tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post4934637136494007764..comments2024-01-04T08:02:29.500-05:00Comments on Attempts: Alan Moore's Shakespearean PasticheStephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-14407465565522018562011-09-18T18:10:10.242-04:002011-09-18T18:10:10.242-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12612794846840364658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-8635306630896769302011-09-18T18:09:52.713-04:002011-09-18T18:09:52.713-04:00I also thought the Shakespeare section was surpris...I also thought the Shakespeare section was surprisingly unconvincing. So unconvincing that I've been trying to persuade myself that there must be some reason for why it's so off the mark. Maybe (and I'm just guessing here) in the same way that so many of the characters and allusions in LOEG are only tangentially related to their literary originals, the Shakespeare of this parallel Earth wrote in a slightly different way from our own bard. But that might be giving Moore a lot of rope. Who knows? Maybe Moore can't stand Shakespeare and simply can't be bothered to do a decent pastiche. But if that were the case, it's surprising that he visually identifies himself with Prospero. I'm reminded of George Bernard Shaw and his love-hate relationship with Shakespeare. In his puppet play 'Shakes vs Shav' he suggested that his own 'Heartbreak House' is as good as 'King Lear', perhaps with tongue in cheek. Ultimately I think RAB's got it spot on. Moore is a virtuouso, and he feels really uncomfortable in another writer's skin. The magic of LOEG is that the characters created by others all come into Moore's world, not the other way round.Peter Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12612794846840364658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-38108833195209160272011-09-18T17:41:09.019-04:002011-09-18T17:41:09.019-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peter Kesslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12612794846840364658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-60826680401916434582008-01-01T23:33:00.000-05:002008-01-01T23:33:00.000-05:00Moore didn't write all the supplemental stuff in W...<I>Moore didn't write all the supplemental stuff in Watchmen.</I><BR/><BR/>I somehow skimmed over this claim the first time I saw that comment. To my knowledge it isn't true. Certainly no one else is credited in the book. If someone wants to convince me they'll need to show me some evidence.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-34694120324365901862008-01-01T23:07:00.000-05:002008-01-01T23:07:00.000-05:00Moore didn't write all the supplemental stuff in W...Moore didn't write all the supplemental stuff in Watchmen? Wow, I didn't realize that. What didn't he do, and who did it instead? Myself, I remember liking the Hollis Mason memoir; the bit I always remember is when he described the guy who had the kind of face you didn't see anymore. I don't know why, but I like that description.<BR/><BR/>As for other Moore prose, I loved his novel Voice of the Fire. I don't think that's really a pastiche of anything, but he does some really cool stuff with language there. The first chapter alone is pretty incredible, once you wrap your head around it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13867868039166531163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-84013242580611120512007-12-05T19:36:00.000-05:002007-12-05T19:36:00.000-05:00Oh yeah:Regarding your final paragraph: Finish the...Oh yeah:<BR/><BR/>Regarding your final paragraph: Finish the book before you criticize the book as a whole. That is very poor form. The book grows and grows and some of the sequencies in the second half are easilly the equal of much of what Moore has done in the past. <BR/><BR/>I would suggest being a little less trigger happy with the criticism and give yourself a little more time to think and consider your thoughts before airing your criticism. And certainly pay the creators the courtesy of finishing the work in question first. But then you wouldn't have a blog if you didn't consider your own opinions to be exceptionally fascinating and important ;) <BR/><BR/>(please appreciate that my barbs are meant in the gentlest way possible)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-34886899612906083432007-12-05T19:26:00.000-05:002007-12-05T19:26:00.000-05:00Hey.I agree with some of your points, particularly...Hey.<BR/><BR/>I agree with some of your points, particularly regarding the stage directions, which i agree seemed wrong but I think that you are perhaps being a tad harsh. <BR/><BR/>Doing a Shakespeare pastiche without creating any anachronisms? That sounds like a hell of a job, especially as the author is trying to tell his own story and make his own points too. No obsolete language? To do something as exact as you demand would take an immense amount of time, research and effort. Given that this segment was one small part of the book I think you are expecting too much. If Moore had created a work that was in its entirety a pastiche of Shakespeare and had no greater purpose beyond that then perhaps it should be more exact but it is a merely a small part of the whole. It is in service to the greater story and it is important to bear that in mind.<BR/><BR/>Moore does not manage to use language as poetically as Shakespeare but he makes a very noble attempt and I applaud him bothering to make the attempt. He could just do the easy thing and do it all as a comic strip and then no-one would be able to touch it (do you criticize Shakespeare for not being able to match Alan Moore for sequential narrative ;) )as no-one has a greater skill in the medium as Moore. But he doesn't want to do the easy thing.<BR/><BR/>Be a little more generous. Applaud the attempted innovation rather than nit-picking so pedantically.There are many brilliant things in the Dossier and you seem to have focused entirely on one negative aspect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-48913867196699426162007-11-21T15:10:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:10:00.000-05:00Hmmm... but Hollis Mason's memoir wasn't supposed ...Hmmm... but Hollis Mason's memoir wasn't supposed to be a parody of a <I>particular</I> author (at least I've never seen it as such, and Mason himself is fictional, unlike Shakespeare). So it isn't nearly as jarring.<BR/><BR/>And as for Moore's Stan Lee parodies, those are, well, <I>parodies</I>, not pastiches. So again I don't think this quite applies.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, the pastiche documents are far more central in Black Dossier than they are in most (all?) of Moore's other works.<BR/><BR/>...Which is to say: maybe you're right. I'd have to think about it. But even if you are, it's still far more of a problem here.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-30695712992336983172007-11-21T14:31:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:31:00.000-05:00I haven't read Black Dossier yet...but I have to s...I haven't read <I>Black Dossier</I> yet...but I have to say that Moore's literary pastiches have never been all that great. Go back to Hollis Mason's memoirs in <I>Watchmen</I> for example. (Other supplementary material in that series was better...but Moore didn't write all of it.) Moore was heavily praised for this sort of thing simply because his efforts were better than anyone else in comics who had tried the technique up till then; over time, that vital qualification was overlooked and many readers now assume it's good simply because it's Moore. <BR/><BR/>One thing I'd say about Moore's writing in general is that he isn't good at subsuming his ego in any other writer's voice -- that includes his parody/homage of other comics writers as well as his forays into prose -- and the reader is always conscious of him keeping an arch distance from the material. When he tries to do a Superman homage or a Stan Lee pastiche, too often I sense his presence hovering at my elbow, saying "Look at this bit I've lifted, look at how cleverly I've done that."<BR/><BR/>But as I say, not having read this, I'm not yet entitled to say whether Moore is a less faithful student of Shakespeare than he is of Mort Weisinger.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714171897239398438noreply@blogger.com