#harry is a horrible little piece of shit and was treated far too nicely by the narrative wtf | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

preserving-ferretbrain · 6 years ago

Text

Quis Copyright Ipsos Custodes?

by Dan H

Wednesday, 06 June 2012

Dan rambles about copyright, DC, and the Watchmen Prequels~

Poking around the internets a couple of days ago I discovered the

following article

about the upcoming (or by the time this article is published, recently released) Watchmen Prequels.

I'm in two minds about this. Part of me says that this is a horrible shameless cash-in that pisses on the memory on one of the greatest graphic novels in history. Another part of me says that the first part of me is just being reactionary and fanboyish.

The Slate article I link at the top of this piece starts off with the oft-repeated observation that DC paid Siegel and Shuster $130 for the rights to Superman and went on to make a shit-ton of money out of the Man of Steel while his creators died in relative poverty. It also points out that the estate of Jack Kirby, who created most of the original Avengers saw nothing from the recent movie.

Now obviously there is a lot wrong with the comics industry. Comic book companies do treat a lot of their writers and artists like shit, and the comics fandom as a whole is as problematic as all fuck. But try as I might, I can't get angry about the fact that the rights to most comic book characters are owned by big companies, instead of by the people who created those characters for those companies.

Perhaps it's that my professional background is in Education while what limited creative background I have is in RPGs, so I'm very used to the idea that what I do in either my professional or my creative life ceases to be mine the moment I put it out into the world. If one of my D&D players wrote a book based on my campaign, I might expect a thank-you but I wouldn't expect royalties, and I obviously don't expect my students to cut me in on their future earnings just because I teach them things which help them get on in their lives (nor does it bother me that the various syllabus documents, schemes of work, and sets of revision notes I have produced as part of my work belong to my school and not to me).

Indeed thinking about it from the perspective of any industry apart from the creative media, the notion that somebody might deserve a share of the profits from a piece of work somebody else does based on work they did as part of their job ten years earlier is completely alien. It reminds me, tangentially, of that

SMBC

strip which suggests that the principle known in academia as “publish or perish” is known in the rest of the world as “do your job or get fired.” There's the same peculiar sense that something which is seen as the mother of all injustices in one industry is just par for the course in most others.

To put it another way, although like most human beings I'm prone to irrational and inconsistent ideas, I do make a vague effort to keep my beliefs consistent with one another. And I'm a big fan of Creative Commons, a supporter of fanfiction, and a strong believer in fair use and the value of transformative works. I am not sure that I could reconcile my belief that the Harry Potter Lexiconhad every right to compile information from the Harry Potter books into an accessible format, or that people have the right to write original stories using other people's characters and put them on the internet (fanfiction.net, for what it is worth, already hosts nine hundred and forty pieces of Watchmen fanfic), with the belief that it is unreasonable for the people who published the original Watchmen to publish sequels if they damned well want to.

I think what bugs me the most about this issue, and more specifically with the attitude that it is somehow self-evident that the person who “creates” a character is entitled to royalties in perpetuity, is that it seems grounded in a mindset with which I am all too familiar. I am, as I believe I have said in many previous articles, an overeducated underachiever. I am very, very good at coming up with ideas and very, very bad at following them through.

The reason people like me react so strongly to the story of Siegel and Shuster isn't that we have genuine sympathy for the hardworking Jewish immigrants who were screwed over by the cynical fatcats at DC, it's that we're all dreaming of the day when we will come up with that one “idea” that will make us millionaires without our having to do any actual work. We baulk at the idea of comic book companies making millions from an idea for which they paid $130 not because it was exploitative (although it probably was) but because we see no value whatsoever in all other work that went into turning a $130 character idea into a billion-dollar IP. This is particularly ironic since a lot of that work was, in fact, done by Siegel and Shuster themselves (and it was work for which they were in fact well paid, Wikipedia reliably informs me that while the pair were only paid $130 for the rights to Superman they were paid $75,000 a year to write Superman – and that was in the 1940s).

People like me love to pretend that ideas are all that matter, that because The Avengers was a pre-existing IP, that all the people who made the film had to do was show up and shuffle things into vaguely the right order. This is, of course, nonsense. Yes, The Avengers wouldn't have existed without Stan Lee or Jack Kirby, but nor would it have existed without Wayne T. Silva the assistant payroll accountant, or Nuo Sun the actor trainer, or Matthew Roper the set medic, or any of the literally hundreds of people who were directly involved in making the actual movie. Of course the original characters are part of what made the film successful, but so is the fact that the actors did their stunts right, or that the payrolls were correctly managed.

Valuable intellectual properties aren't created by individual geniuses – even when a single person owns the copyright the actual brand (and make no mistake about it, thats all a valuable artistic property is – a brand that people buy into and want to hear stories about) is created by a vast army of professionals. We might believe that Harry Potter was created by JK Rowling, but in truth it was partly created by Thomas Taylor (who drew the first cover for Bloomsbury), Mary GrandPre (who drew all of the US covers and seems to have created the distinctive “Harry Potter” font later used in the movies) and Daniel Radcliffe. Yes, the fact that JK Rowling started out as an unemployed single parent and is now one of the richest people in Britain makes for a lovely rags-to-riches story, but one could make the case that she is (in part) reaping the rewards of other people's work. Building a brand, after all, is the role of a corporate marketing department, not an individual artist.

