There’s a reminiscence on Swamp Thing in the March 4 Salon at Salon.com, and an interview with Alan Moore (tied to the release of the Watchmen movie) in the March 5 Salon.
Professor Fury: Moore, in the interview, does not appear to care for Veidt, either. It had occurred to me that Veidt is the perfect type of the Aryan self-made superman and that that treatment had to be satirical.
Reading V for Vendetta for maybe the fourth time. Such detail. The eponymous hero of the soap-opera Storm Saxon. The preposterous vaudevillish black dialect used by the “villains.” The tedious sniggering double entendres of the supposed comedy show.
Bonus with the interview: a recent photo of Moore, showing a pale-whiskered aging gent who nevertheless bears a strong resemblance to the blackbearded rogue peering out of most of the jacket photos.
That’s a great interview with Moore, and I’m glad they didn’t dwell too much on the Watchmen film. I’ve got to re-read V one of these days soon . . . I’m always struck by how down-to-earth Moore seems in interviews, compared to the image that one would normally have of someone who invented a snake to worship.
Speaking of the film, though, I enjoyed this parody.
In other Watchmen news, Anthony Lane seems to be up to his old tricks again in his review of the film; Jeet Heer and Adam Serwer document the fatuity.
Posted this in Mississippi by default. Really belongs in Comixx. There’s a review of Watchmen by Andrew O’Hehir in today’s salon, that says it is pretty good and really faithful to the comic.
I figure it will be fun to see the characters realized on screen, regardless. As much as I like Dreiberg’s Nite Owl, he comes across as too nerdy in the book. I have a lot of trouble seeing him as a mask. It should be fun to see him kick a little ass.
Realized the other day that one of the things that initially turned me off about the comic, subliminal as it was, was the dumb-ass clothing fashion, especially the pegged trousers. Was that the style back in Britain when it was written? But then those stupid-looking caps. I know this can all be explained by appealing to alternate time-lines, but I’m talking about a visceral reaction I had. Those detectives in their snug pants just looked comic and repulsive to me.
Re Anthony Lane: So he writes in The New Yorker how comics are all stupid and inferior. Of course Heer and Serwer shred him deservedly, but it does seem worth mentioning that I have published quite a few poems in the mag and also had my novels very favorably reviewed therein, and I read comics.
Professor Fury—wanted to say that cartoon satire of Adrian’s “I did it,” having Moore elated over destroying the movie company, was very funny.
Had thought that, although it’s humanly natural to feel some elation at the success of a plan, that Veidt’s outburst was unforgivable. That’s one reason not to do something like he did—you wind up feeling elation at having caused the death of millions.
Glad you liked it! The prob with Anthony Lane’s superhero-related snark is that it really makes you wonder how seriously to take any of his reviews, indicative as it is of an ungenerosity and insecurity-born smugness.
Re: fashions—That’s a good point, and although the look of Watchmenugly it is—not Gibbons’s penciling, but the sickly colors, the ugly clothes, etc.
I haven’t read the Lane review yet—and he normally makes me very happy, because he’s got no problem with skewering sacred cows and pigs and other various and incessantly honored barnyard animals.
Jack: your relationship with the New Yorker reminded me of a letter a few weeks ago from Tom Wolfe, decrying an article by the (sterling) Alex Ross, he of The Rest Is Noise, which purported to condemn that Ross distorted a story about Leonard Bernstein, to the composer’s favor, and to Wolfe’s chagrin.
Alex shredded his nonsensical letter, which relied in part upon the delicate fallacy of “you weren’t born yet” to refute Ross’ argument, which we writers and historians know as “bunko.”
Anyway, you need to write to the New Yorker, cancel your subscription, threaten to sue to withdraw your poems from their (now digital and ongoing) publication on DVD, and we shall all re-subscribe under various comical pseudonyms.
Not that I’ve thought this out or anything.
Nite Owl’s alter ego in the movie, to me looked like a dead ringer for chevy chase. Pleasantly, I couldn’t get over that.
Gorjus—good idea, except I don’t have a subscription to The New Yorker. I gave up on them a long time ago, especially on the possibility of finding either good poetry or good fiction. I still enjoy the cartoons and nonfiction on occasion.
And I would threaten to withdraw my poems, but I am afraid they would say, “Huh? And who are you?” and that would just make me cry.