Talk:Lost Girls (graphic novel)

Comics: British Mid‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by British comics work group.

Oz (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oz, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OzWikipedia:WikiProject OzTemplate:WikiProject OzOz articles

Completion of series

Moved from page:

I have only seen issues 1 & 2 of this 3-part series, and am not sure if it was ever completed. If anyone knows whether it was, please post a note or update this info. --User:PatrickSalsbury

As far as I know the company producing it pulled the plug because of financial problems and Moore & Gebbie finished it but never found an outlet for it. If anyone finds out anything to the contrary please also let me know! user:sjc -Undated

A hardback edition is available from Waterstones... I'm not sure but it seems to be a collected set of the 3 volumes? Can't likn to it sorry, something odd about the site Bottlegreen roses 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's some updated info from Top Shelf which I have added to the article. I also fixed it up - it was VERY badly written in many respects. One change I made was removing the quote "The series is an attempt to reinvent pornography as something exquisite, thoughtful and human," not because it doesn't belong but because in one of the previous article's many shortcomings, there was no indication of who said this! Was it Moore? Gebbie? One of the publishers? Some fan? If someone knows, they should feel free to add it back in. -Unsigned

I don't know where this was placed initially in order to add it back in, but those words are on this page, accredited to Chris Staros. Curiousbadger 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Oz/Wonderland Chronicles?

A first time editor drops in the mention on the page and I am wodnering at the relevance. It reads as though it is an extension of the story but it is a separate storyline and I'm unsure if it is needed here (there is a big list of things on the pages for the characters). If it is worth including on the page then how about sticking it in a trivia section and making clear it has nothing to do with Lost Girls or Alan Moore (its by Ben Avery and Casey Heying)? (Emperor 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see how it is relevant for Lost Girls... I'd say it should be removed. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to have it appear as an "extension" of 'Lost Girls'...merely a note to say that the three stars of 'Lost Girls' reunite [or is it that Fate does the reuniting?] on what they themselves might decide to be a permanent basis. It shouldn't be removed...that's drastic. Just...seen as the proper intention of it's inclusion, and not how you've accidentally interpreted it. And my name is Stripey, by the way. -Unsigned

Copyright status

The exact wording:

301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play 'Peter Pan' by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31 December 1987. ([1])

I got rid of the dead link to a BBC article. Barring other information, I think it's best to have Moore's take on the copyright status along with the most literal reading possible. Whether or not "adaption" covers this sort of thing is the $64000 question, but for the time being, it's probably best not to throw around absolute statements (unless someone who knows more about copyright law than me can definitively say whether or not this is allowable). Stilgar135 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like whoever found the statement from Moore that "the hospital only holds the rights to performances of the work, not to the individual characters" be better documented, as neither of the links in that part cite this. I don't doubt it, as Moore is one of the greatest copyright and fair use experts of whom I'm aware, but verifications IS necessary. Icarus 23 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this wording sufficient? "But both the book and the play are still in copyright in the UK. There could be an argument that this could infringe on our copyright." [1] There's also this [2] but the wording isn't much clearer, particularly regarding dates. Curiousbadger 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good from here. I can't agree with Moore's contention that the UK copyright transfer only covers the play -- 'Peter and Wendy', published in 1911, appeared AFTER the play, first presented in 1904, and a derivative work of the then-unpublished script. Selling the 'Lost Girls' book in the U.K. would therefore violate its copyright.

However, there's nothing to stop individuals in the U.K from ordering it fronm the U.S. for their own personal collections (but that's kind of outside Wikipedia's scope...).

IIRC, an act of Parliament provided an eternal copyright on teh work in the U.K. because of the charitable nature of Barrie's bequest. I'll try and cite references if anyone wants, later. Icarus 23 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Top Shelf's catalog says that they won't accept orders from UK or EU until 1/1/08. Fitfatfighter 09:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Citation #2 up there leads to an article that appears, to me, to be riddled with inaccurate information RE: US Copyright Law. Icarus 23 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the synopsis

What is to be added and what is to be left out?--Brown Shoes22 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer connection?

Has any reliable source made the connection between Lost Girls and the Tom Lehrer song "Smut", which contains the lyrics

"When correctly viewed,

Everything is lewd.