To put it another way, Siegel and Shuster may have created Superman, but it was undoubtedly DC that turned him into a billion-dollar brand, and it is downright perverse to celebrate the success of that brand while at the same time condemning the company that created that success. Did the creators of Superman get screwed? I honestly don't know. Certainly DC negotiated a contract that was in the company's interests rather than the artists', but it is not inherently wrong to make a lot of money out of something for which you initially paid very little money. If DC had known for certain that the Superman property would make millions then it might have been immoral to encourage Siegel and Shuster to give up all rights to the character, but they almost certainly didn't. They took a punt on the property, and it paid off.

Of course money isn't the only issue here. Alan Moore is far more upset about control of his creations than anything else. But even this is a commercial issue. It's easy to be snooty about the way the comics industry exploits its IPs, but – well – that's kind of how they make their money. More than that, it's kind of what's good about the medium. As in, what's artistically good. If Superman had remained in the exclusive control of its original creators, it would still look

like this

. Batman, by a similar token, would still look

like this

. Enduring comic-book characters remain relevant to a modern audience precisely because they are continually created and recreated, and this is possible only because the rights to these characters are owned not by their individual creators but by corporations. This idea doesn't sit comfortably in the mind of the average comics reader, who I suspect likes to place themselves on the side of the artist (not least because so many of us believe ourselves to be artists), but the truth is that we benefit directly from the system being the way it is.

Which brings us all back to the Watchmen prequels. The instinctive reaction of, I expect, most of nerddom, will be to raise a hue and cry because blah blah capitalism blah blah integrity blah blah cash-in blah blah blah. Because apparently we've forgotten that doing new things with old characters is what comic books are all about. The question of whether they are actually any good or not will be entirely academic (as

this edition of Our Valued Customers

nicely illustrates).

The whole thing seems grounded in a kind of skeevy Great Man Theory. The prequels might be brilliant, or they might be terrible, but what people seem to be concerned about is the fact that they will no longer be the product of One Man's Genius, that the mere fact that the prequels will not be written by Alan Moore irrevocably taints them. The whole thing reminds me of the kerfuffle over the proposed (but I believe never realised) Buffy revamp, when people were up in arms about the idea of Buffy without Joss Whedon. Even more peculiarly, people were insisting that a de-Whedoned Buffy would be a terrible blow against feminism, despite the fact that the lead writer on the proposed revamp would have been an actual woman.

This last point – that taking a property away from its straight, white, male creator will be bad for women and ethnic minorities – was made quite explicitly in the Slate piece that inspired this article:

For example: Moore’s comics have often been concerned with feminism, and one theme of Watchmen is that the superhero genre is built in part on retrograde sexual politics and thuggish rape fantasies. And how does Before Watchmen address these issues? Like so. If this were some piece of fan fiction detritus—naked Dr. Manhattan, porn-faced Silk Spectre!—it would be funny. But given that this is an "official" product, it starts to be harder to laugh it off.

I'm not sure where to begin with this. The first thing I'd say is that I have no idea which version of Watchmen this person was reading if they (a) think that “naked Dr Manhattan” is in any way a deviation from the original text and (b) think it's remotely appropriate to describe the original comic as “feminist”. This is a comic in which the fact that Sally Jupiter had a relationship with, and became pregnant by, the man that raped her is the detail which convinces Dr Manhattan that humanity is beautiful and worth saving (this is a slightly uncharitable gloss to put on that moment in the comics, but only slightly).

The second thing I'd say is that I can't help but notice that the article not only assumes that you can deduce an entire comic's gender politics from the cover of one trade paperback, but also fairly deliberately chooses the only cover that could have remotely illustrated his point. You can look at all of the other covers

here

. Most of them don't feature women at all, but this is a consequence of there only being one significant female character in the original text, which is surely Moore's fault as much as anybody else's (and again, doesn't seem to say much for his “concern for feminism”). You might specifically want to take a closer look at the cover of the

Silk Spectre

prequel, which is not only a good not-especially-sexualised portrayal of the character, but which is also drawn by an actual woman.

I think what I find most ironic about the backlash against the Watchmen prequels is that it's grounded in the very same notions of heroism which the comic itself deconstructs. The only reason to believe that (as the Slate article puts it):

Rorschach and Nite Owl and Dr. Manhattan have been raised from their resting place, and Moore—and the rest of us—now get to watch them stagger around, dripping bits of themselves across the decades, until everyone has utterly forgotten that they ever had souls.

Is if we accept that Alan Moore is somehow so uniquely talented that nobody except for him is capable of writing decent stories with those characters. As if somehow Moore's talent was so great that unlike Superman, Batman, the X-Men, the Avengers, or all of the characters he purloined for League of Extraordinary Gentlemen his creations would be uniquely tainted if they were touched by lesser mortals.

Perhaps even more tragically, this really does seem to be Moore's attitude. In

this interview

he makes a number of almost embarrassingly self-aggrandising claims about how uncreative, miserable and talentless pretty much everybody working in the mainstream comics industry is. He also, inexplicably, insists that his use of the character of Allan Quatermain in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is different from the Watchmen prequels because apparently nobody had heard of Allan Quatermain before he put him in a comic (whereas Dr Manhattan is – what – a literary icon?). And complains that the people who got his share of the money from the Watchmen and Extraordinary Gentlemen movies didn't ring him up and personally thank him.

