Category Archives: Books/Literature

Books/Literature, General

I haven’t gone away…

Just a quick update for those curious (there are one or two of you out there, right?!): I’m still around and working hard.

I believe I noted before this week was going to be a difficult one for me as I have to stretch myself out a little thinner than usual and cover people who are actually off (enjoy yourselves!).

I’m still working extra hard -at any available moment!- on my latest novel and should finish the 7th draft by Friday.  Then it’s off to draft #8.

The novel is coming along nicely although I’m thinking after the next full draft I may focus on some 30 or so pages in the climax and give them a little extra attention.  This is a very ambitious book and features, I believe, some really wild stuff but I need to be careful that what’s in my mind is accurately presented on the page.

Onwards!

Books/Literature

The (re)writing game…

As an author, this article/review really fascinates me even if the author and book in question are complete unknowns and, based on the plot description of the novel’s re-release, I would probably not buy and read it either:

Dark Debts: Revised Edition by Karen Hall, a review by Laura Miller

Why the fascination with this particular review?  Because the novel in question, Dark Debts, was originally released in 1996 and, in a rather unusual move, it is now being re-released in a “revised” edition.  According to Ms, Miller’s review, the novel is…

extensively rewritten, with a new character and a changed ending.

The author of the novel, Karen Hall, is a veteran writer for TV programs such as M.A.S.H. and Moonlighting and Dark Debts is her (so far anyway) only novel.

I’ll spoil the review a bit by stating Ms. Miller ultimately feels that while the new version of the book is more polished the original, less polished version had, in her words,

the feverish air of a dispatch sent directly from the field of battle, complete with bloodstains, a whiff of gunpowder and a vivid sense that the stakes are life and death, even if it’s not always clear who’s on which side.

So the original work, in Ms. Miller’s opinion, while less polished just feels more alive and dangerous than the “cleaner” work now released.

Which brings me to the whole issue of artists releasing “revised” versions of their previous works.  While it is something of a rarity in the novel industry (Ms. Miller notes this in her review) it is something we’ve seen plenty -maybe even too much of!- in the movie and music industry and to varying degrees of success.

Look, I’m all in favor of an artist going back to their original work and “fixing” things they were dissatisfied with…as long as the ORIGINAL work is still available to be seen.

Many would site Example A of “How to absolutely piss off fans of a popular work of art” in the way director/producer George Lucas has handled the original three Star Wars movies.  Mr. Lucas, according to many interviews and statements, was never satisfied with the movies as originally released and soon began tinkering with them.

Today, audiences cannot legally procure a “original” edition of 1977’s Star Wars as originally released to theaters.  Similarly, the original theatrical versions of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are also unavailable and Mr. Lucas has again and again stated he would not release them, much to the chagrin of many who long to see the version of the movies they originally fell in love with way back when.  If you want to see these films, you’re forced to purchase the “Special Editions” which, effectively, are reworkings with added (often unnecessary) special effects.

In the music industry, there have been many “remastered” editions of popular albums and their quality varies.  I’m a fan of the early works of the heavy metal band Megadeth and, a few years back, “remastered” editions of those early albums were released.  Even though they were supervised by Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine, I found the reworked songs for the most part inferior to the original versions.  Thankfully, I had the original releases so I could ignore the reworked ones.

Others may not be so lucky!

For my own part, I too indulged in a little revision of my past works.  While on a small break from writing new works, I took the time to revise Haze, my very first novel.  While it may not be the most popular work I’ve done, it has a special place in my heart because it was my first attempt to make a complete story in novel form and, I believe, I did a pretty good job for the first time out.

However, I knew the book probably needed a polishing.  I’ve become a better author -I hope!- in the time between writing that book and now.

However, I decided going in that I would *only* do polishing where need be and try hard not to change the story in any radical way.  In the end, I discovered only one section of the book, a section early on involving the protagonist having a bizarre nightmare, that as it stood was confusing and needed to be worked on for clarity’s sake.  Otherwise, any other changes I made were grammatical in nature and didn’t alter the book at all.