I could tell you things about Peter Pan,

And the Wizard of Oz — there's a dirty old man!"

The coincidence seems notable to me, but has any reviewer mentioned it, or asked Moore about it in an interview? (Translation: I'd like to put it in the article, but realize it's original research unless someone else has noted the connection.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed POV

Charles Dodgson (though it is only extremely strongly suggested and never stated) even appears in "Looking-Glass House". However, the Charles Dodgson we all now was genuinely in love with Alice, but never got involved with her romantically, let alone sexually. Sadly and shockingly, the "suggested Charles Dodgson" who appears in Lost Girls is depicted as a child raper !
Astonishingly, the Cheshire Cat is never mentionned in Lost Girls! (Only one picture of it can be found - with no line of text and no dialogue that hints to it throughout the three books). This is hard to understand, considering most characters are depicted and/or mentioned - even "minor" ones (such as the dormoouse and the dutchesse's son or even Toto - while Tinkerbell, though never called that way, is clearly suggested to be Annabelle).

I removed these two paragraphs from the Style and references to the "original" girls section due to POV and them verging on being a review, but there's possibly something salvageable from them so I've posted them here.Peteashton 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense - the abundance of exclamation marks is a clear sign it has overstepped the mark. The "Style and references to the "original" girls" section seems OK now although it could be bordering on original research if not too careful. Would it be wise to move controversy to below this section? (Emperor 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Why remove the section about it being more than porn?

Can anyone tell me why the section was removed that explained that 'the work was more than mere porn: it was about the girls reclaiming their sexuality,' removed. No one mentioned why they were removing it as it is the only section in the article explaining what the book is really about. If no one can explain this I'm going to re-add it. The "porn" thing is imo just marketing and explaining that this particular description is only partly true is certainly within the scope of an encylcopedia entry.

The paragraph was original research. —Ashley Y 07:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was at the time, I doubt you'd consider it that any longer, since many reviewers such as Gaiman reflect this idea that it is more than porn and explain this exact concept very indepthly. Tyciol (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter connection?

Since Wendy's husband is named Harold Potter, I wonder if there is a connection to the "famous" Harry Potter? I haven't been able to come up with any data to support the connection. However, I'm curious to know where the various "non-famous" characters come from. Do they all have models in literature? -User:jcorneli

The series was actually created before Rowling's. There is an interview (I can't quite remember where) in which Moore jokes that he could probably sue Rowling, but is unlikely to bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.67.249 (talk) 17:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Format/publisher/date

While it's important to note that the first part of the work was published in serial form, I don't think it's correct to identify the work as a "series" "published by Taboo" "in 1991" as the infobox now states. Both attempts at serializing it in the 1990s were cut short, with very little of it released (or even created at the time), and - by the creators' choice - the work was not published as a whole until 2006, when it was done in the form of a graphic novel. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stood it was misleading as it is closer to a trade paperback than a graphic novel. Granted they finished the series and included it all in the final volume but the key is that it was started in 1991 as a series (Oddly Alan Moore seems to be the victim of this a lot). However, it is a complex situation, which is why we have a publication history, and there is nothing against being more specific in the infobox. In fact there are extra bit to {{Supercbbox}} that allow for more information - I'll give it a tweak as it might be a step in the direction of making everyone happy. (Emperor (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

A slipcased hardcover is not a "paperback", at least not how the term is understood in common English. Calling Lost Girls a "series" is rather misleading, since most of it was never published serially and the creators deliberately withheld the bulk of it from publication until it could be published in total, which was their ultimate intention for the work, even in 1991. A "series" is something like Detective Comics, which is intended for regular serial publication, and any collected edition is an afterthought. This work is a graphic novel, a small part of which was previously published in chapters. (Does anyone consider Oliver Twist something other than a novel just because it was once serialized?) The most accurate way to describe it is as a GN published in 2006, with the previous publication of the opening chapters mentioned as a historical note. And the publisher is a small art-comics publisher known as Top Shelf, not the lowbrow tits-and-muscles studio of Top Cow. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trades can come in softcover and hardcover editions. Also yes I think it is important that serialised stories are mentioned as such in the infobox - see e.g. The Hound of the Baskervilles and A Study in Scarlet (we should obviously take our precedents from examples that get it right after all). The fact that most people think of some older serialised stories as novels doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted as having been serialised - part of the point of an encyclopaedia: presenting the reality and not the general public perception. ;) :::The best way to present it is as what it is: originally serialised with the story being completed in the collected volume. (Emperor (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove this article

