Originally Posted by epb
That's one perspective. Mine is that Moore has/had interesting ideas, but they're typically based on someone else's work/works: League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Miracleman, The Watchmen, even V for Vendetta was Zorro moved to Thatcher's England (the graphic novel, I mean). And his work is rendered formulaic by his neuroses (name something Moore's written that doesn't include a rape scene - you may succeed, but it's more difficult than it ought to be).
And Zorro is Robin Hood in 19th century Mexico.
You can go on and on. I think you're unfairly setting the bar a little too high here. Most stories we read and watch have thematic elements taken from other stories so I don't think that's a fair critique. It's been this way since man first started telling stories. It's what storytellers do with the characters within the world they create that matters. When you look at what the characters actually do, the only real thing V and Zorro have in common is that they're both vigilantes and they both wear hats; that's about it. In fact you could argue that Zorro has more in common with Batman than V.
You're also painting in some pretty broad, sweeping strokes by saying that an author's entire body of work is rendered formulaic by personal neuroses. How does a neurosis even affect things like theme and plot structure, two elements that Moore proved he has an exceptional command of? Not once when I've gone back to read stories like Watchmen over the years have I thought that, "Ya know, the plot structure, character development, symbolism, and themes employed here really seem to stem from Moore's fascination with rape."
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. Maybe you need to clarify a little bit more.