As an artist, it’s safe to say you view your works as never “quite” being done.  You can always do better even if others vociferously argue you’ve already hit the proverbial ball out of the park (I’m looking at you, George Lucas).

Part of gaining experience in whatever artistic field you’re involved in is, hopefully, getting better at your craft so naturally when you look back at the works you produced beforehand you feel they could have been better.

The temptation to return and “fix” those works is strong but so too is the desire to move on and create new works.  I suspect the revision (small though it ultimately was) I did on Haze will likely be the only major revision I do for any of my works.  Sure I may go back and clean up grammatical errors (I’ve spotted a few in my previous books…it unfortunately happens to the best of us!), but otherwise I’m too focused on producing my next work to “go back” and revise something I’ve already revised so many times while in the process of making it “releasable”.

Speaking of which, I’m almost half-way done with entering the revisions for the 7th draft of Corrosive Knights Book 6.  Because I’m looking at being busy next week, I’m trying mightily to finish the corrections on the computer and printing out that revised draft.  If I can start up draft #8 by this weekend I’ll be a very happy man…

Books/Literature

Corrosive Knights, a 3/18/16 update

As of yesterday, just a little over two weeks after printing it out, I read through draft #7 of Corrosive Knights Book 6.

Corrosive Knights series

By “read through” I mean read it from start to end while making considerable notations, corrections, and additions. This process, in the earlier draft stages, can and has taken me sometimes as long as a month or more to do.  Therefore finishing the read through in a little over two weeks (and one of those weeks had my daughter over for Spring Break) is very good news indeed.

What it means is the draft and the story I’m telling “read” quite well.

While there are certain things I still have to fix, I’m pleasantly surprised by how little re-writing is necessary.  I’d say a good 70% or so of the book is, plot and storytelling-wise, done, with the other 30% requiring some rewriting and revision.  Of course, there’s also those pesky grammatical issues to deal with as well.

The bottom line is that as of today I’m back on the computer correcting those errors and/or revisions that need be done.  My hope is to get through this process in the next week to two weeks (we’ll see…I’ll once again have my attention drawn away from writing and towards other non-writing affairs at the tail end of March and into the first week or so of April.  How quickly I finish the revisions on this draft of the book depends on how much time is going to be sucked from my schedule during these days).

Second bottom line: I feel this book will be finished after no more than two further drafts.  One to make sure all the changes/revisions to the story are proper and one final draft to sort out any lingering grammatical issues.

Will the book be ready by May?

I really hope so but, because of some of these outside/non-writing time killers, I can’t be totally certain.  I’ll most certainly give it my best!

More news when I have it…

Books/Literature

Writing is not a game…or is it?

Over at Slate magazine I found this fascinating article by Jacob Brogan involving an app called Flowstate which has a very unique way of trying to get you to write more…

The Flowstate App Wants To Help You Write Faster

How does Flowstate do this?  Easy: It has a timer and whenever you pause or stop, the work you’ve done begins to fade away.  If you take too long, it’s gone for good.

Now, I understand the idea behind this: Rather than have people pause or hem and haw, this program forces you as a writer to go, go, GO and not pause.  I imagine the thinking is that this will bolster your ability to write quicker and finish what you’re working on.

I can see that.

I can also see that, depending on what you’re writing, its a stupid idea.

If I’m writing a blog post like this one, I tend to get it done relatively quickly.  However, I often have to go back and correct problems, either grammatical or general, to ensure whatever I’ve written makes sense.  Further, there are times when I have to pause to check a website or grab a bit of dialogue or paste an image, etc. etc.

If I were working with Flowstate, I wonder how long it would take me before I rammed some sharp object through my monitor.

It’s even worse when we’re talking about my novels.  If I had to break-down my writing habits with my novels, I’d say I spend maybe 40-60 percent of the time simply thinking about what I’m working on.  I then spend perhaps 30 percent of the time actually writing -taking many breaks here and there to think– and another 10-30 percent of the time revising my work after printing it out.

