• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Dalek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,962
https://io9.gizmodo.com/exclusive-grant-morrison-opens-up-about-feuding-with-a-1831011198

Despite coming up in the industry around the same time, moving in similar professional circles, and often being compared to each other, Morrison and Moore's relationship has vacillated between outright hostility and begrudging respect for the better part of the past 30 years. What's in the past is very much in the past, but, at least for Morrison, it's not all that difficult for him to recall what led to his falling out with Moore—and what it was (and continues to be) about Watchmen that doesn't sit well with him

I've read Watchmen many times. The reasons that I hated it when I was 25 are still there, but now I kinda like it because I'm older and I like the structure and I'm quite in awe of the absoluteness of it. But for all the same reasons, I hated it.

The fact that none of the characters were allowed to be smarter than the author, that really drove me nuts. The world's smartest man is an idiot. He makes a plan all his life that is undone by the end of the book in an instant. The psychiatrist sits with Rorschach for five minutes and Rorschach tells a super banal story of how he became a vigilante and the psychiatrist cracks. If you're a criminal psychiatrist who deals with men in prison, you've heard a million of these stories. It was all to make a specific point about how the real world isn't like superhero comics,

In my school, I was taught in this Scottish Presbyterian way that structure is hidden: you don't see the writer's mechanics. Watchmen, you can't turn the page without him saying "Look at me, look at me, look at me." Okay, we get it, man. You got thrown out of school at 16 for dealing acid, you're clever.

I took potshots at him in the media. I was the first person to say Watchmenwasn't very good – in fact, the only person to ever say that. And that made him angry so then I would get worse. I said that Watchmen was the 300-page equivalent of a sixth-form poem. That kind of trash talk, I'd brought from being in the band because that's what you're like in a band. I'd brought all that across with me to comics and it didn't go down well. I think it genuinely upset him.

Alan Moore didn't speak to me after that and would take his own little shots. He called Arkham Asylum a "gilded turd." Since then, I've had nothing to do with him and he's got nothing to do with me. A lot of comic fans like to think there's some feud but a feud would actually need to involve people's interest. I read his stuff, he reads my stuff – he pretends he doesn't, but he does.

It was the archetypal struggle, and it wasn't fair, 'cause I love his work. Well, there's a lot of it I don't like, but of course, he's great. We grew up in a very similar time even though I'm a little bit younger than him. It's the same influences from '60s TV and '70s TV and the books we read, sci-fi, all that stuff, same comics. And the fact that he got into magic… it's two people who are so similar but so utterly different that there has to be a feud.

Team Morrison
 

Deleted member 1258

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,914
Agree with Morrison. Watchmen had it's head up it's own ass with how any character that didn't share Moore's awful cynical world view was depicted as an idiot
 
OP
OP
Dalek

Dalek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,962
Agree with Morrison. Watchmen had it's head up it's own ass with how any character that didn't share Moore's awful cynical world view was depicted as an idiot

Very true. Morrison is far more articulate than I'll ever be but he basically said what I've always thought of Watchmen. This worship of Watchmen as this perfect tome that can't be criticized has become bizarre.
 

Tizoc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,792
Oman
Oh man ive heard about their fued for YEARS
Thanks for sharong this gonna read it now.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I don't really agree with his interpretation of the psychiatrist. While it's not strictly speaking believable that a typical psychiatrist would 'crack', I've never been a fan of that argument for ANY character because it's often much more interesting to deal with the character that's unique, the outlier. As a result, the psychiatrist cracking is not a particularly bad story element unless your only reading it as "What is it saying about the real world", which has always been a frustrating reading for me unless it's paired with an analysis of who that character is in his own world. But more to the point, I disagree that he cracked at all. He was affected by Rorschach's story and it broke down some of his world views, but rather than manifesting it in despair and nihilism like with Rorschoch, the psychiatrist actually became MORE altruistic. Once you factor that in, I feel that invites a different sort of reading, in that Rorschoch's monologuing the guy into a mental breakdown didn't validate Rorschoch's philosophy's.

