Alan Moore’s valid criticism aside, I like to playfully believe that he is not happy simply because J.K Rowling did not cast him as a professor in the Harry Potter series. Considering he’s a magician himself 😂.
I am really glad he emphasized the word "mainstream" because I think we have many creative people today they're just being drowned out by the mainstream garbage
I suspect the fact that it's apallingly poorly written and unimaginitive is a factor. Genuinely sickens me that the HP series is regarded as good fantasy writing and that it's seen as a good thing that kids are reading it.
@@stevegoodson9022 Fair- but one could add that if the HP series were good fantasy writing, it wouldn't be nearly as popular according to the heavy censorship and dictates of marketing. I try direct people to the Golden Compass books instead
Harry Potter is a good example of what he's talking about. The charm quickly wears off as each book is a facsimile of the last. Like the MCU or Star Wars it's about spoon feeding the market more of the same, not creativity, and not meaningful discourse about the human condition.
That's because it is suppose to one book divided up for the reader. I don't think every book needs to be a groundbreaking glistening new shiny object to lust over. Sometimes just telling the story well and making a profound difference in people's lives is enough. I like Moore but seems to be projecting here. Isn't he the one that got famous from other people's characters or reimagined versions of it like Watchman?
Ai ARTISTS.. People using Ai Generators and calling it "Their Art".. Even though it bears a remarkable resemblance to the artist that it was stolen from..
Yes, AI can generate art that resembles styles of known artists. But let’s not act like human artists don’t do the same. Artists have been inspired by, borrowed from, and outright copied each other’s styles for centuries. Think of all the art movements influenced by predecessors. Yet, when AI does it, suddenly it’s theft?Let’s also consider the dataset. If an AI generator is trained on a wide array of images, it’s not copying any single piece but learning patterns and styles. It’s like a human learning to paint by studying various artists and then creating something new based on that knowledge. Calling this "theft" is a bit of a stretch
The big difference between now and the 20th century is that almost everybody now is a "content creator". There are few barriers to putting stuff out there so the quality is lost in an ocean of junk.
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Why do you care so much if any one likes Harry Potter or not? I do think it's a pretty shit book series. All those books and Harry Never does any cool wizard shit.
Frankly, an Alan Moore penned HP story would be a million times more interesting than the slavery simping and New Labour wish fulfillment dross Just Kidding came out with.
I would really like to know who coin decribing Harry Potter is "new labor" I think it's perfect. And I just started saying it, But can't recall reading or hearing any one else saying. If no one coined it and we all just came up with it by ourselves that's even better.
"a degenerate pro-CP author penned HP story would be better than that of the one i loathe so much that i ramble of her everyday on my daily-basis leftie reddit/twitter threads"🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't know if it's because I'm stupid, American, or both, but I have no idea what you're talking about mate. What do you mean by "slavery simping" and "New Labour wish fulfillment"? From context clues I think I know what you mean by "dross", but that's it.
Ursula le guin. JIll murphy Diana wynne jones If you dont know these names but you think Rowling is good. You havent read enough books. And thats the main issue that le guin was making in her criticism of Rowling. The mainstream read harry potter and that was it. They didnt stick around to read fantasy after that.
Differences Between Comic Book and Novel Adaptations. Superhero stories are meant to be episodic ongoing adventures. Book adaptations such as Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Narnia, Earthsea, Lord of the Rings, detective books, manga, horror, western, slasher, and sci fi novels. On the hand, are not episodic ongoing stories like superheroes. There once in a lifetime experience. They are meant to alter changes to the source material. People have to deal with it. Novel adaptations are meant for die hard fans, scholars, and librarians alike. Changes to their source material need to occur. To feel justified. Even if novel readers don't like the changes. Too bad. What is the point of adapting them in the first place? It doesn't matter if the novel creators aren't involved, it's okay. Being book accurate is no longer an excuse anymore. You can't judge book adaptations. If they alter book adaptations, changes it's source material to fit the runtime, I am not arguing about it. Producers, do your own thing. Creative interference needs to happen. "Film and tv directors, you cannot get what you always want to do. Because, life doesn't work that way. You are told what you are tasked to do. There is no need to be rebellious. Deal with it".