If I were using something like Flowstate, what I’d be doing is effectively changing my whole method of writing and, it is my belief, I would be doing myself a great disservice.

I hate wasting time writing things that I subsequently have to cut out.  I noted before how some 30,000 words written in my latest novel had to be either eliminated or re-worked to fit the story.  It was during the writing of these words (and they were from different parts of the book) that I was spit-balling, ie taking flights of fancy and seeing where they led.  Usually, to a dead end.  Now imagine I write most of my novel this way!

30,000 words could easily become 60,000 or more!

If you feel a program like this one might help you write more, then by all means give it a try.

The reality is that you will write more if you dedicate yourself to doing just that.  Make the time each day to write and you’ll be surprised when one day you look back and realize you’ve written quite a bit!

Books/Literature

On Writing…behind the scenes

Found this interesting article on i09 regarding the new Disney movie Zootopia and how only a year before he movie’s release the writers realized they need to make a “simple” but very big change to the story to make it work:

How Disney Fixed a Huge Mistake with Zootopia Just One Year Before Its Release

The upshot of the article (my apologies for giving up the crux of the story but I’ve tried to be vague about who the changes relate to and, besides, you should read the article anyway!) is that originally the movie’s focus was on one character and, about a year before the movie’s release, the creators/writers realized the movie worked far better if another character was the central character/protagonist of the piece.

As the article put it,

>>In retrospect, the (story) flip may seem like the most simple thing ever.<<

Take it from me, changing the focus of a story is not a “simple” thing at all!

Though the story received a virtual flood of comments (there are over 700 to date), I nonetheless put in my two cents and, though my comment hasn’t been “approved” yet (nor I doubt will be…articles like these are essentially forgotten after a few days), I was nonetheless tickled someone read and liked it enough to star it.  Here is my comment in all its glory…and it features just a little bit of information regarding my latest Corrosive Knights novel as well as comments I’ve made already regarding Mad Max: Fury Road:

Take it from me, when writing, things which “seem” so simple often are not…even if in retrospect the “solution” to your problem quite literally is right in front of you.

I’ve written enough to realize one needs to constantly monitor whatever work one is involved in and equally constantly keep thinking of alternate scenarios. For example, in my latest work, going into the story I had a character pegged as the villain of the piece and for months I wrote the character as such. Suddenly, and after many, many, MANY hours of work I realized the character worked better as an unwitting, though courageous, soul who fought the villainy in the story. I reworked my story (and am in the process of finishing it up) but felt this change worked for the better.

Another example of a story that might have worked better with a “simple” change involves Mad Max: Fury Road. While I think the film as is is damn good, I can’t help but also feel it would have been better had director/co-writer George Miller cut the character of Max entirely from it. Now, before you label me as some kind of nut, understand that I’m a HUGE fan of Mad Max 2 aka The Road Warrior. In fact, I would say that movie is my all time favorite action film ever and I love the character of Max.

However, I believe Mr. Miller and company obviously started writing Fury Road with the idea of making a new Mad Max film but in the writing process grew more and more interested in the Furiosa character and her story. Because they were invested in making a “Mad Max” film, they kept the Max character around even when, in my opinion, the story no longer needed him and, worse yet, took away from the focus of the story, which was the character of Furiosa and her journey to redemption.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary.

For those interested in the mechanics of writing, this is indeed a “teaching” type moment.  As a writer, you can -and often do!- get a form of creative “tunnel vision”.  You may start a story thinking you’re going to accomplish A, B, C, and D but wind up mixing up the order and adding many new elements and coming out with C, A, X, and Y.

In some ways this may explain the notion/statement from some authors the characters “spoke” to them and maybe they, as writers, “followed” them rather than creatively writing.

The notion that a story or character takes over from you, the writer, is bullshit, by the way.

As a writer, YOU come up with the scenarios and YOU make the subsequent changes.  YOU are the one that realizes things work or don’t and YOU are the one that ultimately decides to move in other directions when you see they work better than the direction you may have originally considered.