And it's interesting that he says that he prefers a story structure that's hidden over one that emphasizes it's explicit authorial intent because that's my EXACT complaint with most of his work. I felt much more immersed and like I was just in the world of the story of Watchman than reading pretty much anything by Morrison.
 

Jombie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,392
It's clear in the book that the psychiatrist was well on his way to "cracking" before encountering Rorschach. I like Morrison, but those are some fairly silly takes on the book.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,435
I don't really agree with his interpretation of the psychiatrist. While it's not strictly speaking believable that a typical psychiatrist would 'crack', I've never been a fan of that argument for ANY character because it's often much more interesting to deal with the character that's unique, the outlier. As a result, the psychiatrist cracking is not a particularly bad story element unless your only reading it as "What is it saying about the real world", which has always been a frustrating reading for me unless it's paired with an analysis of who that character is in his own world. But more to the point, I disagree that he cracked at all. He was affected by Rorschach's story and it broke down some of his world views, but rather than manifesting it in despair and nihilism like with Rorschoch, the psychiatrist actually became MORE altruistic. Once you factor that in, I feel that invites a different sort of reading, in that Rorschoch's monologuing the guy into a mental breakdown didn't validate Rorschoch's philosophy's.

And it's interesting that he says that he prefers a story structure that's hidden over one that emphasizes it's explicit authorial intent because that's my EXACT complaint with most of his work. I felt much more immersed and like I was just in the world of the story of Watchman than reading pretty much anything by Morrison.

Let's just put it this way: did you become more altruistic after Rorschach's story? Did any reader? The psychiatrist had to have something there for the switch to flick in him for that scene to make sense. As is, there was and is nothing remotely interesting in his background to earn that reaction.
 

tsmoreau

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,440
Like em both but Morrison has always been far closer to my heart.

Always found their pseudo feud funny.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
Let's just put it this way: did you become more altruistic after Rorschach's story? Did any reader? The psychiatrist had to have something there for the switch to flick in him for that scene to make sense. As is, there was and is nothing remotely interesting in his background to earn that reaction.
Well, it's been a while since I read it, but a lot of it comes down to personality type from what I remember. The psychiatrist was a positive man who wanted the best for the world. However, he developed that into a sort of fake-friendly personality because it was useful to his career both in terms of PR and having his patients open up to him. The psychiatrist was nevertheless largely concerned with being the one to cure Rorschoch. It wasn't that that desire was inauthentic so much as it was mired by his desire for fame and glory.

So, Rorschoch's story just forced him to reassess. What was truly important to him? What did he truly want to live for? What change did he want to see in the world? Rorschoch's story affected him because it broke down the barriers of the fakeness and forced him to find TRUE meaning. And there isn't necessarily anything that about his backstory that has to MAKE him do this. He followed a different path than Rorschoch because he is a different person, whose lead a different life on thousands of different points and has different goals in life. The psychiatist was probably not bullied the way Rorschoch was, he didn't have a mother the way Rorshoch did, he didn't formulate his way of helping people by beating up others. So, having a thing that divides him from Rorschoch isn't a particularly important aspect to me, because it's really a thousands different things. They're just different people.

What is important is the result in this case is that nihilism isn't an depicted as an inevitability. Rorschoch stared into the void of darkness and decided to lose all sense of self. The Psychiatrist reconstructed himself. The nihilistic part that 'broke' them that Morrison is referring to is, I think, the idea that the void is real. That there is no inherent meaning and both Rorshoch and the Psychiatrist (atleast for a time) accept that as true, and maybe that's what he refers to. But in lieu of meaning, the Psychiatrist decided to make his own, and that itself is a meaningful defiance of the void.

But one other thing I want to address

Let's just put it this way: did you become more altruistic after Rorschach's story? Did any reader?

