Quotes from Moore.
With regards to protests:
"At the moment, the demonstrators seem to me to be making clearly moral moves, protesting against the ridiculous state that our banks and corporations and political leaders have brought us to.”
With regards to school shooter painting a “V”
“A horrible, pointless episode,”
With regards to corporations owning his works:
"During a drunken night it turned out that I’d sold it to the Gypsies and they had turned my baby to a life of prostitution. Occasionally they would send me glossy pictures of my child as she now was, and they would very, very kindly send me a cut of the earnings…”
Turns out if you actually listen to the man who wrote an anti-fascist, anti-capitalist work he’s anti-facist and anti-capitalist. You would do well to read articles/sources and find out specifically what he has said as opposed to just forwarding clickbait titles
You’re describing the early days, though. That’s what most people see remarked on. The point is about what this all turned into. He can quite specifically be quoted as referring to how toxic things seem to have become.
Then quote it
He wrote a whole piece, though I’m not sure how to quote it considering his verbal vibes.
This piece criticizes people who vote for Trump and Boris Johnson because they identify as “fans” of these politicians vs being aware of policy and voting based on that policy. It says that fans who come together to celebrate are fine. It is the fandom of Trump that disrupts peoples lives, and he does not like how “fandom” is used in politics that impact millions of peoples lives.
It came off as a kind of blanket piece the way I absorbed it, like it could apply to Trump and Johnson but it could also apply to political movements in general as well as his fictional genres, hence the first part where he mentions his first experiences with comic book clubs.
He summarises his position in literally the second paragraph
“Ten years on, let me make my position clear: I believe that fandom is a wonderful and vital organ of contemporary culture, without which that culture ultimately stagnates, atrophies and dies. At the same time, I’m sure that fandom is sometimes a grotesque blight that poisons the society surrounding it with its mean-spirited obsessions and ridiculous, unearned sense of entitlement. Perhaps this statement still requires some breaking down.”
This is very clearly an article specific to fandom and largely has little to do with his thoughts on political movements. Additionally, when he does make political statements he does with negative attitudes towards conservative leaders and voters. See my other comment for quotes
In the world of Alan Moore, fandom intertwines with political movements. Anonymous literally uses his Guy Fawkes Mask as its sole symbol. Have you never watched V for Vendetta or read up on Anonymous?
It’s like you haven’t even read the article. What you cited is a piece on the state of fandom. Here are the only somewhat relevant quotes from it. Notably they are consistent with everything I quoted in my previous comment
"I speak only of comics fandom here, but have gained the impression that this reflexive belligerence – most usually from middle-aged white male conservatives – is now a part of many fan communities. "
“Those who vote for Donald Trump or Boris Johnson seem less moved by policy or prior accomplishment than by how much they’ve enjoyed the performances on The Apprentice or Have I Got News for You.”
You are being deliberately disingenuous which I can only assume is to either push an agenda or to desperately hold on to the idea that you are ‘right.’
By not doing due diligence you have undoubtedly contributed to spreading misinformation. Please consider reading your sources and if you did actually read this article, I would strongly recommend undertaking a media literacy course or perhaps an english language course.
You say that like that invalidates my takeaway from it. In the world of Alan Moore, the two topics are mixed by default, with one often used as a proxy discussion for the other. Given this context, you could easily go to those who are acting on behalf of either a fandom or a movement and say “heed this person’s caution” and it wouldn’t be out of place.
Your title claimed Alan moore has denounced revolutionary movements that draw symbolism from his works. You failed to elaborate on what movements and how he has denounced them. I followed sources you provided and took extracts from those sources showing what movements he has expressed support for and what movements he has denounced. You have no takeaway, you haven’t tried to say anything or provided any context for anything. You’re just pushing clickbait for votes. You don’t even seem familiar with the fact that v for vendetta isn’t just a movie.
You say that like anyone has to be specific about it, and even then it ignores Anonymous (which is a movement) takes the spotlight here. You can infer a few things if you take his words and apply them to different movements. In fact, it can be applied to your approach to his criticism here. Unless, of course, Alan Moore is inconsistent as a political thinker in the first place.
deleted by creator
And you don’t expect that to make you just seem defensive about radicalism, even at the cost of rationale?
Alan Moore wrote Rorschach for a fucking reason and it wasn’t because “Rorschach was right!”