I don't consider the Eragon film, as cynical. I like the fast pace route. I read the book as a child. I found it slow at times. When the film came out, I was in middle school. I was no longer a child anymore. I was going near my path to adolescent hood. In order to reach my path to young adult hood. I wish Fox had some involvement with the remake, than having Disney handle everything. As I known, let book adaptations either be film or tv. There's no forcing it on either format, let it be what it wants to be. Whether the author of the source material is involved or doesn't want to. Be what you want it to become.
@@javib2978You mention Earthsea by the late Ursula K. Le Guin? She would actually agree with Alan Moore because when Earthsea was adapted, they race lifted her protagonist, who was described as brown in the books, but was turned white in the live action adaptation. Not to mention that she complained about the live action adaptation changing the plot of her books in the anime. Plus this also entailed changing the theme of her anarchist message, something absent in the adaptation in V for Vendetta. Then there is the Beastmaster by Andre Norton, in which they not only changed the plot, but the genre of the book from a space western about an Indigenous American seeking revenge, to a generic fantasy story about a white guy out to save the world.
Did Alan Moore took into account that mainstream media changed along with how accessible it became? The further back in history, the more ,,mainstream media" becomes dictated by rich and powerful - people with actual time and resources to engage with it. And the more common folk was involved with the media, the more Marvel movies were involved in the mainstream. I know it sounds classist, but can you deny it's true? Because I am curious how Alan Moore, such a grand critic of fascism and consumptionism, feels about the fact, that all those great achievments of culture back in the day, got their recognition thanks to the very people who steered the wheel of capitalism and elitism.
Ahhh, this is the perennial worry about/accusation against mainstream culture! But it becomes comparing apples with bananas. Brecht is now considered "high culture" for better or for worse. Thats why Moore picks him. Will Rowling get the same treatment in 50 to a 100 years? I really dont think so. Does anyone now consider her works high culture? No, not even at the present.
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Hate is simply too strong an emotion for something like HP. Do I like HP then? No. I view it as popular fiction from the present age. A phenomenon surely, but nothing of lasting durability.
@Meridias Watchtower "Riddled with casual racism, fat phobia, pro slavery..." According to who's standard? modern pop ideology? This is the result of the epidemic of adult infantilism we are experiencing, which does indeed lead to fascism and totalitarianism if not checked. No one can examine a work on It's own merit and on it's own terms. First it must be scrubbed by ideology filter to see if it's clean for consumption. I don't even like HP but not because I find it offensive, but because it's a trope that brings nothing new or interesting and makes no profound statement on human condition. That would be fine enough if it were left as the children's book it was only ever intended to be, but with the death of creativity partly due to the modern ideologue drone landscape that is incapable of being challenged to any degree it got dragged along into adult world because ideologues can never actually become adults and never find the courage to release childhood. So now we have HP being held up as acceptable adult literature. No children's book passes the muster for adult literature standard. And here we are talking about how problematic a children's book is. Things are going to get so bad before this stupidity is over.
I do love me some alan moore. But ummm. HP is a children's book? Its not ment to go up against deep high end lit? Its intended audience is 8-12yrs? We house it with the 47storie tree house and wimpy kid diaries?
@@marcinb4647 Oh, sorry then. If it missed the point haha! Do tell! I just feel like we are painting a orange red so we can compare it to the tomato, ya know?
@@jim-bob3093The point is the cultural impact of media. HP is a massive phenomenon (with plenty, but dwindling, adult fans), and lacks the substance to warrant its success. Earlier such phenomena, he points out, had more integrity and took more chances. His worry is that mainstream culture is less and less going to favor anything interesting over safe and easy media. I mean the MCU and Star Wars retreads are other clear examples of this. Compare modern "blockbusters" to things, considered at the time low on substance, like Jurassic Park and... yeah... Also have to mention that Rowlings main skill is and always has been marketing. HP didn't get big because of quality, it got big because she pushed every avenue of marketing and eventually utilized the early internet to its fullest before the first book ever landed on shelves. A trick she hasn't been able to repeat with other works of her, possibly due to poisoning her own name with senseless bigotry.