Perhaps the most mystifying quote in the whole interview is the part where he claims that the people working on Before Watchmen are doing so because: “It will probably be the only opportunity they get in their careers to actually be attached to a project that anybody outside of comics has ever heard of”. Leaving aside the fact that one of the writers on the project is J. Michael Straczynski – who created one of the most respected (although perhaps also most overrated) works of TV SF ever made – what is Moore smoking if he believes that anybody outside of comics has heard of Watchmen at all other than as that movie that guy made in 2009.

The thing is, Alan Moore absolutely does have the right to be bitter and angry about this whole affair, because he did get screwed by DC. But whatever he might think, Watchmen is not some dazzling beacon that demonstrated to the outside world the true potential of the comic-book medium. It's an okay-but-slightly-dated long-form comic book which comics nerds (and only comics nerds) obsess about because they think it makes them look clever.

The Watchmen prequels are very likely to be dull and uninspiring, but that is because Watchmen is dull and uninspiring. And any spark or relevance they have for a modern audience will have come from the people who wrote and drew them, it will not have been reflected from Alan Moore's imaginary genius.

Themes:

Topical

Sci-fi / Fantasy

Comics

Watchmen

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Arthur B

at 14:31 on 2012-06-06I simultaneously have no sympathy for the "what about Alan Moore?" argument but also think

Before Watchmen

is highly likely to be an enormous waste of time.

On the first point, it's worth noting that originally Alan Moore

didn't intend to use original characters for Watchmen at all

. Moore wanted to use the characters from the Charlton Comics stable of superheroes, which DC had acquired after Charlton bit the dust. DC were like "ummmm... we'd prefer you didn't junk these characters, why not make some original ones anyway?", Moore acquiesced and cooked up the Watchmen we know and love as thinly-veiled re-imaginings of the Charlton chumps.

The important thing about this anecdote, vis-a-vis this discussion, is that

the entire concept of Watchmen came about as a result of the corporate ownership of characters created by people who were not Alan Moore, and Moore wanting to write a story very much at odds with the original intentions of the characters' creators.

So the idea that the

Watchmen

characters somehow get to be sacred and mustn't be tampered with when they owe their very existence to Moore wanting to tamper with other people's characters seems pretty hypocritical to me.

On the other hand, with respect to

Before Watchmen

itself, I can't see how it can really be very interesting.

Watchmen

was constructed like one of those really cool domino runs - the interesting thing is watching this very delicate setup collapsing as the result of one little push. Watching the dominos getting set up before the actual domino run is just going to be tedious and I'd rather not.

permalink

go to top

Wardog

at 14:54 on 2012-06-06I'd have more sympathy for Moore in general if he was less of a complete dick...

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 15:07 on 2012-06-06Theologically Moore says he believes that all fictions are real in some sense.

If that were the case it shouldn't matter that someone else is using those characters or messing with those stories because they were never Moore's in the first place, he just found them.

permalink

go to top

http://fishinginthemud.livejournal.com/

at 16:01 on 2012-06-06

The whole thing seems grounded in a kind of skeevy Great Man Theory.

This is a bit of a tangent, and I apologize if it goes too far off course.

I've been thinking about the Great Man Theory as it applies to capitalism and entrepreneurship, especially the popular notion that all great successes in business are the work of individual (male) supergeniuses. An entrepreneur has a Great Idea that works and makes him billions, he becomes a cultural icon, and he can then do no wrong until he does. Women can't have Great Ideas, because barefoot pregnant make me a sandwich.

The other day I hear a guy bring up that Sheryl Sandberg is the real brains behind Facebook, for taking that slack-ass Mark Zuckerberg's idea and finding a way to make it profitable. Another guy loudly counters that Zuckerberg was the "visionary" who had the "great idea" for Facebook and therefore deserves 100% of the credit and fame he's received at everyone else's expense.

Now obviously Zuckerberg's role in Facebook was much greater than simply coming up with the original idea, and his role in creating and running the company shouldn't be downplayed. And the second guy is a bitter, thwarted misogynist anyway, so if Sandberg and Zuckerberg's roles had been switched he'd be championing execution over ideas. It just strikes me that an idea rarely, if ever, starts out as a Great Idea, and only becomes so in hindsight. If we're not used to thinking of women's ideas as potentially Great Ideas, we're never going to get to the point where women have a reputation for Great Ideas to point to. And of course nascent ideas are a lot harder to judge fairly and objectively than, say, job performance.

permalink

go to top

James D

at 17:35 on 2012-06-06

The important thing about this anecdote, vis-a-vis this discussion, is that the entire concept of Watchmen came about as a result of the corporate ownership of characters created by people who were not Alan Moore, and Moore wanting to write a story very much at odds with the original intentions of the characters' creators. So the idea that the Watchmen characters somehow get to be sacred and mustn't be tampered with when they owe their very existence to Moore wanting to tamper with other people's characters seems pretty hypocritical to me.

While you have a point, I think it's oversimplifying to some degree. I'm pretty sure that, had Moore been allowed to use those old characters, they would have been significantly and obviously different from the originals. They would have been almost totally reimagined. With the Watchmen prequels, they're supposedly about the actual characters themselves, so what happens in the prequels may directly relate to what happens in the original graphic novel itself.

Even so, I really just don't see what the big deal is, to be perfectly honest. It'd be one thing if Alan Moore were some poor downtrodden author whose works barely got any attention beyond a small but loyal cult following, and then some huge corporate giant came in and swindled him out of his rights and completely ran away with the man's franchise in a way he never intended and never credited him with anything. But The Watchmen is a very, very well-known graphic novel. There have been numerous sequels written to the Oz books by a variety authors, yet nobody really bitches and moans about those because the originals are firmly understood to be the originals. The millions of Star Wars tie-in books, games, action figures, etc. don't somehow warp the quality of the original movies.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 17:49 on 2012-06-06

Actually, as I understand it the point was to use established characters with an established history to sucker in readers with a cosy sense of familiarity before exposing them to just how vile the characters really are, so had that plan gone ahead I imagine it would have involved more than a few callbacks to the Charlton stable's original stories.