Moore was clearly aware of people who are sympathetic to great causes but would undermine them and destroy society just to be able to say that they were right.
Rorschach was right in many ways, but he spent his time looking down on everyone and anything else. His hate for the world was visceral and colored his perception. He was happy to destroy the world just so he could prove to himself that the world was beyond redemption.
The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘SAVE US!’…and I’ll look down and whisper ‘No.’
-Rorschach from Moore’s Watchmen
He doesn’t support these movements because they’re filled to the gills with fucking Rorschachs.
V for Vendetta had a similar message. V was really not all that much better than the people he was fighting. He tortured the fuck out of Evey in order to get her to do his bidding. I’m sure it pissed him off to a huge degree that people started adopting Guy Fawkes masks as an actual symbol of revolution. Moore chose that mask for a reason. That reason is that Guy Fawkes was both fighting oppression and trying to turn England into a theocracy.
The issue with subtle critiques of facists is that facists will enjoy them non ironically.
See Watchmen, V for vendetta, starship troopers, warhammer 40k, on and on.
40k isn’t a critique any more, and I’d argue it stopped the moment the Emperor became an actual strongman who is the bestest and smartest and handsomest immortal wizard human to ever live who guards humanity in its sleep uwu step on me daddy~~~~
Compared to the original, first edition version, where everything was at the whims of unreliable narration and it was understood that whatever the Emperor was in 30k, and that is a very big question, he’s a corpse on a throne in 40k.
Starship Troopers stopped being a critique the minute the first film ended, and the book never was.
That’s why you gotta watch movies like Inglorious Basterds. Make it impossible for them to claim that shit.
It really is unfortunate.
There’s also the factor that the movie is very different from the original comic, and the folks who adopted the Guy Fawkes mask as a hacktivist icon mostly just saw the movie.
He still tortures the shit out if Evie in the film
To radicalize her, yeah.
Which makes V just as bad if not worse than the society he’s fighting against.
V admits this in the story. That’s why he sacrificed himself. He knows he’s not fit for the world he’s trying to create by taking out the people who are just like him.
How?
How is torture bad…?
trying to turn England into a theocracy.
Oh! You come with the anti-Catholicism baked in. The Brits will love you.
Fascinated by the continued adherence to the idea that overthrowing a monarch who is simultaneously the head of the national church is a movement toward theocracy.
Replacing the secular head of state with the clerical leader would be a significant step towards theocracy. The monarch of the UK might be the head of the faith but they are not seen as a member of the clergy. The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK had Fawkes succeeded, would be a theocrat.
The Pope, who would ultimately have controlled the UK
There’s the anti-Catholic education paying off. Which countries did the pope control again? Why would the UK have been different from Spain, France or Italy? Why does being crowned by a pope or an archbishop differ? How, with apparent seriousness, are you defining the man who said this in parliament as a “secular head of state”:
The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God’s lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power.
Even today British monarchs are ordained as kings with holy oil. It is not a secular position.
Mind-boggling that even young children don’t see through this blatant myth-building for what it is. The same scaremongering is used even today by regressive Orangemen about papish plots.
Which countries did the pope control again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
I get that you are very, very upset that anyone dare criticize Catholicism, but that doesn’t excuse you from being ignorant of history.
I’m not ignorant of history. I’m on paper still a Catholic, since the Irish church decided to stop taking excommunication requests in 2005. Thanks for the Wikipedia article though.
Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.
Tip though, and a bit of genuine sympathy here, when the UK continues down it’s path of right-wing bigotry and you feel your family isnt safe again, you are now in a Common Travel Area with a far more welcoming “Catholic” nation. Feel free to walk across the border unchecked and I promise I won’t you rat you out for describing a basic awareness of England’s anti-Catholic biases as a “need to be a victim”.
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I’m not clever, I’m almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
As the Papacy coronated Kings they had a role to play in the legitimacy of any King. The Papacy has a history of playing favorites in this regard.
Please provide a source that substantiates the idea that people currently living in the UK see the monarch as a religious leader.
I don’t think anyone is promoting an anti-Roman Catholic ideology as much as you have an apparently biased and flawed understanding of Fawkes goals.
Please do read about the Gunpowder Plot because you clearly don’t know about it if you think this is some anti-Catholicism thing.
Also, I am talking about Moore’s point, not whether or not you believe the point is based in fact.