JK Rowling reminds me of George Lucas. Both plagiarised from other sources, tried to make something new and it became a worldwide success. And before everybody realised that their ideas weren't original or that their series wasn't all planned out from the beginning, they already made their billions.
I'd like to defend George Lucas here. What I'd argue he did, was copy so many things from so many different sources that he made something new. He took a lot from Kurosawa but Kurosawa never made a sci fi film. He took a lot from Buck Rodgers but Buck Rodgers didn't have the level of spectacle that his films did. He got a bunch of different things that were already done by other film makers, and then combined them into something new.
@@kirbles2035 How is this not pretty much what JK Rowling did? She could be defended about to the same extent as Lucas, they share many of the same merits and drawbacks.
@@kirbles2035 This is how most narrative art works, inspiration has to be tmdrawn from somewhere we just make a distinction between sources, history, nature, and other works are all treated differently
I retort that the Watchmen characters were all pulled from the Chartlon comics characters, like The Question (Rorschach), and Captain Atom (Dr. Manhattan). Not to mention that Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias are literally names that already existed before Alan Moore wrote them. Not a big Harry Potter defender, as I think much of the story is full of cliches, but it is a creative work with an encyclopedia of spells and other gimmicks that only exist in the Harry Potter world, Dementors for instance. Further, I think in Chapter 7 of V for Vendetta, you can see almost a direct inspiration from Orwell's 1984. My point is that works all arise from a variety of inspirations, and a good work will often show respect to the inspiration, as opposed to creating a direct copy of it. I think that the Harry Potter stories are original in their own right, and I also think that those stories achieved to obtain a multitude of young children's attention and interest in reading. As it stands today, I don't think that will happen ever again for at least another generation.
Also Moore specifically points out "Mainstream", he acknowledges there is genuinely good art out there, but it gets overlooked in favor of "safe" and dull phenomena, which in earlier times would have been caused by at least slightly more interesting and competent media.
@@NIRDIAN1Moore is a hypocrite. He criticizes pop culture, but his whole life has contributed to it by creating superhero stories, sci-fi and other geek crap. Forget that idiot and go read Flaubert or Homer.
Saying Harry Potter is bad is just ludicrous I've read comics since I was young. The only thing Alan's work that I found really enjoyable was The League, a very good book brilliant in fact. I respect his ability as a writer, but he has built a cult of personality around himself more than his work. In my honest opinion what he says about Harry Potter, particularly the books, he just comes off in my opinion how he always does just a snob and a hater. He never gives any writer any due, he's pretty much up his own arse all the time. I find Watchmen the most overrated piece of literature in history. I would like to point out Rowling, much Martin was able in the books at least. Combine many characters' life through the past with their parent's experiences and rivalries informing the events of the story, and having consequences for the characters in the present of the story. While Voldemort in the books is a spectacularly written villain, unlike other fantasy villains he's not unlike real life cult leaders, criminals, serial killers and dictators. He is at his core a narcissist obsessed with himself and being special. Also because of the circumstances of his birth he is almost divorced from emtion and purposefully does so as he doesnn't trust things like love, as love didn't have any part in his conception. The line were he says to Dumbledore in The Hald Blood Prince when Dumbledore asks him about not liking his name and replies "There are a lot of Toms" is so excellent as it inform the character he so well and what he will become, but that dark vanity was in him from the beginning. It's not a crime to be popular and no publisher thought HP would be but it is, he just comes off as a hater. I think that's ultimately what he is tho as well as a hypocrite.
Rest assured, your opinion of the work Moore has produced over the years is less than irrelevant. And the quality and timelessness of his work does not depend on your approval or lack of intelligence. At this point, the contribution and change he brought to the creative minds of his time and everyone who was inspired by his work, is indisputable. You might not like it, of course. But again: Nobody cares. Another thing: Although you may not have understood his remark in the video, Harry Potter didn't bring anything new to the table. That was the point. And despite that, Alan recognized the work as a cultural landmark of the early 21st century.
