we supposed to somehow embody these characters? That’s ridiculous. They are not characters that can possibly exist in the real world. Yes, I did Watchmen. Yes, I did Marvelman. These are two big seminal superhero works, I guess. But remember: Both of them are critical of the idea of superheroes. They weren’t meant to be a reinvigoration of the genre.
Isn't Moore a literal self-proclaimed magician who admits that whatever Egyptian snake-god he worships isn't real but asserts the supremacy of imagination anyways? I agree, Spider-Man is pretty damn childish, but what's he doing banging on about reality all of the sudden?
>implying you can't like comics and literature simultaneously
How does it feel being an obtuse pleb?
Is a swirly not a kind of lollipop?
Also you're all falling for lazy bait faggots, at least use sage
He literally "worships" it because people hundreds of years ago worshipped it and then they all found out it was a sock puppet
More because they KEPT worshipping it afterward - something that demonstrably isn't real still having a real impact on the world.
Actually, while we're in this shite thread I may as well post the comic about it. 1/11
2/11
3/11
4/11
5/11
Yes yes, I get it. What's wrong if people want to care about Spider-Man then? He seems rather moralistic about the whole issue.
6/11
Likely because it does the opposite of an idea like gods-who-aren't-gods, doesn't spark any kind of contemplation - it's just a guy in tights punching.
7/11
8/11
Please cite your sources. I'm serious
9/11
10/10 (I lied.)
autisrn
Many thanks for posting the whole thing. I would still reiterate my question though. What's wrong with Spider-Man? Isn't it just another idea?
Let me guess. You have never read a Moore comic have you? You're missing out. He is one of the few writers who manages to incorporate philosophical issues into fiction without seeming hamfisted. You can really enjoy his works but no, he writes COMMIX so he's obviously the worst sort of shite
Not even memeing, and I'm not that big of a comic fan, but a friend got me into The Voice of Fire and some of his spoken word stuff and his prose is way better than Delilo's (not that this is a compliment, I honestly believe you have to be in an academic during a mid life crisis to enjoy this shit)
I want summerians to leav-... uh. Idiots.
There's nothing wrong with spider-man, there's probably something wrong with people who still care about a franchise that's been milked so dry it's had the cow dressed in a spider-man costume, cloned ten times, killed off and resurrected eleven times, and that's not bringing anything interesting into the funnybooks
>who's Yeats
>who's Whitman
>who's Huysmans
>who's Eco
>who are the droves of theosophist writers in northern europe during the early XX century
Moore has a lot of faults, but if you really wanna use his mock-religion as one of them, you're fucked
Well, tell that to all the catholics in Veeky Forums
>>not believing comics can be an artform
You don't read DeLillo for his prose. I don't think anyone really praises the prose in his books. He's more like a less extreme poor man's Pynchon circa 1963 in terms of his ideas (though not their execution).
I will in fact level the same criticisms of Theosophy against Moore as against any of those writers. Have you read the Scylla and Charybdis episode of Ulysses? I think it presents an effective satire of that kind of literature.
What's so bad about citing sources? Are you implying people simply accept facts on Veeky Forums? Because if so then that's not very patrician huh Mr Patrician?
Obvious bait is obvious
Real Veeky Forums posters already have all possible knowledge so citations are redundant
I've read a few of his comics based on recommendations they were good or even the best graphic novels had to offer. If his writing hasn't developed much since then (and it may have for all I know) then his new novel wouldn't be worth reading.
True brother red pill
asking bait for citations is like asking a dog over a turd to show you where the shit came from: even if the dog understands english, it isn't gonna because you're not a dog.
He's not insisting that fiction be realistic, he's saying it should be complex, adult, and respond to the contemporary world.
I kinda wanted to call him out by exposing him as bait... But I guess its all a waste.
Anyway he seems to have run away on his own
>white
>destroy
also pretty good
Why do no reviews contain quotes or prose from his work?
It already starts to reflect poorly on my opinion of him. (Which was already bad as comic books (but i was willing to give a chance (but now i dunno (seems like hack behaviour
Having your opinion influenced by a work's quotability makes you sound like a pleb t.b.h
I wish textbooks that taught about Joyce started with a quote lifted from his letters to his fiancé about how much he loved her farting.