The article has no connection with Oz or the real story of Alice and should therefore be removed from wikipedia. --Fancy.kira (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion seems to fly in the face of the source material and all relevant discussion and knowledge surrounding Lost Girls, including the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. The notion that this is a version of "Alice" is supported throughout numerous interviews already cited in the article, including the Suicide Girls interview where Alan Moore states "... we’re talking about a pornographic book that involves Dorothy, Alice and Wendy". Even if one were to ignore this and conclude that there is "no connection with Oz or the real story of Alice", the work by noted author Alan Moore would still exist and be of potential interest. In fact, Fancy.kira's objection makes the article potentially more notable, as Lost Girls stands as an example that popular characters that enter the public domain may be written or characterized in ways that sticklers for the original work may find unsettling or undesirable. Preppy (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy.kira, this is not a legitimate reason for removing an article. This is a notable book that exists in the real world, and that's the standard that Wikipedia uses. Please read WP:CENSOR. Furthermore, you are misusing these templates. If you really want to pursue this campaign to censor Wikipedia (despite the assurance that it will not be successful), I suggest you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to learn the proper procedure. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person obviously does not understand the criteria for inclusion and exclusion in Wikipedia. Anybody who tries to delete this article's going to have a tough time of it. Tyciol (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic?

One thing this article does not address is just how graphic this graphic novel is. Does it contain the kind of explicit pictures that would warrant an X-rating were this a film? Or is it more in the words and topics discussed that it is a "pornography"? LordAmeth (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sexually explicit, and I've added that phrase to the lead. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. I ended up reading it a few days ago, and while it was definitely much more graphic than I might have preferred, the fact that it's drawn makes it a very different thing. An interesting read. LordAmeth (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reviews

www.salon.com/2006/08/30/moore_26/

“Lost Girls” Aug 30, 2006; by Douglas Wolk

Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie's shocking X-rated masterpiece takes three childhood heroines and plunges them into sex-soaked adulthood.

"The curious — or curiousest — thing about “Lost Girls” is that while it’s enormously powerful and gorgeously executed, it’s not actually all that sexy ... though, it’s a victory as art, which is not a bad condolence prize. Like any number of boundary-pushing, button-pushing works before it, it may well require some kind of scandal, or at least a high-placed moralist’s denunciation, to find the audience it deserves. It’s spoiling for a fight, and it’s worth fighting for."

www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v3_1/reviews/sandifer.shtml

Review of Lost Girls by Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie

2006 Philip Sandifer, Interdisciplinary Comics Studies

"If I've one fear on the subject, then, it is that, despite the controversy and ensuing conversation that Lost Girls is going to engender, it will be rendered to the same dust pedestal to which we exile Maus and Sandman – works so self-evidently great that we seem never to get around to discussing them."

-71.174.175.150 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lost Girls (graphic novel)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This page has a serious problem: there is no information on the fact that the story, at it's heart, is really about victims of paedophillia reclaiming their sexuality.

This is a really important point, as it distinguishes this work as literature, and not pornography, despite whatever Alan Moore says while marketing the product.

If I get some time and get to know wikipedia's procedures better, I will address it. However, I would welcome anyone with more knowledge of the system to contribute, as the current entry really gives short-shrift to the work.

Last edited at 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 22:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004081524/http://comicsalliance.com/lost-girls-britain-alan-moore/ to http://comicsalliance.com/lost-girls-britain-alan-moore/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2006/6/2006_6_24.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scifi.com/sfw/interviews/sfw13282.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lost Girls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001160418/http://www.blogto.com/tno/2006/11/sexy_fantasy_heroines_not_welcome_here/ to http://www.blogto.com/tno/2006/11/sexy_fantasy_heroines_not_welcome_here/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]