In my honest opinion your entire post is 100% BS. Saying HP is anything BUT bad is ludicrous and you lie about reading Moore and his person as well. I don't care about his person at all, I just know a good book when I read it and he wrote a lot of great ones. Actually The League is less than brilliant, he wrote much better stuff. V, Halo Jones, From Hell comes to mind.
Alan Moore’s valid criticism aside, I like to playfully believe that he is not happy simply because J.K Rowling did not cast him as a professor in the Harry Potter series. Considering he’s a magician himself 😂.
I am really glad he emphasized the word "mainstream" because I think we have many creative people today they're just being drowned out by the mainstream garbage
Alan Moore did think it was unfair however that he didn't get cast as Dumbledoore or Hagrid!
😂😂😂
I can imagine him more as Abeforth, he's way cooler than Dumbledore IMO 🐐
I think the main reason why Mr Moore's not too fond of the HP series is because it isnt brave storytelling and thats his whole thing
Well, the Potter series isn't a very modernist or experimental series in its writing, which he also admires. That could be another factor.
I suspect the fact that it's apallingly poorly written and unimaginitive is a factor. Genuinely sickens me that the HP series is regarded as good fantasy writing and that it's seen as a good thing that kids are reading it.
@@stevegoodson9022 Fair- but one could add that if the HP series were good fantasy writing, it wouldn't be nearly as popular according to the heavy censorship and dictates of marketing. I try direct people to the Golden Compass books instead
@@peridot2912 send them to Earthsea as well!
@@justinadams7824 I WILL!
Harry Potter is a good example of what he's talking about. The charm quickly wears off as each book is a facsimile of the last. Like the MCU or Star Wars it's about spoon feeding the market more of the same, not creativity, and not meaningful discourse about the human condition.
not true, the last one is a real change of formula.
THe first and seventh book are practically antonyms
Is say all 3 can be very creative but also samey
But do they have to have discourse about the human condition to be good?
No they're not, they're all totally different.
@@joeroberts2156 exactly
That's because it is suppose to one book divided up for the reader. I don't think every book needs to be a groundbreaking glistening new shiny object to lust over. Sometimes just telling the story well and making a profound difference in people's lives is enough. I like Moore but seems to be projecting here. Isn't he the one that got famous from other people's characters or reimagined versions of it like Watchman?
Ai ARTISTS..
People using Ai Generators and calling it "Their Art"..
Even though it bears a remarkable resemblance to the artist that it was stolen from..
Yes, AI can generate art that resembles styles of known artists. But let’s not act like human artists don’t do the same. Artists have been inspired by, borrowed from, and outright copied each other’s styles for centuries. Think of all the art movements influenced by predecessors. Yet, when AI does it, suddenly it’s theft?Let’s also consider the dataset. If an AI generator is trained on a wide array of images, it’s not copying any single piece but learning patterns and styles. It’s like a human learning to paint by studying various artists and then creating something new based on that knowledge. Calling this "theft" is a bit of a stretch
The big difference between now and the 20th century is that almost everybody now is a "content creator". There are few barriers to putting stuff out there so the quality is lost in an ocean of junk.
I love the fact he explained mainstream. But still some very diplomatic shitting on harry Potter
he is just jealous. typical moore
@@jasonvoorhees5640 lol Harry potter is an awful book series lol terrible writing
@@luxuriousmindset1906
what point is it that you are struggling to make?
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Why do you care so much if any one likes Harry Potter or not?
I do think it's a pretty shit book series. All those books and Harry Never does any cool wizard shit.
@@infesticon
I don't. A better question would be why do you care so much?
He’s completely right
His Australian Fans Would Like To Tell Him;
You Sir, Are A Legend.
The art we remember today as high culture or classic was mainstream in its day, that's how they became remembered.
The camera positions in this video are terrible, and it's very obvious at the beginning that it's too close to Alan's head.
Frankly, an Alan Moore penned HP story would be a million times more interesting than the slavery simping and New Labour wish fulfillment dross Just Kidding came out with.
