Thursday, August 03, 2006

Rated XG for Extra Gross:
When Talented Comic Guys Go Bad

In the general war between the culture of life and the culture of death, I should note that the laissez-faire sexuality wing of the battle line has joined with the child-hating reserves.

In particular, I read in this month's LOCUS magazine that famed cartoonist Alan Moore has penned a work called LOST GIRLS, starring Dorothy Gale, Alice Fairchild, and Wendy Darling, where the beloved girl characters from our childhood tales are depicted in acts of pornography on every page, including group sex, homosexuality, bestiality, and pederasty.

His reasoning? Mr. Moore claims our culture does not think and publish enough about sex. We're repressed. Showing the girl from ALICE IN WONDERLAND having anal intercourse with a rabbit or something will be good for our mental health and emotional wellbeing.
John C. Wright, author of ORPHANS IN CHAOS

If you have the stomach for two grown guys aiming to sound so sophisticated and blase about their disgusting affinity for the jolly goodness of putting classic children's fantasy literature into the fashionable new clothes of pornography, read the interview here.Sounds like they never got out of the junior high locker room.

The characters are Oz's Dorothy, Wonderland's Alice, and Peter Pan's Wendy. Apparently, if characters are beloved, one should immediately put them in acts of perversion to show how cool one is.

I think the V for Vendetta guy has been anarchic a wee bit too long. He's now W for Wacko or Y for Yucky or just your garden-variety P for Pervert.

And anyone who thinks our society doesn't talk or read or do enough sex, well, excuse me, what freaking alternate Earth is he living on?

I'm surrounded by sex: The strip joints down the street with limousines and packed parking lots. The dirty movies on cable. The talk shows going on and on about what people are doing to whom and where and when and how often. The novels with graphic sex scenes of all kinds, from the romantic to the snuff variety. The magazines with articles on how to make a man happy in bed or how to have my partner find my G-spot or how I should wax my pubic hair to look better for sex. The spam porn mail with "barely legal" gals eager for my cash. The Viagra ads. The warming KY Jelly ads. The sex counseling programs on the radio and late night cable. The ads with naked models faking threesome sex or fake lesbian sexuality to seem cool. The banners on websites urging me to talk with Heather or Jackie, cause they're hot and ready for it, and those same gals on commercials on tv. The female fashion trend that seems to want everyone to look like the streetwalkers of a previous decade.

I wouldn't mind a bit LESS sex out there.

I'm quite happy with the sex at home, thanks. I don't need to watch everyone else doing it, including childhood girl icons. Least of all them.

Alan Moore and his interviewer live in Europe, no? They get pornography on regular television, for pete's sake. So, where is it that they're not experiencing enough media sex?

Next on Moore's porn-comic tour: The Adventures of Alice's Younger Sister in Bedroomland. The Wizard of S&M. Wendy's Daughter Does London.

Okay, I just nauseated myself.

WATCHMEN was rivetting. V for Vendetta was interesting.

I'll skip LOST GIRLS, though, sadly, I suspect those who will enjoy it most are more lost than any fictional character.


Carol Collett said...

YEEEUUUCCKKKK!! How can someone get so twisted? Well, obviously needs to meet Jesus one on one, but bleck! Gotta go take a shower now.

Nick Locking said...

Quite right! Sexuality? Eurgh! That's not Christian! People should have sex once and once only in their entire lives and only if they intend to produce children. Otherwise it's just wrong, and disgusting.

John King said...

Old and decrepit Alan Moore may be but even I fancy his chances against a 2000 year old corpse.

Wolcott Gibbs said...

"The characters are Oz's Dorothy, Wonderland's Alice, and Peter Pan's Wendy. Apparently, if characters are beloved, one should immediately put them in acts of perversion to show how cool one is."
Really, if you believe that Alan Moore is interested in showing the world how "cool" he is, you've completely missed the point, my dear. Though the social approval of others may or may not be important to you, it's doubtful that Alan Moore seeks approval and validation from anyone in writing such a story.

"Alan Moore and his interviewer live in Europe, no? They get pornography on regular television, for pete's sake. So, where is it that they're not experiencing enough media sex?"
Do they get "pornography" on regular television in Europe? Methinks you're exaggerating. Europeans, in general, might not be as prudish as North Americans, but I think it falls short of being a spectacle of outright public debauchery.

"Oh, maybe they wanna do young girls. Maybe that's their real yearning. Eighteen or sixteen. NOT YOUNG ENOUGH."
That's a bit of an ad hominem attack, no? Nothing that Mr. Moore has said indicates he's a potential pedophile. Yet, because you disagree with the work he has produced, you'll suggest he fancies sexual intercourse underage girls? For shame, Ms. Mirtika. For shame.

"I'll skip LOST GIRLS, though"
That seems reasonable.

