QUOTE: ...but can't the other side see how it could be considered a superficially sophisticated excuse to be shocking and perverse as well?

Sure, I can see how people would consider that, and I've acknowledged it in some of my past posts - when John Mietus and I were first back-and-forthing over LOST GIRLS, and even in that post I linked to above. It all comes down to how one perceives Moore's past work, and even as someone who rarely finds his work to be "superficial", I recognize he sometimes plays the role of the provocateur. I just see most of his provocations as leading to insight, where a good number of folks here don't think the ends justify the means in his case. Or don't find the ends compelling.

Yeah, I can understand the "other side". With a work like THE KILLING JOKE, I even agree with much of their POV, but I think Moore's body of work is deep enough to have earned him the benefit of the doubt on the subject of intent.

Exploring Sexuality is fine. Doing in a comic is fine. But why in the world use the characters from childrens book to do this? That my only question and objection.

So they're digging back to the 70s now. DidJB do a lot of childerns character porn books back then?

Mike Norris wrote: Exploring Sexuality is fine. Doing in a comic is fine. But why in the world use the characters from childrens book to do this? That my only question and objection.

Mike, Moore's been very specfic about why he wanted to use the characters. Essentially, he sees their youthfulness and the surreality of their adventures as a fertile metaphors for the strange way sexuality comes into the lives of many young people. Part one of the interview he did at Newsarama gets into your exact question a few paragraphs down:

http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_01.html

And there's a second part that expands upon it:

http://www.newsarama.com/TopShelf/LostGirls/MooreLG_02.html

I get the feeling they're unlikely to change many minds here, but I felt reassured after reading them that Moore had had not gone into the story with debased intent.

It always amuses me when a reviewer calls a book "literary". Well, duh.

Especially when they use the word to describe a graphic novel. What, were all those plain old comic books "illiterate"?

Floyd Kermode: There are many delightful threads here and JB's art has brought pleasure to many, but this place frequently gives the impression of a forum that is run by a troll.

If you think this place is run by a troll, then I wonder how you feel about most other comic-related message boards?  You must not visit many of them because most of what I see out there is nothing more than verbal masturbation, bolstered by frequent expletives and elitist garbage.  That this place has more than a modicum of civility to it, and that it does not suffer the fools lightly, makes it a decent and enjoyable place to come to.

To me, this place is like going out to dinner with long-lost friends and spending the evening catching up.  Most other message boards are like visiting a run-down crack house full of feces-slinging monkeys (no offense to feces-slinging monkeys).