As time passes I stand more and more firmly behind my statement regarding Mad Max: Fury Road.  I strongly suspect Mr. Miller and Company started writing the movie as a “Mad Max” film but somewhere along the line they grew to love the character of Furiosa to the extent that she became the movie’s central character.  In a perfect world, I suspect Mr. Miller and company would have cut Max out of that film entirely and made an original “Apocalyptic” Mad Max-type film with Furiosa as the one and only lead character.

However, because we are talking about making an expensive studio movie and you need financial backing, its easier to ask for and receive backing if you come in saying this will be a “Mad Max” film rather than a “Apocalyptic Mad Max-type film featuring a new lead female character” and therefore they kept the Max character in the film even though his presence was unnecessary.

As for my own work mentioned above, I did indeed start my latest Corrosive Knights novel with the intention of a certain character being the primary villain but realized, over time, he made more sense as a sympathetic character who is forced to work and witness the evil around him first hand.

A simple change…that required “fixing,” ie changing completely, many, many hours and days and weeks worth of work!

Books/Literature

Corrosive Knights, a 2/29/16 Update

I’m not very religious or spiritual.  Nonetheless, there is something incredibly satisfying about having good timing regarding just about…everything.  Usually, my timing is terrible, but not so on this occasion.

Back in November of last year (you can read the post here) I offered the hope that I would be done with my latest Corrosive Knights novel, #6, by February.

Corrosive Knights

Alas, this is not to be.

However, I just now finished the 6th Draft of the 6th Novel on the 29th of February of 2016, a February date that only comes around once every four years.

Mind you, I wasn’t “shooting” for finishing this draft on this date.  Indeed, when I start up a new draft of any novel it is impossible to accurately predict how long it will take me to get through it.  There might be unseen circumstances (illness, trips, get-togethers) that may slow me down.  On the other hand, there may be days you’re moving like lightning and accomplish more than you thought you would…on that day.

Considering I was barely aware that this would be a “leap year” and February would have 29 days when I began the 6th draft of my latest novel, it is nonetheless a wonderful bit of timing to get it done on this particular day.

And I couldn’t be happier.

The sixth draft of this book brings me that much closer to finishing the novel, the closest I’ve been yet.

Book #6 (pardon me for keeping the title my own little secret still) runs, at this point, 96,138 words.  There are still some things I have to deal with, particularly one major character reveal, but otherwise it reads pretty damn good and I believe -though I can’t absolutely promise- I might be only three or so drafts away from finishing it up.

Later today I print the book and tomorrow I begin the re-reading.

Draft #7 is officially a go!

Books/Literature

Corrosive Knights 2/6/16 Update

Back in November I wrote an update on my work with Book #6 in the Corrosive Knights series (you can read the update here).  Re-reading it today, I urge anyone who has read some/all the books in the series thus far look at what I wrote there as I get into the series’ wonky chronology.

Corrosive Knights series

One thing I also said back in that November update was that I was hoping Book #6 would be ready by February.  Well, we’re in early February and I can say without any doubt and with not an inconsiderable amount of frustration that I won’t have it ready this month.

This, however, is not an entirely new thing.  In January I provided another update (you can read that here) and noted my hope was to have the book ready by May.  While I still hope to get it done in and around that date, I will further note I was hoping to finish the current draft I was working on by January but it looks like I’ll be finishing it by next week, ie the middle of February.

Having said all this, despite the frustrations and time spent on the revision process, I’m optimistic I’m very near the point where I switch from rewriting/reworking the book to having all the story elements in place and focusing on grammatical/spelling issues.

This is significant because once I get to that stage, things move very quickly and we’re rapidly approaching the end.  Will it be May?  I really hope so!  I just have to make sure I get all the parts together into a very coherent whole.

