History Headscratchers / LeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen

21st Apr '16 6:56:37 PM Homemaderat
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Some of this has to come down to preference. If you are into the deconstruction aspect, then yes that whole concept is probably interesting. If you are instead interested in it as a crossover, then the whole ancestor thing probably comes off a lot lamer than giving the spotlight to a lesser character.
12th Apr '16 7:48:01 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** It's "grandfathering" the character and reinforcing the connections between Victorian adventure fiction and the ways the genre would develop over the twentieth century (as well as how the modern intelligence services developed out of their Victorian ancestors); just as the literary antecedents of James Bond novels and movies were the adventure novels of the late nineteenth century, so too was James Bond's grandfather a functionary for what served as the intelligence services back then. There's also the obvious humour of contrasting the typically super-suave, super-smooth Bond with the snivelling, unctuous little toady who was his grandfather; even Bond's got some dodgy genetics floating in his gene pool if you look back far enough. Beyond that, does there really ''need'' to be a purpose any more than any of the other references we encounter? Yeah, he ''could'' have chosen some hyper-obscure character and used them for the same purpose, but he thought it'd be fun / interesting / a bit of a laugh to make him James Bond's granddad. What's the problem?



** Copyright considerations are definitely a concern, but ultimately as mentioned above Moore's writing about what interests him and offering his view on the world, just as any writer does. As far as Moore's concerned, a lot of modern fiction doesn't really interest him, and he thinks it's indicative of a decay in culture. To be honest, I don't really agree with him on this either, but he's the one writing it, not me; he's under no obligation to reflect my own views of the world back to me. And if he doesn't think modern fiction is as interesting to include as fiction from the 1890s-1960s, that's his decision.

to:

** Copyright considerations are definitely a concern, but ultimately as mentioned above Moore's writing about what interests him and offering his view on the world, just as any writer does. As far as Moore's concerned, a lot of modern fiction doesn't really interest him, and he thinks it's indicative of a decay in culture. To be honest, I don't really agree with him on this either, but he's the one writing it, not me; he's under no obligation to reflect my own views of the world back to me. And if he doesn't think modern fiction is as interesting to include as fiction from the 1890s-1960s, that's his decision.decision / viewpoint.
27th Feb '16 4:01:56 AM AlexDKZ
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** That interview Moore gave to ComicsBeat in 2013 made it VERY clear that he does not think very highly of Harry Potter, and in fact cites the novels as proof of the decline in quality he perceives in modern pop culture. So, yes, it's a very mean spirited "take that" on the franchise.
26th Sep '15 6:03:37 AM Morgenthaler
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The claim that ''all'' fiction is (somehow) true in the LOEG 'verse. Are they aware how much fiction exists? Including the equivalent of ''TheLegendOfRahAndTheMuggles''? Of which there is a lot more than of good fiction? Or did they really mean "all the fiction a substantial number of Anglos still knows today"?

to:

* The claim that ''all'' fiction is (somehow) true in the LOEG 'verse. Are they aware how much fiction exists? Including the equivalent of ''TheLegendOfRahAndTheMuggles''? ''Literature/TheLegendOfRahAndTheMuggles''? Of which there is a lot more than of good fiction? Or did they really mean "all the fiction a substantial number of Anglos still knows today"?
26th Sep '15 5:42:38 AM JulianLapostat
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Moore's attack on Harry Potter is simply part of his deconstruction of TheHero. In every era, you had a certain hero that represented the values of that period. Like Allan Quatermain was the hero of the British Empire, a coward at home, but a hero when he's fighting foreigners and hunting animals. Moriarty dissed Quatermain as a poor successor to Sherlock Holmes, the hero of the rationalist Victorian era. Then Quatermain attacks James Bond as being a poor hero in the Fifties, a time post-ColdWar where the adventure hero isn't a detective and an explorer/hunter but a spy. So Moore is seeing that as a shift in values. Then you come to the 90s and milennial and the popular hero of this generation is Harry Potter, a teenage boy who got a destiny and fame at birth, and is manipulated by adults in his own narrative. So in terms of DeconstructiveParody, he sees a decline in what is considered heroic. In an earlier era, to be heroic, you had to be smart (Sherlock), you had to be a man of action (Quatermain), then you had to lie for a living (James Bond) and now you have to be famous (Harry Potter). So basically, that's where it comes from. It's more a meta-commentary on changes in heroism.
14th Jun '15 4:37:17 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Though JohnCarterOfMars appears prominently in the first issue of the second volume, his love interest Dejah Thoris apparently dies before the story starts (it's implied that she was killed by the Molluscs). But then John Carter's children, Prince Carthoris and Princess Tara, are also never seen or mentioned. So then...were they never born in this universe?

to:

* Though JohnCarterOfMars ''Literature/JohnCarterOfMars'' appears prominently in the first issue of the second volume, his love interest Dejah Thoris apparently dies before the story starts (it's implied that she was killed by the Molluscs). But then John Carter's children, Prince Carthoris and Princess Tara, are also never seen or mentioned. So then...were they never born in this universe?
5th Jun '15 7:48:19 AM Hopeburnsbright
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** A lot of Century seems to be a TakeThat against what has become of a whole of fiction, but if we can do a Deconstruction of Moore's own thesis, we need to realize something. If he is trying to relate that the older times when his older literature was making up the world it was better and that the further implosion of others had a negative effect, then there's a very elephant in the room question. Where exactly are a lot of the popular books of the modern era in the League world? Certainly some would be harder than others to include, but the lack of references to a bunch of the modern big hits questionable. Is Mr. Moore afraid to touch that stuff on legal issues, or is he just an old man that's ignorant that there's more to modern literature than what he sees being made into blockbuster movies? Given most of his recent comments, definitely the latter.