But your need to be a victim when you aren’t even a factor here is relevant.
anti-catholicism baked in
Thats called a brain, my dude. They’re normally included in the package.
There’s like a dozen in this very thread lmao
Moore hates idol worship. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d personally fist fight anyone that idolized him.
This is slander, he’d clearly cast a tantric curse on them.
Slander is spoken, in print it’s libel
Rorschach was very conservative and anti sex, much like the maga base. The attractive thing about that is that there’s a clear right and wrong.
Later on he’d rather be killed than to admit ozymandias being right. His diary field the hateful marginal right-wing maga-crowd that had their anger taken away by the world peace that had materialized.
Ozymandias was wrong.
He wanted power over a world scared of an “outside” threat that didn’t exist. As soon as anyone with any knowledge was able to debunk the ‘attack’, regardless of how, it would get even worse. The difference was only how far in the future. Rorschach didn’t die because Ozy was right. He died because he couldn’t be complicit in a world where evil got to win.
Ozymandias wanted to believe a heroic ideal as much as Rorschach - one that’s just as self-deluded. He wanted to believe that there was an end to “history”. He wanted to decide when the future began. But he forgot just one fact that Rorschach at least was cognizant of:
Nothing ever ends, Adrian.
None of those characters were right.
None of those characters were right.
that’s the magic of it, to me.
Totally agree with this. It’s part of why I dislike that DC writers sometimes import traits from the Watchmen into their Charlton counterparts. Obviously, if you scratch the surface of Rorschach, you find the Question staring back. If you look at Silk Spectre the right way, you see Black Canary. Nite Owl 1 & 2 are the Blue Beetle (I’m glad that Moore never got to adapt Jaime).
I want most of my superheroes to be clean and honest. I want to know that when I read a story, the Question follows leads responsibly (even if they do sometimes involve aglets) - whether that’s Vic or Renee under the no-face. I want to know that Dinah Lance comes from a loving family, has a man she loves and trusts, and is dedicated to being a hero and a mentor to those who aren’t in the same place. And so it goes for all of them. I want those characters to be heroes and in the right - or at least, in the realm of responsibility.
aglets
Their true purpose is sinister…
well put
Didn’t say Ozymandias was right, I said Rorschach chose to die rather than submit to Ozymandias. And, like Ozymandias, he had already put into play his trump card, but he couldn’t tell him that, so he decided to take it to his grave.
Both are cases of misplaced heroïsm. Neither are sure what the future will bring.
The way you said “rather die than admit ozy was right” was stated quite matter of fact-ly
You’re right, it’s a small difference. Rorschach couldn’t admit that there was a point, there was a path to harmony. Like oz he’d put his plan into working before too.
He couldn’t admit to oz being right, because he morally was disagreeing with the method. But in fact he disagreed because it made himself unviable. He counts in humanity to find conflict to disturb peace.
So ultimately Rorschach is right.
He also basically tortured Moloch for no reason. No matter how many times Moloch told him he didn’t have the information. He just repeatedly beat the shit out of a dying old man for information the old man didn’t have.
A dying old man yes, but no less an evil bastard for it. The problem is that Rorschach was deluded by Ozymandias. The evidence he had about the death of a friend pointed to Moloch. He pursued the lead. And like any human, he got angry because someone he’d respected had been murdered and thought he had a lead on the murderer. And the murderer was someone who’d killed in the past.
“Any human” would not repeatedly beat the shit out of a guy who kept insisting he had no information.
Also, The Comedian was not his friend. In any way.
What part of rorschach’s views are revolutionary? Rorschach is a chud. Maybe his views are extreme but not revolutionary. False equivalence be wilin
I’ll take Rorschach at this point I’m not gonna lie. Something, anything has to give, and the road we’re on rn is much worse.
Edit: lol the only replies to this are from people I had to block previously due to trolling/ignorance etc. Figures.
Will you?
All sounds pretty MAGA to me.
We did get Rorschach. It’s r/Conspiracy.
It would probably be faster to list the things he doesn’t have a negative view about.
I was about to say the same thing. Pretty much the only thing I can think of that he has a positive view of is the hand puppet he worships.
And to his credit, he freely admits it’s a hand puppet.
Chaos magick isn’t really about believing your own bullshit so much as getting real silly and being able to chat up witchy chicks.
Let’s not forget the orgies
How could I?
