History Headscratchers / LeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen

23rd May '16 6:00:02 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** The character from ''Series/{{Bottom}}'', in the [=LoEG=] universe, is presumably called Eddie Hynkel rather than Eddie Hitler (not least because this would also hypothetically allow Moore to neatly sidestep the issue of using a character still under copyright to another creator, as with "[[Literature/JamesBond Jimmy]]" and "[[Literature/HarryPotter The Antichrist]]".
23rd May '16 5:53:07 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It should also be noted that the original volume is a lot less concerned with the whole "including every single fictional character ever created by human civilization and their kitchen sink" aspect of the project than later volumes would be. The first volume is basically a "Victorian Justice League with slightly deconstructionist aspects", not an attempt to link together every fictional work ever devised; it's basically Moore and Kevin O'Neal having a bit of a laugh with the whole thing, so at that point they weren't too concerned with making every single minor character who appeared a character who had appeared in another story somewhere. As has been stated elsewhere on the page, it's basically Moore's decision as the writer to do what interests him and what he thinks is fun; you can disagree, but at the end of the day you're not writing it and Moore probably doesn't care either way, so. It's also not the only example of "grandfathering" that occurs; at another point in the same volume, ancestors of several of the characters from ''Series/{{Eastenders}}'' show up as street urchins.

to:

** It should also be noted that the original volume is a lot less concerned with the whole "including every single fictional character ever created by human civilization and their kitchen sink" aspect of the project than later volumes would be. The first volume is basically a "Victorian Justice League with slightly deconstructionist aspects", not an a serious attempt to link together every fictional work ever devised; it's basically Moore and Kevin O'Neal having a bit of a laugh with the whole thing, Victorian pulp fiction tropes, so at that point they weren't too concerned with making every single minor character who appeared a character who had appeared in specific reference from another story somewhere.story. As has been stated elsewhere on the page, it's basically Moore's decision as the writer to do what interests him and what he thinks is fun; you can disagree, but at the end of the day you're not writing it and Moore probably doesn't care either way, so. It's also not the only example of "grandfathering" that occurs; at another point in the same volume, ancestors of several of the characters from ''Series/{{Eastenders}}'' show up as street urchins.
23rd May '16 5:51:24 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** It should also be noted that the original volume is a lot less concerned with the whole "including every single fictional character ever created by human civilization and their kitchen sink" aspect of the project than later volumes would be. The first volume is basically a "Victorian Justice League with slightly deconstructionist aspects", not an attempt to link together every fictional work ever devised; it's basically Moore and Kevin O'Neal having a bit of a laugh with the whole thing, so at that point they weren't too concerned with making every single minor character who appeared a character who had appeared in another story somewhere. As has been stated elsewhere on the page, it's basically Moore's decision as the writer to do what interests him and what he thinks is fun; you can disagree, but at the end of the day you're not writing it and Moore probably doesn't care either way, so. It's also not the only example of "grandfathering" that occurs; at another point in the same volume, ancestors of several of the characters from ''Series/{{Eastenders}}'' show up as street urchins.
23rd May '16 5:35:37 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** His sketches presumably wouldn't really be ''that'' difficult to pick up on, not least for a species that had developed interplanetary travel, since he's pretty much just drawing the solar system, not something you really need the Rosetta Stone for; big round thing is the sun, smaller round things are planets, they're currently on the third smaller round thing from the big round thing, and the stick figures are those two legged things they're currently massacring a lot of. As for his double cross plan, it's hardly ''that'' complex; you let me live, I'll give you what you need. The Martians are intellects far vaster than any human's, and he's not exactly summarising ''À la recherche du temps perdu'' there; they can no doubt pick it up. As for why they didn't just kill him, they were probably startled by the fact that an invisible man had just walked into their base and started chatting with them.

to:

*** His sketches presumably wouldn't really be ''that'' difficult to pick up on, not least for a species that had developed interplanetary travel, since he's pretty much just drawing the solar system, not something you really need the Rosetta Stone for; system; big round thing is the sun, smaller round things are planets, they're currently on the third smaller round thing from the big round thing, and the stick figures are those two legged things they're currently massacring a lot of.of. It's not exactly a hugely complicated concept you need the Rosetta Stone for. As for his double cross plan, it's hardly ''that'' complex; you let me live, I'll give you what you need. The Martians are intellects far vaster than any human's, and he's not exactly summarising ''À la recherche du temps perdu'' there; they can no doubt pick it up. As for why they didn't just kill him, they were probably startled by the fact that an invisible man had just walked into their base and started chatting with them.
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?
This list shows the last 10 events of 124. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.LeagueOfExtraordinaryGentlemen