This is what bothers me the most, I think. That Morrison views storytelling as an inherent tool to shape and manipulate us. And whenever he pulls that shit on me in his own writing, it drives me up the wall. It shouldn't matter whether I became more altruistic or if any other reader did, because the story is being told to the psychiatrist and we're just observing. If anything, the idea that an author is trying to directly change my mindframe comes off as gross to me. I HATE storytelling that specifically tries to make me think a certain way.

I'm not saying that stories shouldn't affect us, but I feel that should be a byproduct of the story being good. For the purposes of telling a story, it doesn't matter how Rorschoch's story affected me, but how it affected the person he's telling it to, which is the psychiatrist, and we see that he becomes more altruistic, which I interpret as meaning that Rorschoch's nihilism isn't the inevitable endpoint, that we always make our own meaning afterwards. But I don't feel that the story is "making" me think that so much as the author is saying how things happened and I'm extrapolating my own meaning from it. I like that. It presets Rorschoch's narrative, and it's convincing, it's pursuasive, but there are clear faultlines that appear as the story goes on, including Rorschoch himself breaking down over the awfulness of Veidt's plan.

But it's entirely up to you to decide how far along the Rorschoch Rabbit hole you want to go.
 
Last edited:

tsmoreau

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,440
Their whole approach is different.

Moore is a formalist poet.

Morrison is a improvisational musican.

Moore is calculating, Morrison is rhyming.
 

Aftermath

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,756
Alan Moore be on the set of his new movie hearing this news like:

1755-C6-F2-841-E-4-D5-C-829-D-882-DBF4-BC158.jpg



To be fair I have not read Watchmen, only seen the film, I have read Arkham I liked it, so I am not taking sides.
 

Yossarian

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
13,264
Love Watchmen. Love Moore. Love Morrison. There's room for everybody in my house!

Having said that, it's a bit rich taking a swipe at Moore's ego when you obviously put yourself in nearly every major work you've written :D
 

Traxus

Spirit Tamer
Member
Jan 2, 2018
5,197
I read Arkham Asylum and found it completely forgettable while Watchmen is still one of the most affecting works of fiction I've ever read so I'm inclined to not give a fuck. I've read pretty much all of Alan Moore's major works and I'm not too well versed with Morrison's stuff though. I've been meaning to check out The Invisibles.
 

VanWinkle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,095
I want to take this moment to mention how incredible the Multiversity issue Pax Americana is. It's Grant Morrison's mind filtered through the structure of Moore's Watchmen, and the results are breathtaking.

I read Arkham Asylum and found it completely forgettable while Watchmen is still one of the most affecting works of fiction I've ever read so I'm inclined to not give a fuck. I've read pretty much all of Alan Moore's major works and I'm not too well versed with Morrison's stuff though. I've been meaning to check out The Invisibles.
The Invisibles is pretty well-liked, but it's also very likely his most bizarre and hard-to-understand book. I would read Animal Man or Doom Patrol instead, if it's going to be your first Morrison run.
 
Last edited:
May 26, 2018
24,020
I want to take this moment to mention how incredible the Multiversity issue Pax Americana is. It's Grant Morrison's mind filtered through the structure of Moore's Watchmen, and the results are breathtaking.


The Invisibles is pretty well-liked, but it's also very likely his most bizarre and hard-to-understand book. I would read Animal Man or Doom Patrol instead, if it's going to be your first Morrison run.

The Invisibles is like all the conspiracy-related and drug-induced and back-to-mystical-nature and 60s throwback (yes all of those) pop/counter-cultures of the 90s rolled into a gigantic shotgun blast to the face, with a million pellets, in slow motion.

It's a wild trip.
 

Creamium

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,701
Belgium
Their whole approach is different.

Moore is a formalist poet.

Morrison is a improvisational musican.

Moore is calculating, Morrison is rhyming.

Are you saying that Morrison doesn't plan his stuff out and makes it up as he goes along? Because that's not true. If you take a look at series like Seven Soldiers or Multiversity, it's clear the entire story has been mapped out from the jump.

I want to take this moment to mention how incredible the Multiversity issue Pax Americana is. It's Grant Morrison's mind filtered through the structure of Moore's Watchmen, and the results are breathtaking.