But it's impossible to say one way or another because DC didn't let Moore do it.

The millions of Star Wars tie-in books, games, action figures, etc. don't somehow warp the quality of the original movies.

Of course, in the case of Star Wars George Lucas has proved himself perfectly capable of ruining it all by himself...

permalink

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:09 on 2012-06-06

The whole thing reminds me of the kerfuffle over the proposed (but I believe never realised) Buffy revamp, when people were up in arms about the idea of Buffy without Joss Whedon. Even more peculiarly, people were insisting that a de-Whedoned Buffy would be a terrible blow against feminism, despite the fact that the lead writer on the proposed revamp would have been an actual woman.

Disregarding Buffy's feminism (I never interpreted Buffy as a show about feminism but rather about vampires, becasue I was 10) I don't think you can argue that it would have been different. Star Trek was very different after Gene Roddenberry's death to what it was before; which some people preferred and some people hated, but the difference is undeniable. So if you thought that Buffy was perfect just the way it was I can see the idea of someone messing it about might be upsetting.

Of course people ought to be honest and admit that they don't like the idea because they don't want their cherished memories polluted instead of trying to conjure politics, but that wouldn't sound as good in Slate.

permalink

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 18:09 on 2012-06-06Sorry, wouldn't have been different.

permalink

go to top

http://barefoottomboy.livejournal.com/

at 18:40 on 2012-06-06Not being overly attached to Watchmen (or Alan Moore in general), I may not be best placed to make this call, but I just can't get too worked up about the prospect of a prequel that isn't/might not be as good as the original. As James D says, the existence of (a) prequel(s) doesn't negate the existence of the original, or somehow retrospectively reduce its quality.

Not to say that all prequels/sequels/extensions/whatever are always a good idea, of course. But if you don't like them, there's nothing stopping you ignoring them and sticking to the originals you liked in the first place.

In terms of creators getting screwed over by copyright & the comic book industry, I really don't know enough about either to comment intelligently. Though I must confess that my immediate/gut reaction to Jack Kirby's *estate* losing out on a share of the profit of the Avengers film is "so freaking what? Why should I care about Jack Kirby's estate - what did they have to do with the creation of those characters?".

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 19:29 on 2012-06-06

Though I must confess that my immediate/gut reaction to Jack Kirby's *estate* losing out on a share of the profit of the Avengers film is "so freaking what? Why should I care about Jack Kirby's estate - what did they have to do with the creation of those characters?".

We care because it's the 18th Century and people's copyrighted works aren't just meant to earn them money, it's also meant to be a way for them to provide for their wives and children.

This is

literally

the only reason why copyright has this weird "until the author's death plus X years" duration thing going on.

permalink

go to top

http://scipiosmith.livejournal.com/

at 20:25 on 2012-06-06You say that like its such a bad thing.

I must say I'm of the opinion that if you can live on unearned income you probably should- and free up a slot in the job market for someone who needs it.

permalink

go to top

James D

at 21:15 on 2012-06-06

Of course, in the case of Star Wars George Lucas has proved himself perfectly capable of ruining it all by himself...

One might say the same of Michael Moorcock and Elric, or any number of other creators who went on to ruin their creations. Honestly, when it comes to shoddy sequels, I can't really think of any corporation that did as much damage to other people's characters as those two did to their own. There are plenty of shoddy corporate sequels out there, to be sure, but does Alien: Resurrection really tarnish Alien at all? I certainly wouldn't say so. It's much harder to be that sure about the Star Wars prequels, or Moorcock's ill-advised later Elric stories that he shoehorned into the original chronology, when new viewers/readers could very well go into those series and take them as a whole, without differentiating much between the old and the new.

An argument might be made that the comics industry is unfairly entrenched in the practice of forcing authors to sign the rights of their characters over if they want to be published, but as I mentioned earlier it's not like Moore and his family are starving while corporate fat cats reap the benefits of his ideas. It's not like they're spuriously attaching Moore's name to projects he has no part of. There may be an argument to be made here, but The Watchmen is hardly the ideal battleground for it.

permalink

go to top

http://melaniedavidson.livejournal.com/

at 21:53 on 2012-06-06

He also, inexplicably, insists that his use of the character of Allan Quatermain in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is different from the Watchmen prequels because apparently nobody had heard of Allan Quatermain before he put him in a comic

I think it's funny that he chose probably the most obscure character for that example. Because even if Allan Quatermain was "almost entirely forgotten" (I don't know if this is the case even though I personally hadn't heard of him), the others are all from pretty well-known classics. I'm sure he knew how ridiculous it would sound if he said Jekyll and Hyde were obscure and forgotten and only about six people had heard of the story.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:07 on 2012-06-06

You say that like its such a bad thing. I must say I'm of the opinion that if you can live on unearned income you probably should- and free up a slot in the job market for someone who needs it.

The number of copyrighted works which actually still rake in a substantial amount of royalties decades after publication is amazingly small. I don't know whether the Tolkien Estate rakes in enough loot from LOTR for Christopher Tolkien and his extended family to sustain themselves without working - I suspect not given the drip-drip-drip of unpublished works coming out from those quarters. In fact, a hell of a lot of the beneficiaries of properties which still rake in mad loot after decades aren't estates or widows or orphans at all. It's the Disney Corporation and people like them.