I guarantee most of them did not even read it beyond skimming.
Reviews in general rarely have quotes or prose you retard
This is juvenile.
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, he is enlightened by my intelligence.
Yeah, but what did you think of the book?
Why?
Obviously a christard getting hurt in the ideology, why even ask
A swirly is sticking someone's head down a toilet.
I know this because it's a microgenre of porn.
What isn't?
Underrated.
My diary desu.
>You don't read DeLillo for his prose.
find me a single review of any of his book from a reputable publication that does not praise his prose.
I dunno, thought there might be an interesting perspective against it or something.
Because
>zomg the best gods are the ones that evade manifestation
Is literally the oldest trick in the Abrahamic book. The whole point of the comic is just co-opting Abrahamic theology and throwing out all of the substantive parts. Its argument against Abrahamic faith doesn't even make any sense, since it just fabricated a world in which the non-physically manifesting Abrahamic god is physically manifested and then stated that because it's manifested it's worthless compared to the un-manifestable snake god.
>bbbut Jesus
Jesus was a man with divine attributes, not God. Just like how the burning bush and the talking donkey weren't God either.
You missed the point
Oh
Yeah. The point was that an honest fake god is best.
The Abrahamic god is supposed to be immanent in all of his creation. It's not the same thing as le ruse snake just being an abstract idea bound in a patently shoddy idol.
Why is that best? Because it lends a sense of smug superiority over those with sincere faith?
The entire point of religion is willful delusion, it's spiritually satisfying and existentially fulfilling. Have you read Kierkegaard?
That he's poor man's Pynchon gets sorta obvious, but I've seen people praising his prose left and right.
Tbqh, I've been memed by Bloom, none of his four american contemporary writers cliqued on me, except Pynchon who became sort of my favourite, but McCarthy for example, I see what he's trying to do, he's doing it very well but it's just not for me. Now, Delilo and Roth, these fuckers made me understand why white people are "hated" US popular culture, Jesus fucking Christ.
What's the Scylla and Charybdis? The Hamlet theory one? Because it's much more about the problem of interpretation in general than about wacky beliefs. My point lies mostly in how stupid it is to judge a writer by his wacky (or not) beliefs. I mean, I bet if we ever had a Pynchon interview, he would go full autismo in some conspiracy or another, but he's still the genius he is.
tips mitre
You have a very contemporary view of literally one of the oldest problems in human history.
It's probably a bit hard to find, but I strongly suggest you read Ritual Thinking, by Mario Perniolla.
>Tbqh, I've been memed by Bloom
Well that's just your own fault, really. Bloom is probably the single dumbest meme on here.
>Ritual Thinking, by Mario Perniola
>$200 on Amazon
Sounds like just what I've been looking for, actually. Thanks for the rec, hopefully I'll be able to scrape a copy up for cheap
This comic tells the truth
>These type of man-children consider cartoons meant for ten year olds as an important artform.
Comics is an important medium, it's just swamped by genre trash, and self-proclaimed "comics people" are mostly anoraks who follow a few churned out superhero series and refuse to learn anything about the art form.
There are great comics if you look for them, including Alan Moore's From Hell, appropriately. But Violent Cases is much better comic for getting started, it's short and (in my opinion) visually interesting in a way that makes one think about the medium itself.
What gets me most about comics is the fucking fonts, I swear nothing written in faux-ballpoint-handwriting will ever come off as intellectual or serious.
That and the OVER-USAGE of BOLD and ITALICS. Makes everything READ like THIS.
I'm not in elementary school, jesus christ I don't need all the important words highlighted for me
I don't think you're understanding the medium, it's not a novel with illustrations, the writing and pictures (ideally) are one and the same. It isn't just prose, it's conveying visual information. Like any technique, it can be done badly, but it's a part of the medium and adds to the comic when done well.
I'll post some pages from Eisner's Comics And Sequential Art about text in comics.
...
...
...
...
...
And a relevant bit about typesetting