The idea that Alan Moore is a genius who deserves great respect has become an over-used aphorism in the comic community.  No one rejects this notion, but that is not necessarily a positive thing.  Alan Moore has made great contributions to the prestige and depth of comics with works like Watchmen, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Batman: The Killing Joke, and V for Vendetta.  Readers adore these volumes and sometimes with good reason:  Watchmen is thought of as not only the best comic book of all time, but Time Magazine also hails it as one of the best novels of all time. Furthermore, Moore has made great contributions to Swamp Thing and other important characters in the comic cannon.  However, aside from Watchmen, none of these other stories seem to necessarily deserve the prowess they have accrued.   
 
V for Vendetta is a far better movie than it is a novel.  The decisions made by the characters in the movie directed by   James McTiegue feel much more logical to the story line and are far more moving.  Consider the different decisions made by main sleuth, Finch in the comic and the film:  In the comic, Finch is personally responsible for V's death as an almost accidental result of being high on LSD.  In the movie, Creedy and his thugs mortally wound V as part of V's own plan to be rid of both Creedy and Sutler. Finch later has the opportunity to stop the demolition of parliament, but instead allows Evey to throw the lever and set the end catastrophe into motion, thus freeing the citizens of England.   This poignancy here is thorough and beautiful, bringing the story to a more meaningful end than the novel provides.
 
Additionally, The Killing Joke remains an important factor in the comic industry and is almost solely responsible for creating the character, Oracle, but the story feels strained and the characters again seem to be acting in a way unfitting to their personalities.  Having Batman practically plead with the Joker in the beginning of the story was painful and weird, and the story of the Joker's origins seemed contrived, unconvincing, and silly.  Additionally, the Joker's attempt to convert Gordon also seemed obnoxious and would have felt much more realistic given a few more pages to offer the story more appropriate breadth and reasoning. What the Joker made Gordon see was horrific, no doubt, but we needed to get a better sense of how that might be not just troubling, but a key tipping point, before we would accept that this might theoretically result in an extreme personality change.  All of the characters of this book are greatly complex, and deserved a better handling and a richer story as readers might find elsewhere.
 
Lastly, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was a clever way to blend British Literary characters in a different medium and plot-line, but no part of the story felt particularly "genius" so to speak.  The story was fun but no more than Conan the Barbarian or Final Crisis.  It didn't convey any particularly important meaning, it didn't change the comic universe, and it really wasn't that profound.  This isn't to say that comics must meet those criteria, only that the comics from a so-called genius or master-mind should probably be a higher caliber. 
 
Is it possible that complexity, boldness, and wonder that comes from Watchmen helps guide all other Moore creations? Does the one story have such a strong pull to it that we are willing to sweep all other things Moore touches under the umbrella of greatness?  If so, perhaps it's time to take a second look before we're willing to pass all of this by as the best of the best. 
 
What do all of you think?  Does Moore deserve this title or by giving him such accolades are we overrating the bulk of his works?

I think he does, his stories are always interesting and often contain many complex issues. As an anarchist he is also happy to challenge the social norms and sometimes that can result in a much more thought-provoking take on the superhero/literary genre. I'm nearly always entertained by his subsequent works.

I don't think he is the best I think he had the first say just like Dark Knight Returns not that complex a story but since it was the first to show some certain subject matter it is called the most brilliant. This is how I look at Alan Moore he wrote the earliest takes on dark and political things in comics or at least the most popular so people remember this as groundbreaking.  The Killing Joke felt strange not the best Batman story and even Moore himself said he did not think it was that good.
 
I will disagree and say V For Vendetta was a much more interesting graphic novel then a movie it felt like the movie missed some points. League was actually some of my favorite Alan Moore work I tend to like Moore allot better when he is just telling stories. This might sound strange but I think one of his most enjoyable works is Wildcats.

I think Moore is a great writer...and he knows it. And I don't think I really need to say much more than that...

Alan Moore is one of the greatest writers in comics unfortunately he is also abit of an asshole but many brilliant people are like that. 

I've enjoyed everything of his that I've read so far
And as for the V for Vendetta comment I disagree, the novel was much better than the movie

Grant Morrison is the best, but Moore is brilliant. Unfortunately, he is also a giant twit at times. 
 
Your comments about V for Vendetta and the Killing Joke are completely wrong though, I haven't read League so I won't say anything about that.

I've only read Killing Joke and Watchmen, so I can't say much, but I think he's an okay writer, but I don't think he's the best, every writer has their own style of how they tell a story so no one is actually "the best", call is a cop-out, but I'm going with that answer.

Personaly hes one of my favorites. I love the league of extraordinary gentelmen. I also have from hell, watchmen, v for vendetta, complete future shocks, killing joke and some swamp thing. I feel for his style Moore is the best at what he does, i have to say i disagreee with the v is a better movie than novel comment thou. The film is margainly worse than the novel in my view. But in general i think Moores works  ar eboth entertaining and quite unique with some masterful touches included.  There are other writter who are at Moores level of influence but i enjoy more of his titles than i do most of them.

I've said this in several places, but I'll repeat it here (hopefully, in short): Moore is the absolute KING of reinventing old characters, or of writing that character that's similar to a favorite of our youth.  He writes good satire (if you know what he's referencing).  Often, he does both at the same time.  However, when it comes to original works, I don't think he's all that.  I either haven't liked the original work, or the solicitation left me "ho-hum" enough to not even bother reading it. 
 
Recent articles on CV and CBR have revealed that Moore has a pretty high opinion of himself, and that was a little bit of a turn off to the guy's writing, for me.  A little.  I'm not gonna lie: I'll probably read the next big Alan Moore work, when it's collected in TPB - I usually enjoy them.  Just not when it's all original material.  Fortunately, it's usually not.

" I've had this argument with many people so I won't reiterate it here...but I will say I am reading his back-catalogue in as much of an entirety as I can before I come to a final decision but as of right now, he's certainly not the greatest comic writer I've encountered. He's usually a pretty good one though. "

"

I've said this in several places, but I'll repeat it here (hopefully, in short): Moore is the absolute KING of reinventing old characters, or of writing that character that's similar to a favorite of our youth.  He writes good satire (if you know what he's referencing).  Often, he does both at the same time.  However, when it comes to original works, I don't think he's all that.  I either haven't liked the original work, or the solicitation left me "ho-hum" enough to not even bother reading it. 
 
Recent articles on CV and CBR have revealed that Moore has a pretty high opinion of himself, and that was a little bit of a turn off to the guy's writing, for me.  A little.  I'm not gonna lie: I'll probably read the next big Alan Moore work, when it's collected in TPB - I usually enjoy them.  Just not when it's all original material.  Fortunately, it's usually not.

"

"I too get annoyed with his arrogance. He dismissed Blackest Night because it was following up on an idea he introduced years ago. Um, Alan, Watchmen came out of characters that were invented decades before too, what's the difference? "

I tried to post this to the blog and I think I failed on a rather epic level so I'll post it again here:    
 
I think in some fashions this raises another interesting debate: Is Alan Moore creative?  Of course we have to decide what constitutes creativity and who would actually exemplify such a trait, but I think it does deserve some examination.  I think I would answer yes, he is creative, but I would have to admit that there is something really tantamount to comic invention in the creation of a character or characters.  In this sense, Stan Lee may be one of the most if not the most creative man in comics, which we would probably also widely accept, and Moore might then fall behind.  Nearly all of his famous works use borrowed characters.  In fact, are there any that don't? 
 
Additionally, cbishop pointed out to me that this may not be an issue of creativity, but more an issue of originality.  I like this idea more, though I think the two have some intertwinement (yes, thats a real word).  What do you all think?  How much do we credit Moore with either?

Alan Moore  is the second Greatest comics writer of all time only Jim Shooter is better....

Undoubtedly one of the best.
 
Even the OP doesn't really make a good case against it, so this seems like a bit of a senseless stir to me.
Not every story he writes has to be outstanding, many authors considered 'great' have only a single book to their name. I'm sure everybody can find something of his that they find totally terrible, after all he's written a lot, but that can be said of any prolific writer.
Basically, topic title is a bit pointless, but I'm sure that the point within the post (that not all his pieces are necessarily great), is solid.

" @turoksonofstone: I'm going to restate this here so maybe the rest of you can chime in and upbraid me for not knowing, but who the hell is Jim Shooter? "

" @aerozol: Is your picture of a smiling Kiwi?  "

Alan Moore wrote "From Hell", Watchmen","V for Vendetta",etc.etc.etc.Don't forget all of his mainstream superhero work almost all of which is classic, The ABC stuff was fantastic. He deserves the "Genius" moniker. He earned it in the Industry and outside it through the Power of his work he deserves all the credit he gets. Nuff' Said True believer.

I may disagree with what you say, but you definitely bring some reasonable arguments to the table and state your point with meaning. I respect someone who has the gall to step outside the fold and state his opinion even if it's contrary to everyone else. But with so many crappy writers out there, do we really need to be so picky about the greats? Let's just be glad V didn't have Liefeld musculature and sport huge shoulder pads and guns.

Well, he did change comics with ''Watchmen'' and he never sells out. So I have to say he is my favorite comic book writer.

He's good, but I don't think he is a genius. I think that term is over used, and its meaning has become watered down.

Yes, you idiots!