What I came in to say. He’s a curmudgeon. A genius, but not the most personable.
Did you bother to watch it? Or are you just posting a video in hopes that people will think that you’ve found evidence against my viewpoint without doing the research. Because, in the video he says basically everything in My comment and in OP.
I just think he’s personable in an odd way. 🤷♂️
TBF Alan Moore has a negative view of the idea that anyone has ever read or enjoyed his work.
I rather don’t think the movements he helped inspire would ask about his opinion though.
Hence why appropriation is a thing.
What revolutionary culture? I’ve never seen any evidence that inspired revolutionary culture. Some cringe culture absolutely, but actual revolutionary culture? Nonsense.
Have you never seen Anonymous before? They are a revolutionary group whose motif is the Guy Fawkes Mask, which is a symbol that comes directly from the character V from V for Vendetta, who wears one because his mask “is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof”. Anonymous has done a lot of notable things, both good and bad, such as going after the Church of Scientology and trying to take part in the pandemic riots, and it is in response to some of this that Alan Moore has brought up the revelation or fact that Anonymous, he would tell/inform you, is excessive and misses the point, distorting his vision for social action, with him implying the same exact objection about Luigi Mangione and those who support him years later. He made characters regardless of good and evil, not models of it (heck, V admits at one point he sabotaged a train just to get his hands on real butter to go with his breakfast, an unmistakably “this must be an anti-hero” move, but everyone wants to focus on things like the “what they did was monstrous, so they made a monster” justification that wasn’t meant to be taken as the doctrine it became), and he did not intend people would weaponize use of it as a platform, though most people are only aware of the initial remark of praise he gave Anonymous for combating the Scientology, which is what made it to the encyclopedias.
You are really understanding Moore’s point in V for Vendetta. His whole point is that good and evil are subjective. Which, as far as I can tell, is true in the real world.
V is really not better than the people he is fighting and he has no plan for the aftermath, which will clearly be a horror show.
And I guarantee you plenty of members of Anonymous committed their own horrible acts that would be considered evil by others. Being part of a good cause does not make you a good person.
Anonymous are not a revolutionary group imo. Revolutions are bloody are done the in the streets. They’re a nuisance at best.
what they did was monstrous, so they made a monster" justification that wasn’t meant to be taken as the doctrine it became), and he did not intend people would weaponize use of it as a platform,
Personally I think that was pretty naive on Moore’s part. It resonates with ppl because it’s true. Revolution is often bloody and morally black because ppl have reached their breaking point.
Revolution doesn’t necessarily have to entail violence or blood. The very first recorded strike in history had laborers in ancient Egypt succeed simply by showing up in large numbers. People could also get “creative”, such as when the Catalonians declared independence by forming a human circle around their desired territory.
Revolution doesn’t necessarily have to entail violence or blood
Licking a doorknob doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get sick but the overwhelming odds are you will. Also using Egypt and Catalonia as examples of peaceful revolutions is strange considering Egypt squashed tons of challenges to the throne, revolts, etc. with violence and Catalonians have engaged in straight up terrorism
Yeah, I feel the same way, a lot of these movements are just tyrannical government psyops waging proxy wars in the information era.
I realize that sounds like something a nutjob conspiracist would say but just look at how often the larger groups end up spouting pro-Russia and pro-Chinese sentiments, look at how forceful they are about spreading their ideologies here in the fediverse, look at an LBRY video comment section or at middle eastern talking heads.
Everyone in this whole world pretends to be a revolutionary and almost nobody is anything more than just another tool for a machine built for war and greed.
Everyone in this whole world pretends to be a revolutionary and almost nobody is anything more than just another tool for a machine built for war and greed.
the single most important thing you will ever learn in life, is when to recognize your level of expertise. It will benefit you to no end, and prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
There are things that you are familiar with, and there are things that you are not familiar with. Be quiet, please. Just don’t say things. Unless you know explicitly, it will be productive, in which case, do say things.
I think it’s better to get your opinions out there so you can face backlash when you’re wrong. Where most people misstep in this hypothetical is they rarely try to look at it from their opponent’s perspective and/or from an unbiased third party perspective, and instead radicalize further.
that’s definitely important, but there are two problems, not everything is important enough to even be discussed in the first place, especially under most contexts that political discussions happen within. It’s a waste of time, you would be better off spending your time elsewhere.