"sadly, I suspect a lot of pedophiles and slobbering wankers won't. And an assortment of 11 and 13 year olds will actively look for it."
Maybe. Maybe not. Consider that there is a lot more hardcore material available on the internet *for free*. Sure, Lost Girls COULD fulfill the sick desires of your "pedophiles and slobbering wankers", but it seems more likely that they'll receive greater titillation from online photographs and movies than from a graphic novel penned by a gifted writer.

Sincerely yours,
Wolcott Gibbs

Elliot said...

I quite like some of Alan Moore's work - Watchman, Vendetta, even big chunks of Promethea and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

But I have begun to wonder about him, particularly about the endless sexual innuendo he'd cram into the LoEG appendixes. Sure, it's kinda funny at first, and maybe he gets off on sexualizing the Victorians. But after awhile it became really lame and tiresome.

And now this. All his excuses about our society needing more sex are risible.

Anonymous said...

Its quite obvious, that the issue is entirely with you and not with Alan Moore. No one is forcing you to read or purchase the work and if frank discussion of human sexuality so offends you, then don't look at it. You see, your comments stink of fear and discomfort, which no doubt ties into the judeo-christian oppression that you were indoctrinated into believing from infancy. Dont read Lost Girls, you have no intention of ever cracking open the covers and having an informed opinion of it, anyway

Martin said...

I could be wrong but I think the book focus on the characters when they are adults.

Alice is 50 something

Wendy in in her mid 30s

and Dorothy is in her 20s

thewalker said...


you feel able to comment on a book when you have only read an article/interview about said book?

(without even considering the possibility that interviewee/interviewer are playing up for publicity....?)

thats pretty sad.

and then you compare this work, which you have not even read, with some books the author wrote about TWENTY YEARS AGO!!!! he has published quite a lot since then. Voice of fire, promethea.....

you seem a bit sad to me.

Mirtika said...

I love how Alan Moore's sycophants have to get all bristly. Look, any way you cut it, it seems like something icky to me. And yes, I think he's talented and pornography is a waste of the guy's talent. If you think pornography is great, then I guess you'll be enjoying Lost Girls.

As far as the tired old argument of "no one is forcing you to buy it." No, they're not. And I'm not. But I still have a right to be disgusted by a waste of talent. I've never said, "Let's go arrest the guy and keep him from doing this." He's not being censored, is he?

If it's okay for him to desecrate icons, I figure I can ad hominen him. :)

He does't care. He's got his circle of slavish adorers and his money and my opinion is crap to him.

So, why does my opinion matter to you who (mostly) never read my blog and just came by to stick up for your guy?


Mirtika said...

As far as Judeo-Christian repression of sex:

Excuse me while I laugh up a storm.

I have yet to meet a gal at church (not that I'd ask the guys) who thinks they only should have sex to procreate. In our girl-sex-chats, we're pretty blessed to enjoy the beauty of our beloveds and think God is pleased when we have a jolly time in bed with our mates.

You must be thinking of some other "Christians", cause it ain't anyone in my acquaintance.

Or maybe you just don't really know squat about what goe son behind doors. :)


thewalker said...

So, why does my opinion matter to you who (mostly) never read my blog and just came by to stick up for your guy?

maybe because you deign to offer this opinion to the world via a blog!!!!!!!

making defense of either alan moore (for the sycophants)or rational thinking (for the people who think that having a LITTLE bit of knowledge of what we are critiqueing before we try to tear it shreds is important) a reasonable response.

Nick Locking said...

"So, why does my opinion matter to you who (mostly) never read my blog and just came by to stick up for your guy?"

It doesn't. We're just clowning for our own amusement.

Mirtika said...

Because of Martin's clarification, I've removed part of my rant. Thank you, Martin.

The rest of you, clown on.


Mirtika said...

Elliot, "risible" is right. One thing about having a good sex life of one's own, one doesn't need to see sex everywhere. It's satisfying where you can have it in private, so public sex is not necessary to get one's kicks. :)


Mirtika said...

Wolcott, it was in the interview about pornography on TV. If you think that's incorrect, then you should address the interviewer and Moore on that. (BTW, cool name.)


Mirtika said...

Oh, and Wolcott, you were right to point out my crossing the line on the underaged thing. I had assumed that the characters were in their original fictional ages. I've edited my post accordingly.

I still think his talent is wasted on pornography, and that he is out to be considered iconoclastic and, therefore, cool. People attack beloved characters for a reason--to annoy those who love them, and to be perceived as cutting edge, ergo, cool. I may be wrong, but that's still how I see that sort of action--the rebellion that says, "Look at me, I am unbound by any boundaries."


Anonymous said...

You manage to miss the point so much, that further comment is rendered superfluous.
And as for knowledge of what goes on behind 'closed doors', the problem is, is your definition of it and not mine. I think a frank and healthy discussion of sexuality, and artistic interpretations are long overdue, and would negate the ceasless titillation rather than amplify it.

