Zettels Traum and Finnegans Wake are way more dense and incomprehensible.
3600 pages
Parker Wright
Connor Rogers
At least Schmidt and Joyce gave us some proofs of their genius before starting writing those books.
With Alan Moore you're in the dark, and have to spend weeks reading his books, while still not knowing if he is a hack that is making shit up on the spot, a schizo or a genius.
I can see how most people here are skeptic of his works.
Connor Ortiz
>At least Schmidt and Joyce gave us some proofs of their genius before starting writing those books.
moore has been writing since the 80s and has a number of acclaimed titles to his name. whether or not he's a genius i'll leave for others to decide, but he's clearly established himself as an artist. you don't have to like moore but stop parading your ignorance about him.
Thomas Hall
mckenna who?
Blake Rogers
> weeks reading his books
Watchmen, V For Vendetta and From Hell take less than a week altogether, user. They're pretty damn well put together books. So is Jerusalem.
Most people know him as a critically acclaimed author of graphic novels who also dabbles with a lengthy postmodernist novel or two.
Josiah Price
His work is great, he may not be a genius in the same way Scmidt ans Joyce were, but he changed the way people look at comics and graphic novels. He is not as subtle with his messages and themes, but his writing is excellent and he can go from sincere and touching to dark and comedic very quickly or as slowly as he wants. I see why diving into a 1k pager is daunting and off putting but patience should he a reader's tool in order to judge a writer with experience.
Sebastian Harris
Joyce wrote Ulysses and Dubliners, Moore wrote The Swamp Thing and Watchmen.
Are the latters 2 good art? Sure. Are they good enough to warrant the belief that Moore is actually able to write successfully (in the same way Schmidt and Joyce did) these kind of books? I don't think so.
When it comes to Finnegan's Wake, I know almost for a fact that you can find something of value behind all of those contextual layers: when it comes to Moore the suspicion that he is just making shit up as he's going is always present.
His graphic novels are very good, but they're not masterpieces, unless you're willing to isolate this art form from every other art form (in such a aesthetic system the best minuet would be as good as the best symphony).
Again, he is a good artist, but he is no Proust.
Nicholas Rogers
Terrence Mckenna. He's basically a more metaphysical Alan Watts. All kinds of videos on YouTube set to generic video and audio clips. He was very well read though and offers a lot of interesting excerpts from the literature he liked.
Jonathan Morales
Proust is the foremost example of a lengthy work the greatest part of which holds no content and is only respected second-hand by people who have not experienced it. You would know this and would not refer to Proust if you had any idea what you were talking about.
Adam Russell
You're saying his graphic novels cant be considered materpieces wothou isolating them, bit then you only put his works up to standards with Scmidt and Joyce. If you're gonna compare everthing to scmidt an Joyce there's 90% od literature down the toilet.
Moore is ver self aware despite all the mystic hooplah he projects, and he looked up to Joyce and wanted to model Jerusalem after wake and Ulysses, but he is not making things up as he goes, or trying to surpass Joyce. You're looking at this the wrong way if Joyce is the only meter you're using.