Didn’t come out with nothing,
I would really like to know who coin decribing Harry Potter is "new labor" I think it's perfect. And I just started saying it, But can't recall reading or hearing any one else saying.
If no one coined it and we all just came up with it by ourselves that's even better.
"a degenerate pro-CP author penned HP story would be better than that of the one i loathe so much that i ramble of her everyday on my daily-basis leftie reddit/twitter threads"🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't know if it's because I'm stupid, American, or both, but I have no idea what you're talking about mate. What do you mean by "slavery simping" and "New Labour wish fulfillment"? From context clues I think I know what you mean by "dross", but that's it.
One version of an Alan Moore-penned HP series would be The Worst Witch by Jill Murphy.
I would say the last three in the series is pretty good
Alan is a very wise man sometimes.
Dumblemoore
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
All values have eroded..
That what one fire does to a man
Ursula le guin.
JIll murphy
Diana wynne jones
If you dont know these names but you think Rowling is good. You havent read enough books. And thats the main issue that le guin was making in her criticism of Rowling. The mainstream read harry potter and that was it. They didnt stick around to read fantasy after that.
It has 🙁
I always thought Harry Potter was a second rate version of Roald Dahl and Diane Wynne Jones.
This exactly. Rowling is just a cheap Roald Dahl knock off
Harry Potter ripped off the late Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch too.
Differences Between Comic Book and Novel Adaptations. Superhero stories are meant to be episodic ongoing adventures. Book adaptations such as Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Narnia, Earthsea, Lord of the Rings, detective books, manga, horror, western, slasher, and sci fi novels. On the hand, are not episodic ongoing stories like superheroes. There once in a lifetime experience. They are meant to alter changes to the source material. People have to deal with it. Novel adaptations are meant for die hard fans, scholars, and librarians alike. Changes to their source material need to occur. To feel justified. Even if novel readers don't like the changes. Too bad. What is the point of adapting them in the first place? It doesn't matter if the novel creators aren't involved, it's okay. Being book accurate is no longer an excuse anymore. You can't judge book adaptations. If they alter book adaptations, changes it's source material to fit the runtime, I am not arguing about it. Producers, do your own thing. Creative interference needs to happen. "Film and tv directors, you cannot get what you always want to do. Because, life doesn't work that way. You are told what you are tasked to do. There is no need to be rebellious. Deal with it".
I don't consider the Eragon film, as cynical. I like the fast pace route. I read the book as a child. I found it slow at times. When the film came out, I was in middle school. I was no longer a child anymore. I was going near my path to adolescent hood. In order to reach my path to young adult hood. I wish Fox had some involvement with the remake, than having Disney handle everything. As I known, let book adaptations either be film or tv. There's no forcing it on either format, let it be what it wants to be. Whether the author of the source material is involved or doesn't want to. Be what you want it to become.
Alan Moore mostly criticized superheroes. But Harry Potter is not considered a superhero story. It is an fantasy and supernatural tale.
In my opinion, comic books are another form of fantasy literature.
There are comics like Game of Thrones, Books of Magic, Hellblazer, and The Sandman. Not everything has to be about superheroes.
@@javib2978You mention Earthsea by the late Ursula K. Le Guin? She would actually agree with Alan Moore because when Earthsea was adapted, they race lifted her protagonist, who was described as brown in the books, but was turned white in the live action adaptation. Not to mention that she complained about the live action adaptation changing the plot of her books in the anime. Plus this also entailed changing the theme of her anarchist message, something absent in the adaptation in V for Vendetta. Then there is the Beastmaster by Andre Norton, in which they not only changed the plot, but the genre of the book from a space western about an Indigenous American seeking revenge, to a generic fantasy story about a white guy out to save the world.
Did Alan Moore took into account that mainstream media changed along with how accessible it became? The further back in history, the more ,,mainstream media" becomes dictated by rich and powerful - people with actual time and resources to engage with it. And the more common folk was involved with the media, the more Marvel movies were involved in the mainstream. I know it sounds classist, but can you deny it's true?
Because I am curious how Alan Moore, such a grand critic of fascism and consumptionism, feels about the fact, that all those great achievments of culture back in the day, got their recognition thanks to the very people who steered the wheel of capitalism and elitism.
