Defend Moore all you want the core of what Wein is saying is true. If Wein had felt about Swamp Thing as Moore does about Watchmen, given that Wein was editor of the book, then when Moore pitched the idea of the Anatomy Lesson Moore would have been SOL. Debating whether or not Moore would have had an American comics career misses the point in Byrne-like spectacularity.

But Wein's "figure of speech" makes it sound like he thinks he has some special entitlement to show his "love" for Watchmen by doing something that the book's co-creator explicitly does not want to see happen. "I gave Alan Moore a career by recruiting him to work on a character I created, therefore this is all good."

If Wein doesn't give a shit about Moore or think he's being a jerk, then just admit it. But don't act like this is all cool because Moore totally owes Wein his entire writing career.

It just seems like a lot of these creators are missing the point. Wein says that they Moore was offered the chance to write prequels, and implies a substantial amount of money was part of the deal, and Moore turned them down. Therefore it's totally awesome that now Wein and the rest are scooping up that money. It's all good because Moore turned it down.

But that's crap. Moore didn't turn it down and say, "Let someone else do it." He turned it down because he felt that the original book should stand on its own and prequels or sequels or spin-offs would dilute the integrity of the original. That was more important to him than a huge paycheck. In other contexts, this stance would be seen as honorable. Len Wein seems confused by it. He seems to think all the talk of Moore getting screwed is about the money, when Moore has actually turned down a ton of Watchmen-related royalties. What he doesn't like is seeing spin-offs, adaptations, merchandising, endless re-hashing ... basically all the things that comic-book fans are cynical about.

But for some reason, when Moore complains about it, it becomes time to pore over his body of work and search for hypocrisies. Which is how we get, "Well, Moore sure is lucky that Len Wein didn't feel the same way he did! Otherwise this would all be quite moot! Quite!"

Anyway.

The problem is this statement by Wein --

"If I had felt about Swamp Thing the way Alan apparently does about Watchmen, Alan would never have even had a career here in the States..."

--is pretty fucking bold, no? I think Alan would have somehow managed without Wein. You're correct in what you're saying, that Moore would have been SOL in doing the kinds of Swamp Thing stories he wanted to do -- but for Wein to say Alan would never had a US comics career... a little ridiculous.

Alan Moore should shut the fuck up and get to work on Kingdom Come 2 and start an epic run on Wolverine.

Retweeted for truth.

If that was his flaw, then good news! He's now flawless!



But ... he wrote Swamp Thing 30 years ago!!!

It highlights exactly the point: that what Moore wants is for there to never be anything about Watchmen again. And that's the one thing that's unreasonable. There's no issue about the legal rights -- DC is in the right. So really these guys are just speaking to whether this is a screw job, when measure my historical standards, custom, the comics industry as we know it, and the reasonable expectations that Moore could have had.

Moore wants the following: never make anything out of Watchmen again, just because he says so. And that's a bridge too far.

This is the part where some Moore-defender says "He doesn't have to like it. He's not a dick for speaking his mind." Thank you. No, he doesn't have to like it. He says what he thinks, and we respond to that, and the cycle continues. Nobody's getting the death penalty, and nobody really needs to become a martyr.

What's interesting is the more general policy question, as it relates to the comics industry: should companies refrain from every making additional stories from a property if the creator so wishes. And separate question, is Watchmen so special that we would should make a separate set of rules for it, that don't apply to anything else?

Wait, so Wein owns Swamp Thing?

Oh wait, no DC does. So if Wein had felt about Swamp Thing the way Moore does about Watchmen, Wein would have eventually lost control of the character and gotten pissed about it, probably. And someone else would've been editing the ongoing Swamp Thing series. Eventually that editor would probably have to go scouting for new talent, possibly looking at issues of 2000 AD or something and seeing if anybody looked promising ...

Nah, that's silly. Only Wein would've been that smart. No comic-book editor but Wein has ever scouted for talent in England.

No, he doesn't own Swamp Thing and never did. So it's more like the Alan Moore situation.

I think you're getting too hung up on his choice of wording. Are you looking for someone to confirm your sneaking suspicion that Alan Moore would have ended up writing American comics? Because I can validate that suspicion. I don't think that was the point.

The point is that Alan Moore deconstructed an established character years after his creation, and it put him on the map at DC, and and led directly in a straight line to him getting the nod at DC for Watchmen. The point is that giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity, and can lead to discovery of all sorts of new ideas and talent.

Well, when the point is pretty much idiotic...

Look, Wein was the editor and creator and it was his choice to let some writer do whatever he wanted with a character he created. If he's good with it, good on him.