And of course anything we can say about the state of comics industry author contracts with regards to Watchmen applies mainly to contracts as they existed in the 1980s, when the rights were actually handed over, and offers us little insight into contracts as they exist now.

The situation in the 1980s isn't one I've investigated much, but today I'm really not bothered about it. We exist in an age when if a comic creator wants to publish their work online for everyone to enjoy, they can do so - and in fact make some money out of it. Enough to live lavishly? Probably not, but unless you're writing/drawing a big heap of stuff for DC/Marvel as well as your own personal pet projects you're not likely to be earning great cash from them either. There's no

reason

to even offer your all-original creations up to DC or Marvel in the first place unless think signing over your rights to them is a worthwhile price to pay to get wider distribution and a higher profile - and if you don't think that's a worthwhile price, don't sign the contract in the first place.

Conversely, if you want to write for DC and Marvel because you want to write stories using their characters, it's only fair that they should have editorial control over what you do and only fair that they get to play with any original creations you add to their universes. If you want to play in the big sandpit which is Gotham City (or wherever) it's silly to expect to be allowed to take your sandcastle home with you, and short-sighted to imagine that another kid won't kick over or improve your sandcastle once you leave.

permalink

go to top

Dan H

at 22:44 on 2012-06-06

That's a good point and one I'd failed to notice.

(Sorry, I have no comment beyond that)

permalink

go to top

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkWbOwQVOANXVz3Xs8lGIILC0qzTMuEKS4

at 13:13 on 2012-06-07

Leaving aside the fact that one of the writers on the project is J. Michael Straczynski – who created one of the most respected (although perhaps also most overrated) works of TV SF ever made

Wow, I didn't realise Jeremiah was so popular!

permalink

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 02:54 on 2012-06-09

I'm sure he knew how ridiculous it would sound if he said Jekyll and Hyde were obscure and forgotten and only about six people had heard of the story.

I'm not that familiar with LoEG but the little I remembered from it was making me ask just this question!

I must say I'm of the opinion that if you can live on unearned income you probably should- and free up a slot in the job market for someone who needs it.

But what's funny about that is that it's actually not about giving all money to someone for having the idea. Once you're talking about the estate you're saying that it's somehow more ethical to pay someone for being related to the person who created the character than for being the person who had something to do with making the character famous.

I really think people's real fright when it comes to things like this is that someone's going to tell a story they really don't like that bums them out--and I can sympathize because I hate it when comics play around with backstory in ways I don't like. Luckily if a story sucks it usually gets quietly dropped from continuity anyway. (There's a name for it I can't remember, referring to a bizarre alien who visited the Flash...)

With Watchman it seems like it's got a lot to do with the importance that Watchman is supposed to have, even though it's not really that tremendous.

Also, not only is it ironic that Moore was originally planning to use someone else's characters for the story, but it's not like Moore hasn't made some major changes to other peoples' characters and left others to sort them out. For instance, by paralyzing Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. I know he says he never knew it would be in continuity, but it changed comics--and not because of his story (which gets imo overpraised) but because other people came in afterwards with an idea for the character.

permalink

go to top

Sister Magpie

at 02:55 on 2012-06-09Oh, p.s. That reminds me, thinking of the TKJ that yeah, I am really confused by the idea that Watchman needs to be kept in the hands of AM because other writers--especially female ones--will mess up all the feminism.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:14 on 2012-06-09

I know he says he never knew it would be in continuity, but it changed comics--and not because of his story (which gets imo overpraised) but because other people came in afterwards with an idea for the character.

I think it would be incredibly short-sighted for any comics author to say "but I didn't know that this idea I put forward in a

Batman

story would become

Batman

continuity!"

I mean, I see that you genuinely wouldn't know whether any particular story of yours would become key canon, get banished to the outer darkness of non-canonicity, or linger somewhere in between. But to not at least consider the possibility that DC might declare that something you have done should stick seems to involve wilfully ignoring how comics continuity works in the first place.

permalink

go to top

Adrienne

at 23:09 on 2012-06-09Arthur B: Not so much so, actually. There's a lot of stuff done by the major comix houses that's very specifically pitched and written from the start as not-in-continuity. All of the

Elseworlds

from DC, and similar "What If..." stories from Marvel are in this category, as are the "Ultimate [Whoever]" stories by Marvel that explore alternate origins.

I grant that a VERY FEW of the Elseworlds stories have eventually ended up with bits in continuity (they apparently wrote a sequel series to Kingdom Come, and brought bits of that timeline into continuity. Which makes me sad, mostly because i think Kingdom Come was a remarkably self-contained and lovely piece of storytelling!) But if Alan Moore was told that Killing Joke was Elseworlds, frex, it would not at all have been an unreasonable assumption that nothing in it was going to ever be in continuity.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 23:32 on 2012-06-09

Not so much so, actually. There's a lot of stuff done by the major comix houses that's very specifically pitched and written from the start as not-in-continuity. All of the Elseworlds from DC, and similar "What If..." stories from Marvel are in this category, as are the "Ultimate [Whoever]" stories by Marvel that explore alternate origins.

True enough, though

The Killing Joke

wasn't, to my knowledge, promoted as being any of these (and as you point out, if an idea in an Elseworlds thingy gets popular enough then it'll snake its way into canon anyway).