"consumptionism" lmao you sound like you are barely literate
appealing to the lowest common denominator vs pumping up your paymasters' egos
Ahhh, this is the perennial worry about/accusation against mainstream culture! But it becomes comparing apples with bananas. Brecht is now considered "high culture" for better or for worse. Thats why Moore picks him. Will Rowling get the same treatment in 50 to a 100 years? I really dont think so. Does anyone now consider her works high culture? No, not even at the present.
You said all that just to tell us all you hate harry potter? lmao
Moore seems rather jealous.
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Hate is simply too strong an emotion for something like HP. Do I like HP then? No. I view it as popular fiction from the present age. A phenomenon surely, but nothing of lasting durability.
@@NocturneJester You dont think the works of Moore are better than those of Rowling?
@Meridias Watchtower "Riddled with casual racism, fat phobia, pro slavery..." According to who's standard? modern pop ideology? This is the result of the epidemic of adult infantilism we are experiencing, which does indeed lead to fascism and totalitarianism if not checked. No one can examine a work on It's own merit and on it's own terms. First it must be scrubbed by ideology filter to see if it's clean for consumption. I don't even like HP but not because I find it offensive, but because it's a trope that brings nothing new or interesting and makes no profound statement on human condition. That would be fine enough if it were left as the children's book it was only ever intended to be, but with the death of creativity partly due to the modern ideologue drone landscape that is incapable of being challenged to any degree it got dragged along into adult world because ideologues can never actually become adults and never find the courage to release childhood. So now we have HP being held up as acceptable adult literature. No children's book passes the muster for adult literature standard. And here we are talking about how problematic a children's book is. Things are going to get so bad before this stupidity is over.
@@jasonvoorhees5640 Is that you JK?
Children's kwrap
Because poor literacy is kewl.
Timothy Hunter anyone ?.
I do love me some alan moore. But ummm. HP is a children's book? Its not ment to go up against deep high end lit?
Its intended audience is 8-12yrs? We house it with the 47storie tree house and wimpy kid diaries?
Sure it's a kids book, but that wasn't his point here.
@@marcinb4647
Oh, sorry then. If it missed the point haha! Do tell!
I just feel like we are painting a orange red so we can compare it to the tomato, ya know?
@@jim-bob3093The point is the cultural impact of media. HP is a massive phenomenon (with plenty, but dwindling, adult fans), and lacks the substance to warrant its success. Earlier such phenomena, he points out, had more integrity and took more chances. His worry is that mainstream culture is less and less going to favor anything interesting over safe and easy media. I mean the MCU and Star Wars retreads are other clear examples of this. Compare modern "blockbusters" to things, considered at the time low on substance, like Jurassic Park and... yeah...
Also have to mention that Rowlings main skill is and always has been marketing. HP didn't get big because of quality, it got big because she pushed every avenue of marketing and eventually utilized the early internet to its fullest before the first book ever landed on shelves. A trick she hasn't been able to repeat with other works of her, possibly due to poisoning her own name with senseless bigotry.
@@NIRDIAN1well said
There’s a lot of fantastic kids’ books out there, not a good excuse
wheres the lie
old man speaks old talk
What "values" is he talking about, though? (Certainly in terms of moral and of human values, Rowling's fiction outstrips that of Moore's!)
Alan Moore is basically a nihilist.
JK Rowling reminds me of George Lucas.
Both plagiarised from other sources, tried to make something new and it became a worldwide success.
And before everybody realised that their ideas weren't original or that their series wasn't all planned out from the beginning, they already made their billions.
I'd like to defend George Lucas here. What I'd argue he did, was copy so many things from so many different sources that he made something new. He took a lot from Kurosawa but Kurosawa never made a sci fi film. He took a lot from Buck Rodgers but Buck Rodgers didn't have the level of spectacle that his films did. He got a bunch of different things that were already done by other film makers, and then combined them into something new.
@@kirbles2035 How is this not pretty much what JK Rowling did? She could be defended about to the same extent as Lucas, they share many of the same merits and drawbacks.