I wanted to stress this, because I think that issue gets lost in the shuffle sometimes since it's part of a larger series that ties into the DC multiverse. Pax Americana is a standalone story that everyone who loves Watchmen should read. Morrison may say here that he doesn't like Watchmen, but in Pax Americana he shows he has respect for the book since the issue is such a dense critique/homage to it.

Link to the issue if you want to read it digitally

It's very hard to grasp everything in that issue, so these annotations are very useful: http://comicsalliance.com/multiversity-annotations-part-4-morrison-quitely-pax-americana/

Pax Americana got the Eisner Award in 2015 for best single issue and it's very much deserved.
 

Bright-Light

Member
Oct 29, 2017
291
I'm not gonna argue any of his points. But to say Moore is up his own ass shows a huge lack of self awareness. Some of Morrison's stuff is much more "look at me" than Moore's.

Love them both.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,237
I always thought that beyond the problems with his work Morrison never liked how Moore took up the Occult as a joke when Morrison himself has been doing it since his Uncle gave him a pack of tarot cards at the age of 19. For Morrison it seems like something important to him as a person, but Moore is a devotee of "Glycon" which he acknowledges as being nothing more than a hoax.
 

Destonym

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7
I want to take this moment to mention how incredible the Multiversity issue Pax Americana is. It's Grant Morrison's mind filtered through the structure of Moore's Watchmen, and the results are breathtaking.
I second that. I hold Morrison/Quitely duo in the highest possible regard, but as a side-effect of this I thought that they'd lost the capacity to surprise me. Boy, oh boy, how wrong I was. That moment when you recognize that what you are reading is in fact about 'Watchmen'...
 

8bit

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,390
I want to take this moment to mention how incredible the Multiversity issue Pax Americana is. It's Grant Morrison's mind filtered through the structure of Moore's Watchmen, and the results are breathtaking.


The Invisibles is pretty well-liked, but it's also very likely his most bizarre and hard-to-understand book. I would read Animal Man or Doom Patrol instead, if it's going to be your first Morrison run.


I've said this elsewhere, but Animal Man blew my mind like no other experience was able to;

Animal Man (pretty much) ends in the real-world outside my primary school in Glasgow, Scotland. It was a massive wtf moment.

About Watchmen, I liked it when it came out in single issues way back then but I find the continued reverence a bit over the top. It's one of Dave Gibbons' greatest works, but imo there are far more enjoyable Alan Moore stories.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
I know, but the general idea of "getting nasty" with attacks is.... usually not that.
He would probably consider it bad form that wouldn't reflect well on him to voice the worst things he's ever said about the book.

It's not even a steer PR move really, it's just basic politeness to not just start swearing and frothing at the mouth mid interview.
 

Ωλ7XL9

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,250
While the both comic creators are fighting it out, I'd like to say Zack Snyder's adaptation of the graphic novel was god tier in comic book movie history!
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
This is interesting in a vague way. I've tried to read Watchmen several times because I admire the film, but each time I'm put off by the unfamiliar visual language of comics, which usually leaves me puzzling for hours over the meaning of a single sequence of frames. To coin a phrase, I seem to be comic-blind. I regret this terribly, and perhaps one day I may master this dialect well enough to understand what's going on.

The basic conceit of Watchmen, of a world in which superheroes are real and have affected historical events, is fascinating and extremely well realised in the film. For the chance to see someone set out to tell such a fascinating story, I'm grateful to Alan Moore.
 

Sgt. Demblant

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,030
France
Well, to be fair, I don't think Moore likes Watchmen all that much either. Or at least its reception and the impact it had on the American comic-book industry soured him on it.
It's a pretty great book, but he definitely has written better stuff.

Anyway, Moore seems like he hates everyone and everything and Morrison admits that he was kind of a dickhead too.
In the end, I like them both.

Now Grant, please, give me some dirt on Millar.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,140
Moore is super cynical but great writer

Morrison is a great idea man who gets tied up in his own bullshit.