Speaking of which…

I hope what I write doesn’t sound like a boast, but my stories/novels tend to be not unlike the pieces of a machine.  If you want a more poetic description, my novels and the stories I tell are not unlike the components of a watch.  When looked at individually, the parts may not seem to come together (at first!) but when all is said and done, they do.  If I’m on top of my game, it is my hope there isn’t a wasted page or event presented and every word and paragraph is necessary to tell the story I’m giving you.

I probably mentioned this before so forgive me if I’m repeating myself:

Back when I was in College I took a Literature course and while I don’t remember much about it, there was one particular lesson regarding author Henry James’ view of a novel that really, really stuck with me.  I’ll let Mr. James’ words speak for themselves:

A novel is a living thing, all one and continuous, like any other organism, and in proportion as it lives will it be found, that in each of the parts there is something of each of the other parts.

Mr. James’ ideas, often referred to as the view that a good/great novel presents an “organic whole”, urges authors to not waste a single word or create any scene(s) within their work that is superfluous and doesn’t contribute to the entirety of the work/story you are telling.

Thus in the “perfect” novel a reader is given a work wherein not even one single word is wasted.  Each and every one of the words and sentences and paragraphs and chapters, etc. move the story forward until it reaches its end.

I took this lesson very much to heart.

So whether you like, hate, or are indifferent to any/all of my works, it is my intention to never waste your time as a reader.  I try my best to make sure every element I insert into a novel has a reason for being there and ties into the larger story I’m telling.

And it is indeed a large story and one I couldn’t be prouder of.

Books/Literature, Movies

A little bit more on writing…

Some of the stuff that goes through my mind:

Last night my wife and I watched the Amy Schumer film Trainwreck.  Actually, I sorta watched it, getting halfway through it before taking a shower. I returned to see the rest of the film (probably missed only ten or so minutes as my wife had to pause it for some phone calls that happened to come while I was showering).

The reason I’m not writing a (mildly) belated review on the film, however, is because I didn’t see the film all the way through and feel it isn’t right to give an in depth review of something you didn’t see completely, even if you did wind up seeing close to 90% of it.

I will say this, however: What I saw was a fun, though at times gleefully vulgar (I didn’t mind!) romantic-comedy featuring an appealing turn by Amy Schumer as the titular character (in other people’s hands she might have come across as a terrible person.  Such was not the case here) and a very charismatic performance by Bill Hader as the romantic interest.  Also worth pointing out is Tilda Swinton, completely unrecognizable yet hilarious as “Amy’s” boss.  Even though I didn’t see the entire film, I recommend it to anyone who likes romantic comedies and doesn’t mind if the comedy is at times quite crude.

Having said that, what I found most fascinating while watching the film was that despite certain differences, the film nonetheless hewed closely to the tried and true “romantic comedy” formula.

To my mind the formula roughly goes like this:

  1. Usually your romantic comedy starts with a woman/man who are either in a loveless relationship or single and (possibly) looking.  In the case of Trainwreck, “Amy” is dating a muscular jock but hooks up with many, many others on the side.  She’s promiscuous and this is explained as the influence her father’s life has on her.
  2. The next step is to introduce the woman to the man.  Romantic comedies will vary this step depending on the story being told.  Sometimes the man/woman hate each other for any number of reasons.  Equally often, the woman and man seem to have absolutely nothing in common.  In Trainwreck, though they don’t “hate” each other upon first meeting, the concept opposites attract is employed.  Promiscuous, “trainwreck” Amy falls for much more conservative/down to earth Doctor.
  3. This third part of your romantic comedy film finds the main characters falling in love with each other.  There are cute/romantic/humorous scenarios sprinkled about along and all seems so very well.  However, a good romantic comedy sprinkles the seeds of discontent within this part, hinting things may fall apart because…
  4. Things fall apart.  The woman/man break up over any number of circumstances.  There may be a misunderstanding, there may be a “screwball” situation (ie s/he sees him/her with another wo/man and misinterprets what s/he sees and thinks the worst, etc. etc.).  In Trainwreck’s case, the pull of so many years of “bad choices” by “Amy” makes her think there is no way the relationship with her sweet companion can last.  A family tragedy causes her to disintegrate and self-destruct.  But fear not, romantic comedy fans, because after the fall comes the inevitable…
  5. …rousing climax, wherein our character(s) realize they are made for each other and one/both of them create a situation where they show their love and reconnect.  The better the movie, the more funny/touching this re-connection climax is.  In the case of Trainwreck, it was indeed clever and touching and tied in to some disparaging comments “Amy” made earlier in the film regarding women involved in a certain career.

