Oh, good - no Tom Sawyer
I'm not really one of the "Since it's Alan Moore, it must be 5-stars always!" sorts of people. I prefer to critique based on the merit of the artifact in question, not its source. Hopefully this is true of my grading skills in class (especially). When Alan Moore does really great work, like in V for Vendetta or Watchmen, I'm right there, telling people "go read this." I'm not a die-hard Alan Moore fan, but when the opportunity to borrow some things I hadn't yet read from the library arose, naturally I took it. I'm not going to read everything he has ever done just because it is his (just like I'm not going to see every movie made by Gregory Peck or Richard Burton just because I am a fan of them) - if it's a subject I know/presume I will not enjoy, I'll steer clear (Lost Girls, The Omen, Exorcist II). That said, I had a mixed reaction to LoEG 1. I saw the movie when it came out, a decade or so ago, and haven't seen it since, so it didn't really cloud my reading of this. I enjoyed a good deal of it, especially the allusions (as many as I could pick up) and uses of characters, but some of it I did not enjoy (the violence, the sexuality, the course language moments). Clearly Alan Moore is well-read and a linguistic thaumaturge, and his general style is most impressive (especially in "Allan and the Sundered Veil." It's refreshing to read what unfortunately feels like an ancient form of English. My disappointment is not more with Kevin O'Neill's drawings, since he draws the story very well, and most likely only draws what Moore tells him to draw (or whatever their creative partnership was). All I'm saying is I didn't like the violence and sexuality. Call me prudish if you will. I still mostly enjoyed it, seeing as I am generally a big fan of crossovers, and this Victorian Hero crossover extravaganza was well conceived and well executed (regardless of my personal tastes on some aspects).