You fuse them together and you will get half .75 a Kurt Buisek or half a Mark Waid
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,543
I haven't read the Watchmen novel, but I agree with Morrison that if the writing is too on the nose, it becomes a parody. Like for example how Nixon is portrayed in the film.
 

Quiksaver

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,022
Earlier this year I met Grant Morrison at a signing. He was wearing a Twin Peaks "Gotta light?" shirt. We ended up doing impressions of the woodsmen(If you've read Green Lantern #1 you can clearly notice he loved these characters), talking about the latest season for a while and also got some excellent writing advice.
His book Supergods changed everything about the creative process for me. I think he is not only one of the finest minds of our time, but also a great person.

Alan Moore is a fine writer, but I fear he might bite my nose off or do something crazier if I ever try to strike up conversation with him.
 

SageShinigami

Member
Oct 27, 2017
30,474
I'm on Team Morrison because he has fun, but they're both insanely talented creators and most writers at best create one or two comics on their level.

And I disliked Watchmen's super cynical tone but I get its importance to comics as an art form. Like Morrison I appreciate it for its structure. He brought this up before though--Supergods, his book, goes into detail about what he likes and doesn't like about the comic.

Also, Pax Americana is indeed genius.

Well, it's been a while since I read it, but a lot of it comes down to personality type from what I remember. The psychiatrist was a positive man who wanted the best for the world. However, he developed that into a sort of fake-friendly personality because it was useful to his career both in terms of PR and having his patients open up to him. The psychiatrist was nevertheless largely concerned with being the one to cure Rorschoch. It wasn't that that desire was inauthentic so much as it was mired by his desire for fame and glory.

So, Rorschoch's story just forced him to reassess. What was truly important to him? What did he truly want to live for? What change did he want to see in the world? Rorschoch's story affected him because it broke down the barriers of the fakeness and forced him to find TRUE meaning. And there isn't necessarily anything that about his backstory that has to MAKE him do this. He followed a different path than Rorschoch because he is a different person, whose lead a different life on thousands of different points and has different goals in life. The psychiatist was probably not bullied the way Rorschoch was, he didn't have a mother the way Rorshoch did, he didn't formulate his way of helping people by beating up others. So, having a thing that divides him from Rorschoch isn't a particularly important aspect to me, because it's really a thousands different things. They're just different people.

What is important is the result in this case is that nihilism isn't an depicted as an inevitability. Rorschoch stared into the void of darkness and decided to lose all sense of self. The Psychiatrist reconstructed himself. The nihilistic part that 'broke' them that Morrison is referring to is, I think, the idea that the void is real. That there is no inherent meaning and both Rorshoch and the Psychiatrist (atleast for a time) accept that as true, and maybe that's what he refers to. But in lieu of meaning, the Psychiatrist decided to make his own, and that itself is a meaningful defiance of the void.

But one other thing I want to address



This is what bothers me the most, I think. That Morrison views storytelling as an inherent tool to shape and manipulate us. And whenever he pulls that shit on me in his own writing, it drives me up the wall. It shouldn't matter whether I became more altruistic or if any other reader did, because the story is being told to the psychiatrist and we're just observing. If anything, the idea that an author is trying to directly change my mindframe comes off as gross to me. I HATE storytelling that specifically tries to make me think a certain way.

I'm not saying that stories shouldn't affect us, but I feel that should be a byproduct of the story being good. For the purposes of telling a story, it doesn't matter how Rorschoch's story affected me, but how it affected the person he's telling it to, which is the psychiatrist, and we see that he becomes more altruistic, which I interpret as meaning that Rorschoch's nihilism isn't the inevitable endpoint, that we always make our own meaning afterwards. But I don't feel that the story is "making" me think that so much as the author is saying how things happened and I'm extrapolating my own meaning from it. I like that. It presets Rorschoch's narrative, and it's convincing, it's pursuasive, but there are clear faultlines that appear as the story goes on, including Rorschoch himself breaking down over the awfulness of Veidt's plan.