Now, I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again: I’m not a particularly big fan of Romantic Comedies.  So you may be wondering: Why have I devoted so much thought into the elements that make up a Romantic Comedy?

Because as a writer, I feel that in order to create works that you feel are as unique as possible, you should have an understanding of the various genres out there and the beats they follow.

Western films, for example, often carry certain elements beyond the obvious visual ones (ie, horses, trains, Indians, small towns, Sheriffs, gunplay, etc.).  More often than not westerns are morality tales which involve a good guy confronting a bad guy while dealing with a love interest.  This is why so many people note that movies in other genres are essentially “westerns” as well.

Dirty Harry, set in then modern San Francisco, was essentially a pseudo western with your Sheriff (Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan) dealing with a dangerous psychopath while also dealing with regulations and bureaucracy.  Similarly, Die Hard could be viewed as a typical “siege” story, wherein the evil Indians have taken over a military fort and it is up to our resourceful hero to outwit and defeat them as the cavalry approaches.  Star Wars (the original film) is likewise essentially a sci-fi western.  It features a “green” gunslinger meeting up with a veteran, though over the hill, gunslinger and along with his friends going up against the evil railroad company (ie, the Empire) which is determined to ravage his homestead.

What should be clear about these examples (and my more elaborate rundown of the romantic film) is that while you can create something very entertaining in your writings, there is little chance you’re going to create a story that is soooo totally unique and original as to be unrecognizable from anything that came beforehand.  But if you do, it’ll probably be so alien as to be hard for others to appreciate.

And it is here that the sliding scale regarding originality comes in.

While I may admire a Dirty Harry and Die Hard and, yes, Trainwreck even though many of the tropes present in these features can be found in other genre works, it is in how the people who made each film tell their story where a work succeeds…or not.

I’ve talked before about hating Guardians of the Galaxy.  To me, the film felt a little to much, again in my opinion, like a beat for beat remake of the original Star Wars.  (I haven’t seen The Force Awakens but, based on some of the criticism some have expressed that the film was essentially a remake of the original Star Wars, I suspect I won’t like that film either)  I also felt disappointed with Kill Bill 1 and 2 because, to my mind, it felt like Quentin Tarantino was trying to do a Kung Fu version of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Why would I want to watch either films when I can just go watch the far better originals?

The ultimate point is this: As a writer, it pays to develop a strong grasp of the underlying tropes found in various genres, whether they be comedy, action, western, science fiction, etc. etc. etc.

If nothing else, it gives you a firm foundation upon which you can write your own works.  But beware…Using common foundations is one thing.

Ripping off a story is quite another.

Books/Literature

Corrosive Knights Book #6 update

I’m reluctant to talk about whatever book/story I’m currently working on until there is something solid to say about it.  In this case, there is something to say and here goes:

I’m currently on what I’ve dubbed the “6th” draft of my current novel, the (coincidentally) sixth book in the Corrosive Knights series.

Corrosive Knights series

The first 1/2 to 2/3rds of this book is very near being completed but there are some bits and pieces I still have to deal with regarding the novel’s climax and conclusion and, most especially, the fate of at least one prominent character.

Given where I’m at, I figure I’ll have the 6th draft completed by later this month (January, natch).  I’ve completed the latest read through and have made copious notes on the printed pages regarding things that needed fixing and am now on the computer doing those fix ups.  As I reach the later portions of the novel I hope to deal with the ending and the fate of that character.  Even as I work my way there, ideas are being sifted and will no doubt be added to this latest draft.

