Alan Moore

[Dr. Insomniac]

In one of his comics, 1963, Alan made a parody of the "Smiling Stan" editorials called "Affable Al", who took all the credit and claimed he was the creator of everything. He's a huge stickler for creator rights, which was why he kept burning bridges with many comic companies (leaving Marvel UK because they were being shady with the Abslom Daak rights, leaving 2000 AD because he found out he didn't own the Halo Jones rights, leaving DC because of the Watchmen rights, etc).

As for the "Stan took Jack and Steve's credit" argument, I used to believe that for years until I actually read some comics solely credited to Ditko like Mr. A and The Question, and the dialogue and plotting were so clunky and haphazard compared to his Marvel work that it couldn't have been the same person who wrote Spider-Man. None of Ditko's non-Marvel comics have that spark that his Marvel works do. Kirby's a grayer situation, but there's also a distinct difference between the Marvel characters he made who mostly filled superhero/supervillain molds, and his DC characters like OMAC, the Black Racer, Etrigan, and so on. I do think some of the early Marvel fame went to Stan's head back in the day and stopped him from properly sharing the spotlight with his co-creators, but to see him as an outright thief present too much of a black and white view of what happened in those days. At the least, Lee has offered a co-creator credit to them in contrast to Bob Kane taking his sole Batman credit to the grave without even acknowledging Bill Finger.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I've always figured that there's a lot more to the story than just "Stan Lee was a thief who did none of the work and took all of the credit." It wouldn't surprise me if he did some shady stuff, but to be fair it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the writers and editors at higher up positions at Marvel or DC did their share of shady stuff in general. Regardless, they each still had to possess some level of talent and contribute in some significant way in order to work their way up to the statuses that they each eventually earned, one way or another.

[Avaitor]

I do have mixed feelings about Stan Lee's claims to his stakes for his characters, but in recent years, he's at least been getting better about acknowledging his co-creators. I do agree with Marquis' suggestion that Lee's fame went to his head in the 60's caused him taking more credit than he should have.

That said, I'm planning to meet him and sign my worn B&N paperback edition of the first Silver Surfer Masterworks tomorrow.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Interesting article about why Grant Morrison doesn't like Alan Moore: https://io9.gizmodo.com/exclusive-grant-morrison-opens-up-about-feuding-with-a-1831011198/amp

I can respect his opinion well enough (and even agree with a few of his points), but some of his claims are flat-out wrong. Like, he criticizes Ozymandias in Watchmen for being an idiot since his plan is undone in an instant....except....it isn't....

I mean, Rorschach's journal only presents (at best) the possibility that Ozymandias's plan could be exposed. Even after publishing the findings in his journal, though, it could easily he disputed since the public largely finds Rorschach to be a crazy person of questionable credibility, and it's not like Adrian can't cover up his own trail after realizing how Rorschach and Nite Owl found him out. I always took that ending to mean that the truth is always buried somewhere out there, rather than a definitive claim that the truth would instantly get out.

Also, the period in which Rorschach manages to mentally deconstruct the psychiatrist clearly takes place over several days (possibly more than a week), which is much longer than just "5-minutes" as Morrison puts it. It's also made clear in Walter Kovaks' case files that he's genuinely intelligent and attended a university, and in general that he himself who has dealt with common criminals doesn't by any means have an ordinary psyche that a professional would be that familiar with. It's like he completely missed the point that the reason the psychiatrist is so fascinated by him in the first place is that dissecting Rorschach's mental state as a vigilante will make him famous primarily because he's not an ordinary criminal.

Anyways, those are just two points in which I feel that he was off the mark, but again, he also makes some good ones, and in general I don't mind his outlook on Moore or Watchmen. I'm just more interested in seeing him discuss his personal tastes when it comes to comic books and fiction in general.

[Dr. Insomniac]

It's funny one of his Watchmen complaints is that he can't turn the page without Moore going "Look at me, look at me, look at me" when this literally happens in Animal Man, when Grant shows up as himself to tell Animal Man about comic books.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

It's funny one of his Watchmen complaints is that he can't turn the page without Moore going "Look at me, look at me, look at me" when this literally happens in Animal Man, when Grant shows up as himself to tell Animal Man about comic books.

Someone who commented on that article mentioned the same thing.

Alan Moore and Grant Morrison come off as odd reflections of one another to me. They have very different writing styles, overall, but strangely their similarities to one another seem to be what bugs them the most about each other, despite not being self-aware of it. Grant's comment about the psychiatrist cracking, for example, also came off a bit hypocritical to me considering how easily he drove Batman into lunacy in his run on the character.