But it's entirely up to you to decide how far along the Rorschoch Rabbit hole you want to go.

If a story can't change you, doesn't connect with you in a meaningful enough way to make you think about changing, then what was the point?
 

Gwenpoolshark

Member
Jan 5, 2018
4,109
The Pool
Are you saying that Morrison doesn't plan his stuff out and makes it up as he goes along? Because that's not true. If you take a look at series like Seven Soldiers or Multiversity, it's clear the entire story has been mapped out from the jump.



I wanted to stress this, because I think that issue gets lost in the shuffle sometimes since it's part of a larger series that ties into the DC multiverse. Pax Americana is a standalone story that everyone who loves Watchmen should read. Morrison may say here that he doesn't like Watchmen, but in Pax Americana he shows he has respect for the book since the issue is such a dense critique/homage to it.

Link to the issue if you want to read it digitally

It's very hard to grasp everything in that issue, so these annotations are very useful: http://comicsalliance.com/multiversity-annotations-part-4-morrison-quitely-pax-americana/

Pax Americana got the Eisner Award in 2015 for best single issue and it's very much deserved.

Was gonna say. Anyone who writes Pax Americana cant hate watchmen all that much.

Morrison's right on all counts though.
 

HStallion

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
62,262
Moore and Morrison are peas in a pod even if they take shots back and forth and give each other the cold shoulder. Both of them can be incredibly insightful and highbrow while also putting out stomach turning nastiness. If anything they probably don't care for one another because of how much they step on one another's toes.
 

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
I haven't read the Watchmen novel, but I agree with Morrison that if the writing is too on the nose, it becomes a parody. Like for example how Nixon is portrayed in the film.

I kinda thought that was the point. The Comedian on the grassy knoll, in fact the entire Times They Are A-Changing sequence, signals parody. Rorschach's character in the film is a gross and inflated parody of the "broken child" superhero origin story, The Comedian is the "arsehole with superpowers" model, while Ozymandias seems to have been taken by Marvel Studios as the template for the film version of Iron Man: he'll break the world trying to fix its problems.
 

Sephzilla

Herald of Stoptimus Crime
Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,493
I agree with Morrison regarding Watchmen. The critique that nobody in the book is allowed to be smarter than the author is pretty spot on
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,846
I'm not sure I really rank Morrison much better than Moore, but I still don't understand the appeal of Watchmen after all these years. Perhaps since i didn't live through the transformative era of graphic novels its influence is lost on me, but what I'm left with is a dreary dirge of a comic where I fundamentally don't think the ending makes any sense.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,620
I like Watchmen fine but I've never been as high as on it as most everyone else. For my money, Moore's best work is Supreme, Miracleman, and Tom Strong.
 

Veelk

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,707
If a story can't change you, doesn't connect with you in a meaningful enough way to make you think about changing, then what was the point?

Entertainment, intellectual challenge, and fun?

But that's not what I'm getting at. Of course stories can change us. But the difference I'm getting at is there is a difference between "I am going to try and use a fictional scenerio to explore if there is a philosophical truth to discover and you can decide how your affected with the results" and "I'm here to control your brain as much as I can!!!"

One is art, the other feels close to a sort of quasipropaganda
 

Deleted member 9479

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
2,953
The way he describes his relationship with Moore's work reflects mine with both of them, so I can't help but nod along.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
They're both pretty immature, to be honest. Just a couple of comic book and magic hipsters taking potshots at each other for making them feel less unique.

Both very talented, though.
 
OP
OP
Dalek

Dalek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,962
Earlier this year I met Grant Morrison at a signing. He was wearing a Twin Peaks "Gotta light?" shirt. We ended up doing impressions of the woodsmen(If you've read Green Lantern #1 you can clearly notice he loved these characters), talking about the latest season for a while and also got some excellent writing advice.
This makes me love him even more. Of course he would be a Twin Peaks fan.

And I echo that Multiversity is genius.