The question I’m currently pondering is how close am I from being finished with the work.

As always, it is not an easy question to answer.

After finishing this draft, I suspect I’ll need at least two more full drafts to go over before I feel the story has been “locked down”.  When I get to that point I’ll probably need at least two more drafts to go over which will involve my looking at grammatical/spelling errors that need correcting.  On the plus side, these last two drafts tend to be completed quickly.  On the minus side, I still have the drafts that come before that point and they can take up more time.

If I had to estimate when this novel will be finished and released, I’d say this: Hopefully by no later than May and perhaps earlier though it could also (of course) be later.  It simply depends on how well/quickly these next drafts are finished.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  There most certainly will be a new Corrosive Knights book released in the next few months.

I promise you its another great addition to the series.

Books/Literature, Comic Books/Graphic Novels

Alan Moore Q & A on Goodreads…

I’ve had this site on my tablet computer for a while now and figured it was time to share.

Alan Moore, one of the most talented and influential -and controversial- comic book writers perhaps ever, opened up a Q & A session over at Goodreads.  The questions were plentiful though a few of his replies were obviously cut and pasted.  Still, a fascinating read:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/3961.Alan_Moore/questions

I remain a great admirer and equally frustrated/annoyed fan of Mr. Moore’s.  There is no doubt the work he produced, particularly for DC comics in the 1980’s, was like nothing that came before it.  His work on Swamp Thing and Watchmen alone would lift anyone’s reputation to the stratosphere.  He also was responsible for the excellent V for Vendetta, Marvel/MiracleMan, D.R. & Quinch (a hilarious series, proving he could do comedy as deftly as horror/action/drama), and “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow”, a “last” Silver age Superman story.

On the negative side, he was also the writer behind The Killing Joke, a beautifully drawn -by Brian Bolland- Batman graphic novel whose story was…not all that good, IMHO.  In fact, the story was sadistic and needlessly grim.  Of course, there are those who would argue that point with me.

Soon after the release of Watchmen Alan Moore grew furious with DC comics and left them, never to return.  Based on the Q & A his negative feelings haven’t diminished one bit.  My understanding of the situation, based on interviews Mr. Moore has given over the years, involved the rights to Watchmen.  Though I’m probably oversimplifying things (Alan Moore alone knows how much more is involved), the original contract with Mr. Moore stated the rights to the series would revert back to him as soon as the book was out of print.  However, because the series was so successful DC was able to retain the rights to it and have done so since its initial 12 issue run was completed in the late 1980’s.

While I sympathize with Mr. Moore, a part of me is greatly troubled by what I can only call his hypocrisy regarding creative ownership.

As I have mentioned in the past, the Watchmen series was originally supposed to feature the Charlton Heroes that DC had at the time just acquired.  Because of the nature of the story Mr. Moore was telling, it was felt that rather than use these characters he should come up with pastiches and use them.  Thus the Charlton heroes…

…became the Watchmen.

In his time at DC, Mr. Moore had little problems using other people’s creations to tell his stories.  Yet he gets hung up on the concept of creative ownership even when some of his most famous stories involved characters he either didn’t come up with (Batman, Superman, Swamp Thing, etc.) or came up with thinly veiled pastiches of the same (Watchmen).  After leaving DC comics one of his higher profile works was Supreme, a tissue-thin “homage” (I would call it a rip off) of Superman…

Yeah…

Mr. Moore would follow this up with such series as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which used copyright free characters such as Alan Quatermain, Dorian Gray, etc. etc.), Promethea (which was a Wonder Woman type), and Tom Strong (a Doc Savage/Pulp type hero).

I’d be the last to blast Mr. Moore’s writing talents but it bothers me that his best known post DC works (there are others, I’m not forgetting them) have largely involved either using copyright free characters or thinly veiled versions of other, more famous characters.

And still he’s angry with DC for retaining their copyright on Watchmen?

Regardless, the Q & A is interesting if you want to get into the mind of Mr. Moore.