to:

*** A lot of Century seems to be a TakeThat against what has become of a whole of fiction, but if we can do a Deconstruction of Moore's own thesis, we need to realize something. If he is trying to relate that the older times when his older literature was making up the world it was better and that the further implosion of others had a negative effect, then there's a very elephant in the room question. Where exactly are a lot of the popular books of the modern era in the League world? Certainly some would be harder than others to include, but the lack of references to a bunch of the modern big hits questionable. Is Mr. Moore afraid to touch that stuff on legal issues, or is he just an old man that's ignorant that there's more to modern literature than what he sees being made into blockbuster movies? Given most of his recent comments, definitely the latter.
5th Jun '15 7:47:20 AM Hopeburnsbright
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** A lot of Century seems to be a TakeThat against what has become of a whole of fiction, but if we can do a Deconstruction of Moore's own thesis, we need to realize something. If he is trying to relate that the older times when his older literature was making up the world it was better and that the further implosion of others had a negative effect, then there's a very elephant in the room question. Where exactly are a lot of the popular books of the modern era in the League world? Certainly some would be harder than others to include, but the lack of references to a bunch of the modern big hits questionable. Is Mr. Moore afraid to touch that stuff on legal issues, or is he just an old man that's ignorant that there's more to modern literature than what he sees being made into blockbuster movies?

to:

*** A lot of Century seems to be a TakeThat against what has become of a whole of fiction, but if we can do a Deconstruction of Moore's own thesis, we need to realize something. If he is trying to relate that the older times when his older literature was making up the world it was better and that the further implosion of others had a negative effect, then there's a very elephant in the room question. Where exactly are a lot of the popular books of the modern era in the League world? Certainly some would be harder than others to include, but the lack of references to a bunch of the modern big hits questionable. Is Mr. Moore afraid to touch that stuff on legal issues, or is he just an old man that's ignorant that there's more to modern literature than what he sees being made into blockbuster movies?movies? Given most of his recent comments, definitely the latter.
21st Feb '15 7:39:35 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** A bullet earlier also addressed this. It's again Moore's choice. For whatever reason he clearly has chosen not to include as many literature references after a while. Which I think is a tad unfair. While the book may not be the force it once was, we do have a thing called Amazon (among others) that doesn't make it that hard to find all the new fiction that comes out. I don't know if I agree with Moore's general thesis of fiction or literature in general. But i can see how some people would have preferred he'd have stuck to things with printed books. (Since so much has been novelized, you wouldn't have to cut that much out all things considered)

to:

** A bullet earlier also addressed this. It's again Moore's choice. For whatever reason he clearly has chosen not to include as many literature references after a while. Which I think is a tad unfair. While the book may not be the force it once was, we do have a thing called Amazon (among others) that doesn't make it that hard to find all the new fiction that comes out. I don't know if I agree with Moore's general thesis of fiction or literature in general. But i can see how some people would have preferred he'd have stuck to things with printed books. (Since so much has been novelized, you wouldn't have to cut that much out all things considered)considered)
** Copyright considerations are definitely a concern, but ultimately as mentioned above Moore's writing about what interests him and offering his view on the world, just as any writer does. As far as Moore's concerned, a lot of modern fiction doesn't really interest him, and he thinks it's indicative of a decay in culture. To be honest, I don't really agree with him on this either, but he's the one writing it, not me; he's under no obligation to reflect my own views of the world back to me. And if he doesn't think modern fiction is as interesting to include as fiction from the 1890s-1960s, that's his decision.
25th Jan '15 7:58:20 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** If anything, the implication is that Mycroft was ''opposing'' Moriarty and his plans; Moriarty remarks that he received his promotion to the head of British Intelligence over the protests of "embittered toads" like Mycroft, which suggests that the two weren't exactly buddy-buddy (since Mycroft is, as far as he's aware, talking only to a trusted underling and so has no real reason not to be forthcoming about it). Not that Mycroft clearly isn't a bit amoral at the least, but what little evidence there is suggests that he was opposed to Moriarty's plans and took over once Moriarty had proved himself a nutcase willing to bomb his own country.

to:

*** If anything, the implication is that Mycroft was ''opposing'' Moriarty and his plans; Moriarty remarks that he received his promotion to the head of British Intelligence over the protests of "embittered toads" like Mycroft, which suggests that the two weren't exactly buddy-buddy (since Mycroft Moriarty is, as far as he's aware, talking only to a trusted underling and so has no real reason not to be forthcoming about it). Not that Mycroft clearly isn't a bit amoral at the least, but what little evidence there is suggests that he was opposed to Moriarty's plans and took over once Moriarty had proved himself a nutcase willing to bomb his own country.
This list shows the last 10 events of 120. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.LeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen