Talk:Lost Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lost Girls article.
Article policies
Wikiproject Oz
Oz Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Oz, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Oz and Wicked series. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

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)

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.
I dn'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: http://www.alanmoorefansite.com/news.html Curiousbadger 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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))

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)

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.


[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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, appereed 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)
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)
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)

[edit] How many have the "Lost Girls" Book ?

Of you do places info into the article !--Brown Shoes22 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add to the Synopsis

What is to be add and what to leave out ?--Brown Shoes22 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Removed POV

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'll posting them here.

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 mentionned - 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).

Peteashton 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

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))


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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))
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)
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))