As you say, if Alan Moore was told that

The Killing Joke

was an Elseworlds but then it wasn't promoted as one that'd be kind of sucky on the part of DC, but I don't see any suggestion that that was the case. On the other hand, I don't see that this is one of the reasons why he's upset with his treatment by DC in any case. Surely any comics author would be

thrilled

to have a plot element they introduced become a major ongoing thread in Batman continuity rather than something retconned away within a story or two?

permalink

go to top

Sonia Mitchell

at 13:08 on 2012-06-12I have to admit to feeling that Watchmen is a bit of a special case, not because of merit (although I do like it an awful lot) but because it's *specifically* about how characters interpret the past. The story's present is not the key date; it's the lead-up to the Keane Act that the narrative really revolves around.

Which does kind of mean that any 'glory days' Minute Men [II] prequel is going to be dipping into the same timeline Watchmen covers in the narrative, which to me blurs the line between 'prequel' and 'reinterpreting a story which has already been told'. Watchmen showed us the Minute Men days from a number of perspectives - either the prequels will show more of the same old thing (in which case why bother?) or they'll introduce something which will specifically challenge the parent narrative.

I'm sort of intrigued to see what they do, and I do agree that Watchmen can bear to be challenged, I just don't think it's quite as clear-cut as some other prequels. Yes, plenty of comics and other stories have had backstory added later, but I don't think all that many of them were specifically *about* backstory.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bpFlIkMVk4ZqOVtCOXzX2V_0665JvfqFHA--#af083

at 14:16 on 2012-06-13A thoughtful and thought provoking essay. Excellent stuff.

I wonder, though, if your focus on commerce and copyright doesn’t tend to swerve a bit around Alan Moore's concerns. I think that the argument is not that DC and the writers and artists involved can't produce Watchmen prequels but rather that, for aesthetic or artistic reasons, they ought to choose not to. And the question of who profits from the endeavour is, as far as I can see, neither here nor there for these purposes.

So Watchmen is, according to this view, a finished work of art, and by monkeying around with the characters and back story you monkey around also with the integrity of the work; you risk diluting its affect or altering its cultural resonance. You might legitimately argue that no amount of monkeying prevents Watchmen from continuing to exist as the thing that it is. However, there seem two reasonably valid counterpoints, both stemming from the basic assumption that art is rarely meaningful without context. First, as Sonia Mitchell very acutely pinpoints above, Watchmen is very much about time and continuity, the future and the past, and by filling in the backstory you almost necessarily, although perhaps in a limited sense, do damage to the extant work. Second, Watchmen speaks implicitly to comics as a medium, and part of its power may be that it remains separate from the usual retrofitting, rebooting, continuity errors and the associated slash and burn approach to narrative. These arguments still rather depend on a willingness to think of Watchmen as exceptional, I admit (although as far as US superhero comics go I think it takes a lot of work to say that it’s not).

What I suspect really gets Moore’s goat about this is the simple disrespect, in particular as evidenced by his fellow artists. Watchmen is his single best claim to cultural relevance and longevity, he has explicitly said he’d much rather they left it alone, and yet still a whole bunch of quite eminent comics dudes (many of whom seem to bang on about how much they like/admire/were influenced by Moore in general and Watchmen in particular) are happy to take a DC cheque to monkey about with a story which he feels is complete.

On Moore ‘the personality’ I tend to think that while he may be intemperate, a bit silly, creatively stalled and less unimpeachable on, in particular, gender politics than I’d like, he’s generally more consistent, principled, and intellectually interesting than his opponents.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:40 on 2012-06-13

What I suspect really gets Moore’s goat about this is the simple disrespect, in particular as evidenced by his fellow artists.

Again, though: is this really that different from Moore's original intention to take characters and stories from the Charlton stable and monkey around with

them

? The only substantive difference is that whilst we know Moore's feelings about

Before Watchmen

nobody seems to have asked the Charlton creators how they'd have felt to have their characters despoiled had Moore's original vision for

Watchmen

come about.

I have a simple stance on these things: if you don't want someone to slaughter your baby,

don't sell your baby to them

. If

Watchmen

really is Moore's best claim to cultural relevance and longevity*, then at least part of that is down to DC's promotion of the book as this big-time smart comic for smart people and in their efforts in keeping it in print.**

* I'd dispute this point too.

V For Vendetta

, surely, has attained a greater level of cultural ubiquity thanks to Anonymous.

From Hell

is arguably on a par with

Watchmen

when it comes to critical acclaim.

** I understand that Moore argues that DC swindled him by not letting

Watchmen

go out of print, thus ensuring that the "reversion clause" in his contract would never kick in (which would have caused the rights to revert to him and Gibbons). It's hard to say how truthful or accurate this statement is unless Moore or DC actually publish the contract. However, if that is the case it seems that Moore negotiated a contract with DC where they'd either have to keep his comic in print for perpetuity - which I would argue goes a long way towards reinforcing that cultural relevance and longevity shebang - or give the rights back to him. In other words, they have to do one of two things they wouldn't do for Joe C. Ordinarywriter, and they chose the first option over the second option. Who could blame 'em?

permalink

go to top

James D

at 15:04 on 2012-06-13The difference between the Watchmen characters and the Charlton Comics characters is that they were conceived very differently. When DC discouraged him from using the Charlton Comics characters, he invented his own - not to be a series, but to be a one-off novel with a specific character arc for each that brings their stories to a close. Comics writers inventing series understand that their characters will be written by other people, and probably take great pains to introduce plotlines and conflicts that they know won't ever truly be resolved or will at least last a really long time - Batman vs. Joker, Darkseid's quest for the Anti-Life Equation, etc. Watchmen instead invents characters not for a series, but for a novel, and ends them decisively.