@@dlh7989 I've only watched the first Harry Potter film and I barely remember it so I don't feel as confident making an argument for her.
@@kirbles2035 This is how most narrative art works, inspiration has to be tmdrawn from somewhere we just make a distinction between sources, history, nature, and other works are all treated differently
I retort that the Watchmen characters were all pulled from the Chartlon comics characters, like The Question (Rorschach), and Captain Atom (Dr. Manhattan). Not to mention that Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias are literally names that already existed before Alan Moore wrote them. Not a big Harry Potter defender, as I think much of the story is full of cliches, but it is a creative work with an encyclopedia of spells and other gimmicks that only exist in the Harry Potter world, Dementors for instance. Further, I think in Chapter 7 of V for Vendetta, you can see almost a direct inspiration from Orwell's 1984. My point is that works all arise from a variety of inspirations, and a good work will often show respect to the inspiration, as opposed to creating a direct copy of it. I think that the Harry Potter stories are original in their own right, and I also think that those stories achieved to obtain a multitude of young children's attention and interest in reading. As it stands today, I don't think that will happen ever again for at least another generation.
"everything was better in the old days"
HP is still exactly as bad as it was in the old days. No need to call a turd a treasure because you're feeling nostalgic.
Also Moore specifically points out "Mainstream", he acknowledges there is genuinely good art out there, but it gets overlooked in favor of "safe" and dull phenomena, which in earlier times would have been caused by at least slightly more interesting and competent media.
@@NIRDIAN1Moore is a hypocrite. He criticizes pop culture, but his whole life has contributed to it by creating superhero stories, sci-fi and other geek crap. Forget that idiot and go read Flaubert or Homer.
I love Alan moore but he is a grumpy old
sod.
Saying Harry Potter is bad is just ludicrous I've read comics since I was young. The only thing Alan's work that I found really enjoyable was The League, a very good book brilliant in fact. I respect his ability as a writer, but he has built a cult of personality around himself more than his work. In my honest opinion what he says about Harry Potter, particularly the books, he just comes off in my opinion how he always does just a snob and a hater. He never gives any writer any due, he's pretty much up his own arse all the time. I find Watchmen the most overrated piece of literature in history. I would like to point out Rowling, much Martin was able in the books at least. Combine many characters' life through the past with their parent's experiences and rivalries informing the events of the story, and having consequences for the characters in the present of the story. While Voldemort in the books is a spectacularly written villain, unlike other fantasy villains he's not unlike real life cult leaders, criminals, serial killers and dictators. He is at his core a narcissist obsessed with himself and being special. Also because of the circumstances of his birth he is almost divorced from emtion and purposefully does so as he doesnn't trust things like love, as love didn't have any part in his conception. The line were he says to Dumbledore in The Hald Blood Prince when Dumbledore asks him about not liking his name and replies "There are a lot of Toms" is so excellent as it inform the character he so well and what he will become, but that dark vanity was in him from the beginning. It's not a crime to be popular and no publisher thought HP would be but it is, he just comes off as a hater. I think that's ultimately what he is tho as well as a hypocrite.
Harry potter books are mid fantasy at best lol
Wow, you took a lot of your time to write something completely idiotic.
Rest assured, your opinion of the work Moore has produced over the years is less than irrelevant. And the quality and timelessness of his work does not depend on your approval or lack of intelligence.
At this point, the contribution and change he brought to the creative minds of his time and everyone who was inspired by his work, is indisputable.
You might not like it, of course. But again: Nobody cares.
Another thing: Although you may not have understood his remark in the video, Harry Potter didn't bring anything new to the table. That was the point. And despite that, Alan recognized the work as a cultural landmark of the early 21st century.
In my honest opinion your entire post is 100% BS. Saying HP is anything BUT bad is ludicrous and you lie about reading Moore and his person as well. I don't care about his person at all, I just know a good book when I read it and he wrote a lot of great ones. Actually The League is less than brilliant, he wrote much better stuff. V, Halo Jones, From Hell comes to mind.
man if you think Alan is wrong to be critical of HP you should read what Le guin said about it.