First, we'll focus on the content. Then we'll focus on style. This is nothing new. For comics, there are some I've bought for art, some for the content and a few (very few) for the mixture. I loved Gaiman's Sandman for it thoughts but the art was merely passable. Likewise for Invisibles and even Morrison admits that by the last volume, the art and editting had rendered his work nearly unreadably incoherant. On the other hand, there are the art books like anything by Alex Ross, Linzer and Monk's Angel series and almost anything by Perez or Zulli. There are more, I've left out lots but my list isn't why I'm posting this review.

As usual, Alan Moore has a lot on his mind and is electric in the way he tells it. In this case, its a post-Stephen-King-On-Writing done Moore-style with lots of cross references to his own work. That is both legitimate (Moore is a true innovator) and appreciated (I've like his stuff forever). There's a lot to tell and Alan does it well and succinctly.

As to the style, this book is awful. The type is set as block-justified which means that some paragraphs are s t r e t c h e d which is difficult to read. The pictures seem to have little relation to the material and the book itself was poorly constructed.

I have a primary complaint in that sometimes the publishers don't take their comic material seriously. I found a series of Moore's Swamp Thing series that was published in England that was, inexplicably, completed in black and white. Similarly, I found Neil Gaiman's Alice Cooper graphic novel (which is one of those rare style AND content providers) but it was published in BROWN...completely in brown. The picture, the words, everything. Hmm, are misprintings in comics worth anything? I know in coins they are...

Combine the two and you have here a 4, which tells you how much I like Moore's ideas on how to write for comics. What's more, the same advice applies, I believe, to any writing is invaluable.

So, if you're thinking of buying because you have an interest in writing...do so, but focus on the material and not how it is presented which is just fair.

"Short but very good", This is a collection of essays Alan Moore wrote in 1985 about writing comic books (with a follow-up essay from 2003 at the end). Actually, it's more about being a creative storyteller, not so much about comics. As you read the text, you realize that the nuts and bolts of panels, pages, and word balloons mean very little in comparison to honesty, inventiveness, intent, and understanding of your own talent. Alan Moore makes this clear as he writes, advising the aspiring writer to consider what he's doing long before he gets to the point of wondering how he can stack ten panels into a page.

Moore uses his own experience as a guide. Although he had not yet written (or completed) some of his greatest comics, by 1985 he had been working in British comics for years. He was also working on Swamp Thing and Miracle Man at the time. He uses Swamp Thing examples more than any other, which is good. That was the first great period of Moore's work, when he turned comic book writers into superstars along with illustrators. He describes one of his more daring stories of the 1980s --- a Swamp Thing issue in which menstruation is tied to a werewolf story --- from the ground up. First he had the social idea, then he came up with a framework for it, then he wrote the pages and panels.

Reading this short volume is a real inspiration for anyone who wants to tell stories. The advice here can liberate a writer from distractions and lead him (or her) toward the creative decisions that matter most. The final chapter adds a wonderful twist. Moore recommends that you avoid a personal style and focus instead of personal growth as an artist. Success should lead to experimenting, not a rut in which you tell the same lucrative story over and over. Alan Moore lives his life this way, so his advice has some well-earned authority behind it.

"Fascinating", Dear other Writer, i forgive you. I forgive you for comparing Alan Moore to Millar, Ditko and Stan Lee! Argh. The other three dorks are not even in the same league.

Nonetheless, it`s true what you said about Alan Moore`s Writing for COmics: It's a very facinating view into the mind of one of the best writers in the western hemisphere. It`s baffling what he writes, because it's very simple, reminds you of your own doubts about your writing and pushes you to constantly change your views and perspective. I find his remarks about the damn neurosis very helpful, in which he acknoledwges that sometimes he finds his own works very distateful and can't even bring himself to admit that the one who wrote this has even an ounce of talent.

It's very familiar, isn`t it? Writers have a difficult time seeing their works objectively. We tend to exaggerate the quality or diminish it. It's very reassuring that one of the great writers has the same troubles and problems. It's very comforting, because you know it doesnt mean youre crazy or a bad writer when you find your own stories sometimes unreadable.

So this "book" is not a how do to in the common sense, but two masterful essays for the more experienced writer who has mastered basis storytelling and writing processes. Very helpful, indeed...