Alan Moore is a different person who is entitled to feel however he wants about characters he created. Just because one guy is okay with something, it doesn't require another guy to be okay with it.

Additionally, I'd say his history with the Watchmen property is quite different than Wein's is with Swamp Thing (who, let's face it, owes his noteriety to Moore's work -- many of Moore's ideas for the series were thought up as a creative exercise for some other company's hack swamp monster in mind before he had even gotten the job).

Both of them ripped off Man-Thing, in one way or another.

See my other post above. Moore doesn't think he and Watchmen are special. He mentions Jerry Robinson, Bill Finger, Siegel and Schuster, Martin Nodell, Gardener Fox ... and Kirby too, in a part I didn't quote.

Kirby was a renowned crank about seeing his stuff perpetuated endlessly. When creators like Byrne or whoever would talk about taking on the FF or Cap, and say, "We're taking it back to the Kirby tradition!", Kirby hated that, and said something to the effect of, "They don't get it: The Kirby tradition is to create something new." (Funny, nobody calls him a douchebag for saying things like that.)

So as regarding the separate question, no, Watchmen is not so special that it should have its own set of rules. Moore is not advocating it, as much as people wish he were so they could mock him for it.

You're right, what's interesting is the more general policy question. I think Moore's stance on it is admirable, personally. I wish I was as much of a purist, but I love post-Kirby X-Men too much, I think.

And regarding a bridge too far, that is my point about Wein's ridiculous statement. If Wein disagrees with Moore, he can just say that. But he took it too far by giving himself all the credit for Moore's career. It's ridiculous. If Moore were not so talented, Wein would not have recruited him. He's creating a false moral high-ground, and it's ridiculous. If Moore "doesn't really need to become a martyr," then Wein doesn't need to become a saint.

Thanks for answering the first sentence of my post as if the second sentence didn't already do that.

"Look at the big brain on Doot!"

Ah, but that's the issue in a nutshell here -- all of the Moore defenders are responding to people expressing the sentiment that he's crazy old wizard who's a bitter asshole that needs to shut up. It's not as if all the detractors are saying is, "All due respect to Moore, I don't agree with his stance and I'll be buying the books anyway" -- it's all about what a douche he is for not being a Stan Lee type and smiling for the camera.



I don't think anyone's advocating that either... I don't recall anyone here even saying that DC should give Moore back the rights or shouldn't do this out of some ethical principle.

I think the Moore defenders are just saying that he's not some stupid asshole for speaking his mind about something he's bitter about.

Disagree with your perception of the world as we know it. The issue most people are discussing (whether they can focus long enough to articulate a cogent point) is "Should DC be doing this under the circumstances?"

Although it may seem so because of humanity's inability to express itself properly these days, they are not discussing "Should we hang Alan Moore by the scrote for the things he's said?"

As always, Jay knows what most people are thinking.

Len Wein's internal monologue: "Hm, got an interview about Before Watchmen coming up. How can I get across to people that giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity, and can lead to discovery of all sorts of new ideas and talent? I know, I'll take credit for Alan Moore's career!"

I can't believe I missed it.

(Seriously, your point is thoughtful, and eloquently expressed. My point is simple: Wein comes off as an idiot when he says what he says in the way that he says.)

All of that said, "giving talent a chance to do their own take on characters is not an affront to humanity" ... if this is what you think Moore's point is, then you are misreading it as badly as you say I am misreading Wein's. Did you see the extended quote? It's not the "giving talent a chance to work on characters" thing that is the point of contention, it's the fact that in many cases, this is done against the wishes of the characters' creators. Not just Moore, but several significant creators in comics' long history.

Also, isn't it a little skewed to talk about "giving talent a chance to work on characters" as if this is all some benevolent work on the part of someone like Wein, and on the part of DC, who actually own the characters (thanks again for clearing me up on that point, I could've sworn Wein was the one who owned them)? "Moore wouldn't have had a career if I hadn't hired him!" Not true, but even if it is, turn it around: DC wouldn't have had two monster hits on their hands in the form of "Watchmen" and the revamped "Swamp Thing" if not for Moore. It was a mutually beneficial situation, so again I don't where it makes sense for Wein to suddenly take this moral high ground.

Honestly, I think you're being quite generous in taking your own point, which is interesting and worth talking about, and crediting it to Wein, whose view of things seems more shallow and self-serving.

There's a simple explanation for that -- he is one!

Wow, so now you're willing to blame all of humanity, just to let Wein off the hook for saying something phenomenally stupid?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.

So just because he's an idiot, that makes it all okay?

Your Len Wein apologism sickens me, sir.