For someone who's 12% into her book, you're awfully presumptuous with regards to what other people publish;)

Mirtika said...

Yes, I am. We are both presumptuous. I guess that makes us able to cast stones at one another. :D


Carol Collett said...

Most of the Christians I know are anything but 'prudish.' God certainly isn't! Try Song of Solomon. It's a joyous celebration of sexuality with some beautiful poetry describing some very physical acts. Mir, you keep on ranting.

John C. Wright said...

What puzzles and saddens me is that anyone, anyone at all, feels the need to lob comments into a comments box to rush in an defend pornography.

Don't get me wrong. I like most of Alan Moore's work and love some of it. In writing LOST GIRLS he has betrayed me, and every once-loyal fan of his.

The objection is not that I or anyone is being forced to read it. That is not the issue and we all know that is not the issue. The objection is that Moore is deliberately attempting to praise, support, spread, and glorify porn; and all you poor souls who leap to his defense, whether you know it or not, are part of this effort.

Your defenses fall into two stereotyped reactions: first, you ask us to read the porn before condemning it. Um. Our criticism is not that it is badly done porn. Our criticism is that it is porn at all, which Moore trumpets, advertises, claims, announces and says. So that point is not in dispute, but you are put in the awkward situation of urging someone to read pornography.

Second, you equate porn with a healthy respect for the mystery, wonder and joy that comes from the honeymoon bed. You defend porn by attacking Christians as being anti-sex. A hearty laugh, I think, is all this argument deserves. Healthy sex is not pornography. Pornography exists as a means to demean sex, to rob sex of reality and context and love and happiness, and to reduce it to its most base and material level.

Do none of you feel even a twinge of shame for being the defenders of a pornographer? Do you feel no shame for uttering lame arguments?

thewalker said...

your original criticism actually reads as not against porn in general, but as a critique of lost girls and its particular contents (or at least, alleged contents).

I should make clear here that i have no issue with erotica at all. Or with most pornography. If Alan was a bit more up to date with the percieved diferences in these, he may have decided to label Lost Girls as erotica. His position seems to be based on wanting to rescue pornography from the deviant gutter, that literary arousal does not have to belong in the same field as the obscene.

"Pornography" is not such a well defined term, it can range from romance fiction (with the heaving chest and reams of suspensefull buildup) to mainstream descriptions and images of nudity and sex-play, to the more extreme scat,child,forced,etc... arena, perhaps separating the three, at least mentaly, would help reduce the current crossovers between them.

judging by the recent AOL search terms release debacle, if some of the people had a more moderate view of erotica, they may not jump so foolishly to the extreme end of the scale (a large number of the searches released show people looking up details on psalms, local church groups, community church networks, etc, and dotted amongst these searches for child sex, forced sex etc. I seems that, for SOME PEOPLE, suppressing these desires only leads to a build up and sudden leap to the extremes.

having said that, i wholeheartedly agree with the right of people to chose to live in a (personal) world free of pornography. as long as that choice does not include trying to force these limitations on others.

Mirtika said...

We force limitations on citizens of all manner, and I would not be opposed to some sensible limitations on pornography. I can't remember if it was Sundance or IFC channel, or what, but they had a documentary on the porn industry, and what some of those gals so blankly talked about was horrific. It goes beyond anything having to do with even marginally normal sex into the kinds of things that any unjaded person would see as degradation, violence, and abuse. I actually felt deep sorrow for the women who--perhaps from childhood abuse, perhaps from drugs, who knows what--were allowing themselves to be bruised and battered and ganged up on by multitudes of men.

Literary and artistic dealings sexuality in a "whole life " context does not offend me the way the warped sexuality of mondo porn or the pseudo-child porn does. The minds behind that are scary. And if we wanted to as a society ban it, I'd not be opposed.

And I've read many romance novels. Most of the ones I especially have liked have had maybe 0 to 20 pages tops of intimacy between one man and one woman in love and heading into commitment (or already committed in a marriage) in 250 to 400 pages of story. Many romances (traditional, Regencies, Christian) don't have any sex. Kisess at most. That's not porn by any stretch.

But no one here is calling for banning of anything, that I know of. We are expressing personal repulsion at what seems to be intentional degradation of childhood icons and the waste of talent, and the gleeful childish chirping of how fun pornography is and how much mroe we need of it in that interview.

Yes, dueling penises. Beardsley did it 100+ years ago and he did it better. And Asian art is full of oversized genitalian, male and female, and they were doing it even before Beardsley took to his inks. It's hardly something laudable and worth high-fiving over.

It's actually silly.

But I believe that choosing Wendy, Dorothy and Alice is sinister.


Mirtika said...

Thank you, Mr. Wright, for dropping by and commenting so eloquently. I enjoy your blog a lot! So much so, I just ordered a few days ago my first novel by you. :)

Your testimony is the best one I've read online. I've recommended it to others.