There’s also the problem of the echo chamber re-enforcement. Differing opinions only help in a productive and collaborative environment, without one, they do nothing and are meaningless. Politics entirely lacks this environment.
Where most people misstep in this hypothetical is they rarely try to look at it from their opponent’s perspective and/or from an unbiased third party perspective
I 100% agree with this, people need to spend more time conceptualizing issues, and thinking about them more thoroughly, that’s a huge problem here. But again, does it really matter? Should you even care about it in the first place? Would you be better off if you had invested your time into becoming a better person, rather than a more argued person.
This is actually something i’ve been thinking about over the last few years, and i think i’m starting to finalize it in a semi consumable form at this point. You need a fundamental threshold of importance for the things you care about. Something like a family member getting cancer, probably pretty fucking important. You should probably care about it. Something like a random traffic accident halfway across the country? Literally irrelevant to you. Makes no fucking difference.
If you follow online politics at all, one thing you will notice especially among the right, is how much complete and utter garbage is talked about it on a regular basis. 90% of it is literally meaningless and doesn’t have anything to do with you. And yet, people still care about it for some reason, why?
it’s the foundation of the political brain rot this country has experienced over the past 50 or so years.
I’m not sure if I get your point, as I’m sure happens to you quite often, are you calling the banning of discussion which is borderline illegal, inciting violence etc, and then the banning the discussion of that ban, a psyops campaign? I had to read comments in your Other Post to get a grasp of the situation.
I feel like you really should have noticed the signs that you’d taken a wrong turn in your life when Hexbear users starting backing you up.
They weren’t backing me up. Or are you referring to them?
What happened was I happened to step on an unlucky metaphorical giant hornet’s nest responding to someone who was randomly bringing up Luigi. If a form of advocacy is extreme enough, it causes a cautionary reaction, which is the most concise way I can put it. I then mentioned the whole thing elsewhere, but the ever-famous Blaze then asked me to not preach to the choir, instead saying I should tell everyone who was relevant to it. So I did, and that got removed by one of the mods of !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com who told me to bring the matter to !fediverselore@lemmy.ca instead. So I complied again, doing that, and rather than being meditative, the response from all of them came off as vigilant, and then he posited the idea of bringing it back to !yepowertrippinbastards@lemmy.dbzer0.com formatted as a “the mods of YPTB removed my inquiry” complaint. So, again, I complied, only for both of the people in charge there to shame me for my way of thinking and implying I did everything I did in an attempt not to comply. All because a hundred people held the position that the CEO’s murder was ethically unquestionable.
TLDR; Angry British man, angry about stuff.
UK here - never used stone, LBs or pints as a measurement
If I was measuring bodyweight, I would use KG. Grams for anything light.
The only time I see Milk measured in pints, is bottles or cartons of standard dairy milk in supermarkets. Any other milk is litres, including dairy such as Jersey / Cream top milk
How old are you? I’m mid 30s and grew up with stone for human weight, and kg for everything else.
LBs never (except baking from old recipe books), and pints for beer only.
I never know where the cutoff is for us lot.
I’m the same age
I found that stone was used for weight commonly up until recent times. I’ve been asked in person and one form what my weight is in kg (I think maybe health insurance?)
Same with Lbs and pints, but also milk. Every standard plastic milk carton is measured in pints, usually with ml/l printed on them these days. Smallest carton? 1 pint. Most common? 4. Giant carton 6 etc
Who wants a body massage?
Hey kid, I’m a computer! Stop all the downloadin’!
PORKCHOP SANDWICHES?!?
Oh shit! Get the fuck out of here!
Last one on the ice is a penis pump!
Look at all your different colored hats!
Links to his 2011 and 2024 interviews on the fandoms his work inspired.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/27/alan-moore-v-vendetta-mask-protest
Yeah, the part two thirds of the way down in the first one corresponds to where it becomes what is being referred to in the TIL.
Well ya see, Al, death of the author is a thing.
I didn’t know he died. When did that happen?
He’s not dead. They’re referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
Oh, that. If I am to weigh in on that, I would strongly disagree with Roland Barthes here. There is a reason we call things canon when it comes from the author and headcanon when it comes from the viewer. Whether something is up for interpretation is as subjective or relative as the interpretations themselves.
Alan Moore is a twat
Okay buddy Rorschach
Doubt he thinks very highly of you either
well then i’m in excellent company aren’t i