Had Moore used the Charlton Comics characters, it would have been clear that the Watchmen story was very separate from their original stories, and highly unlikely to be ever seen as 'canon' to the original series, especially since he permanently kills a lot of them. Instead, it would have been seen by those who knew about the characters as an ironic counterpoint to who they actually were - like if someone wrote a one-off graphic novel in which Batman and Superman were evil, or something. That's the difference as I see it.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 17:52 on 2012-06-13Well, Moore thought that there'd be scope for a prequel - back when the thing first came out he said he'd consider doing one if

Watchmen

did well enough.

Of course, that was under the assumption that it'd be Moore writing it rather than someone else, which he was always against. But again: if someone doing something with your characters is unacceptable, don't sign a piece of paper giving them the right to do that.

permalink

go to top

James D

at 19:00 on 2012-06-13Yeah, no argument here. It's not like there weren't alternative comics publishers back then that might have offered him a better deal in terms of what rights he would retain, but that would probably have involved settling for smaller print runs, less distribution, and less money in the end too.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bpFlIkMVk4ZqOVtCOXzX2V_0665JvfqFHA--#af083

at 12:38 on 2012-06-15

Again, though: is this really that different from Moore's original intention to take characters and stories from the Charlton stable and monkey around with them?

I think it’s pretty easy to draw distinctions (see eg James D. above), even if only of nuance, and I don’t, in any event, have much interest in asserting that Alan Moore is a paragon of moral and philosophical consistency (although he may very well be). However, I suspect that the extent to which you find the distinctions convincing and the possibility of hypocrisy forgivable will in the end align with how highly you rate Watchmen.

I have a simple stance on these things: if you don't want someone to slaughter your baby, don't sell your baby to them.

I wonder if this simplification obscures more than it illuminates. Selling a baby might well reduce the stake you have in its future, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have neither say nor interest in how the new owner treats it, and nor does it mean that they have no responsibilities towards it, particularly in a world where baby-sale is the standard means by which babies are encouraged to fulfil their potential. However, this just takes us into contract law, and as I say there’s no suggestion that DC are doing anything illegal.

If Watchmen really is Moore's best claim to cultural relevance and longevity*, then at least part of that is down to DC's promotion of the book as this big-time smart comic for smart people and in their efforts in keeping it in print.**

Sure, I suppose so - good work DC! But so what?

It’s not directly relevant to this issue, but I’ve always struggled with the characterisation of Watchmen as a smart comic for smart people, it strikes me as at its best if understood as a smart superhero comic for smart superhero comics fans.

You may well be right about V for Vendetta, and From Hell - it’s probably an indication of my age that I still think of Watchmen as a sacred cow.

I’ll set out my stall for what it’s worth (the paper it’s written on, ie): I don’t care very much about Watchmen prequels, although I’d prefer it if they didn’t make them and I suspect DC of being a creatively bankrupt shower; I don’t think the prequels will do harm to Watchmen but I do think there’s a genuine risk that they might; I don’t find Alan Moore’s response to the decision particularly edifying; but I think he’s earnt the right to the respect of his peers and to be heard sympathetically.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 13:25 on 2012-06-15

Sure, I suppose so - good work DC! But so what?

So then Watchmen as a cultural institution is not purely a product of Alan Moore's unfettered genius or Dave Gibbons' stylish art; it's also a product of the promotion that DC has provided it with and DC's custodianship over the franchise as a whole. DC has a stake in the thing's success, and has more than earned it with said custodianship, so the idea that DC has no place to decide whether or not a prequel series would be a good idea because AUTHOR UBER ALLES seems a stretch. You can quibble as to whether DC is

practically capable

of doing a good job or whether the particular writers they have are up to the task, of course, though the arguments Dan's objecting to in the article aren't about such specifics; they're about general, absolutist claims that the prequels

cannot possibly be good because Alan Moore isn't involved

You may well be right about V for Vendetta, and From Hell - it’s probably an indication of my age that I still think of Watchmen as a sacred cow.

I dunno, I can't think of

any

pop cultural work which I'd describe as a sacred cow these days whereas I was much more inclined to do so when I was younger.

I don’t find Alan Moore’s response to the decision particularly edifying; but I think he’s earnt the right to the respect of his peers and to be heard sympathetically.

I think he has the right to be heard but how sympathetic I hear him kind of hinges on how much what he says makes sense to me. If someone's talking whiny, self-serving crap then I'm going to call it that whether it's Alan Moore or Random McWebcomicartist.

permalink

go to top

James D

at 14:19 on 2012-06-15

I think this is oversimplifying things. The roles Moore and DC fulfilled in the production of the Watchmen were totally different; as far as I know, DC had little to nothing to do with the creative aspect of the novel, and Moore's objections to the prequels seem to be purely creative in nature. If on the other hand the dispute were on the business side, that Moore didn't think Watchmen prequels would sell and DC did, the shoe would be on the other foot.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:31 on 2012-06-15Again, since Moore a) wanted to do prequels back in 1985 and b) has said he'd have gladly accepted DC's offer to do the prequels (which was going to involve giving him the rights to

Watchmen

back if he said yes!!!) if they'd offered in 1985, then it seems to me that the dispute is entirely on the business side and the complete collapse of Moore and DC's professional relationship (and more particularly, the fact that Moore would rather keep sulking than engage in any sort of constructive dialogue with DC, even one which would lead to him getting what he'd wanted all along).

