Alan Moore on Lost Girls

[missroserose]

As people who know me might expect, I'm very much looking forward to receiving my copy of Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's Lost Girls, which Brian pre-ordered for me for my birthday. The graphic novel itself has caused quite a bit of controversy, as might be expected - both for its portrayals of classic literary figures in sexual situations (often of questionable taste) and for the sheer fact that it is, by the authors' own admission, a pornography. (On a side note, Neil Gaiman wrote an excellent article for Publisher's Weekly on Lost Girls and what constitutes erotica vs. pornography; unfortunately, he had to cut it down to half as long for the actual published version.)

Fortunately, this being a country of free speech, Alan Moore has had numerous chances to defend himself and his work, and has done so with great eloquence. I particularly liked this interview, in which he discusses many related topics - differing attitudes towards sexuality in different cultures, for instance, and exactly how arbitrary such cultural standards are. I especially liked what he had to say on divorcing this part of our lives from the feelings of shame that so often take natural desires and twist them into monstrous and degrading acts. And I also thought it was interesting hearing his take on how his growing relationship with Melinda Gebbie affected the book, and vice versa: "I'd recommend to anybody working on their relationship that they should try embarking on a 16-year elaborate pornography together. I think they'll find it works wonders."

All talk of sex and pornography/erotica aside, however, and whatever one's particular views on such subjects may be, I think we can all agree that it's fantastic that we live in a world where people can not only publish controversial content, but be allowed to talk about it and defend it as they see fit, without fear of retribution. I sometimes think that in their rush to denounce people we disagree with, we often lose sight of what a wonderful aspect of our world this is.

Comments

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

When that is published in the UK he's likely to face quite a bit of public fuss. :) That sort of content isn't anywhere near as well accepted in the UK as the US.

I also liked that 16 year pornography comment. Though waiting 14 years to live together may be a bit excessive. :)

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Really? Because I was under the impression that the UK was a little less restrictive about sexual-themed media (television, etc.) than the US. The major fuss I'd heard about in the U.K. had to do with his using Peter Pan-inspired characters, since the copyright's status is a little more hazy over there. But maybe I'm wrong.

A little excessive, maybe, but it doesn't surprise me much. Moore has always struck me as the careful-and-exacting-almost-to-the-point-of-strangulation type in his comics work, so it seemed likely that he'd be like that in his personal life, too.

[alexmegami]

Yeah, there's argument about whether it's a derivative work or not, which (at least in Canada, not sure about the UK) makes a difference - not sure about in the UK. But certainly the hospital that currently holds rights to Peter Pan are making a big deal about it.

[jamesd.livejournal.com]

People who may be taken as children are involved and in the UK that can attract very high profile attention, even more than in the US.

The UK is formally very repressive (http://www.sfc.org.uk/sexlaws.html), far more than the US, from what little I've seen. When it comes to mainstream media, it's more sexual and less violent than the US, in general - the violence from US imports generates complaints much more than any sexual component.

On the other hand, until 2003 a major UK national newspaper routinely featured topless 16 and 17 year olds on its third page, that being both the age of consent and age to model that way. In 2003 the age was raised to 18 and a huge percentage of its back editions are now illegal pornography featuring "child porn".

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

That's unfortunate. The whole American thing with "Violence is fine, just don't show the boobies!" always annoys the crap out of me. Sex is a normal part of an average, healthy life; violence, not so much. (Similarly dumb - a woman I read about arguing against giving condoms to teenagers because "We aren't handing out bulletproof vests and telling them to go shoot each other!" See above statement about sex vs. violence.)

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like sexual repression (either in the US or the UK) is going away anytime soon. I simply hope that works like Moore's challenge people to rethink their assumptions on what's dirty and shameful, as opposed to just part of life.