Also, FWIW Dave Gibbons is 100% fine with the prequels, so at half the original creative team is cool with the project.

permalink

go to top

James D

at 17:37 on 2012-06-15Ah, I didn't know Gibbons was down with them. That does change things a bit. Moore is pretty much handling the whole thing like a big whiny baby. If there were prequels coming out to a book I'd written and there was nothing I could do about it, the first thing I'd say was "let me do them." If he didn't have ridiculous demands, DC would probably jump at the chance to slap Moore's name all over them.

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bpFlIkMVk4ZqOVtCOXzX2V_0665JvfqFHA--#af083

at 09:39 on 2012-06-18

Setting aside the perplexing CAPITALISED ALLUSION to the German national anthem (or possibly the Dead Kennedys), this is a fair point, although it seems designed to address a binary understanding of this dispute - I think everyone who has contributed to this thread has expressed a fairly mixed view, despite tending one way or the other. Meanwhile, the fact that DC are going ahead with this, in the face of Alan Moore’s explicit disapproval suggests that their interests are fairly well protected and represented. Your implicit notion that DC have earnt a right to a say in the artistic content of Watchmen (beyond questions of marketing, design and the commercially relevant business of protecting, managing and exploiting lucrative copyrights, I mean) is one that hadn’t really occurred to me, and that I instinctively don’t like, but I ought to go away and think about it properly. Thanks!

You can quibble as to whether DC is practically capable of doing a good job or whether the particular writers they have are up to the task, of course, though the arguments Dan's objecting to in the article aren't about such specifics; they're about general, absolutist claims that the prequels cannot possibly be good because Alan Moore isn't involved.

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here so I’ll leave it.

I dunno, I can't think of any pop cultural work which I'd describe as a sacred cow these days whereas I was much more inclined to do so when I was younger. I think he has the right to be heard but how sympathetic I hear him kind of hinges on how much what he says makes sense to me. If someone's talking whiny, self-serving crap then I'm going to call it that whether it's Alan Moore or Random McWebcomicartist.

Quite a nice unintended irony here, but perhaps I’m just reeling from the old school ‘... yeah, I used to think that too … but then I grew up...’ dis. Is it possible, do you think, to imagine an

even older, even wiser Arthur

? I can just about manage it: he’s grizzled and twinkly-eyed, smoking a pipe, and, with a wry smile, looking down the years at his younger self’s righteous withholding of sympathy from both the mighty and the meek, his fearless enthusiasm for detecting 'whiny self-serving crap' in strangers, and his habit of slaying sacred cows while denying their existence.

JK! Before this degenerates into us chanting 'no YOU'RE immature!' at each other, I should also say, Arthur, that your precipitous enthusiasm for getting stuck in with the minimal possible delay is one of the things that make Ferretbrain fun for me, a fond reader.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 10:00 on 2012-06-18

Actually, it's a CAPITALISED ALLUSION to the extraordinarily pervasive idea that authors are an exalted form of being and anyone else's contribution to the success of a creative endeavour is secondary. Putting DC aside, I'd say there's a strong case that Dave Gibbons' contribution to the art, which extended to more than simply drawing stuff Moore described to him, is a part of the final package which can't be ignored, so Gibbons' support for the prequel project ought to be weighed against Moore's disapproval. And yet, so often in discussions about the subject Gibbons isn't even mentioned.

Is it possible, do you think, to imagine an even older, even wiser Arthur?

I can imagine all sorts of things, but winning an argument by hypothesising a version of your opponent who will agree with you is a strategem I hadn't even begun to conceive of. Bravo, I guess. ;)

permalink

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/bpFlIkMVk4ZqOVtCOXzX2V_0665JvfqFHA--#af083

at 10:16 on 2012-06-18Ha ha! Such a speedy reply, arguing so fiercely against points no one is currently making, is surely a nice intended irony!

I surrender the field to you Arthur - please continue to slag Alan Moore without any let or hindrance. I will instead exchange gentle, supportive imaginary emails with the imaginary future Arthur, who, you must concede, does at least seem like a jolly nice chap.

Good piece on the Soul Drinkers by the way.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 10:20 on 2012-06-18I anticipate being as confused by our future correspondence as I am by our present.

permalink

go to top

http://fishinginthemud.livejournal.com/

at 19:50 on 2012-06-18

I will instead exchange gentle, supportive imaginary emails with the imaginary future Arthur, who, you must concede, does at least seem like a jolly nice chap.

Best. Flounce. Ever.

permalink

go to top

Fin

at 23:51 on 2012-06-18and now for the moment when it's revealed that you've been speaking with your future self all along.

permalink

go to top

Arthur B

at 00:08 on 2012-06-19/decodes lottery numbers from posts in thread.

permalink

go to top

Ibmiller

at 18:44 on 2012-07-02So, anyone check any of these out? I'm currently following Silk Specter, Minutemen, and Nite Owl, and liking them. Because his Superman story left me cold and his Wonder Woman story leaves me furious, I'm giving Azzerello's Comedian and Rorschach stories a pass. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of those characters by themselves - seeing a young Rorschach with a Nite Owl is much more interesting to me.

#Ferretbrain #Watchmen #Before Watchmen #Alan Moore #DC Comics #Copyright law #Dan H

1 note · View note