The Art Of Comic Book Writing: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly v1.3
This is the third version. The original post (on the earlier message board) vanished into a black hole when it was 'rotated out'. The second version, worked from an early draft of the lost version, was posted on the GIT Corp forum. The new third version (1.3) is an extension of the second version. It introduces a couple of new points on the techniques list, adds a couple of writers, and also changes a couple of ratings.
*** CONTAINS VARIOUS SPOILERS ***
When I bought my first Marvel comic book in the late 1970s, I frankly did not care much for the plot. It was enough for me to see all those costumed characters with wondrous powers slugging it out. The more different characters with wild powers I came across, the more I liked the books. Flashy art certainly did not hurt either.
However, I became very soon increasingly aware of the fact that despite the medium (comic book) and the genre (superhero fiction), it was *still* mainly about one thing: story telling. In the end, what mattered was what the story was like. The bottom line was: it was either a good story or a bad story. An enjoyable story was an enjoyable story even if the art was terrible (as it often was, really!), and a bad story could not be saved even by fantastic art.
After reading Marvel comics for 10 years (by late 1980s), I could single out and list comic book authors whose stories always impressed me and left me craving for more; as well as some other authors whose stories were almost always disappointments.
I'm listing here my personal favorite Marvel writers, and I will also try to explain my (personal) criteria for listing this or that writer into a specific category. The categories go from 5 stars (unconditionally superb) to 1 star (really bad). However, since my primary intent is to praise the writers that I like rather than bash the ones that I don't (and possibly make them feel bad should they happen to read this post), I chose to omit the "2 stars" (disappointing/one-hit wonders) and "1 star" (really bad) categories, for the sake of nicety. If you don't see a well-known writer listed here, it *could* be that I happened to put him/her in one of those categories. But the listing is *far* from complete. I'm just focusing on some of the 'big-name' writers and deliberately omitting some 'minor' ones that didn't really stand out from the crowd, at least for me. Furthermore, you'll not find some big-name writers who achieved great success elsewhere but did not write much for Marvel (e.g., Alan Moore) or whose Marvel books were not that convincing or noteworthy (e.g., certain other blokes). Or maybe they just wrote one book/character (Mike Baron, did you ever do anything but Punisher for Marvel?), and I want to read several different books before making up my mind. Finally, I have omitted some writers who keep shifting between the categories, making it impossible for me to rate them, and some writers because I just did not have enough material to study or enough time.
Of course, what makes this rating difficult is the fact that it is not always clear how much the writer is actually responsible for in a story. A good example: Chris Claremont's final years at Marvel before his eventual resignation at the beginning of the 1990s. He was credited for scripting some stray X-Factor issues (apparently he just wrote the dialogue and was in no part responsible for the story - which IMO was not a very good one, btw). He was also nominally responsible for writing a space adventure in his final TUXM issues (a story that was definitely sub-standard compared to his usual output) - however, in an interview Jim Lee boldly stated that *he* was actually responsible for 95% of the story and Chris just wrote the words (the dialogue). Jim Lee also postulated that the readers never even noticed this - oh well, I guess there must have been some younger readers who didn't. An older example would be Stan Lee's collaboration with Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, and the other greats. It was not always clear how much of the plot and the characters were actually the artist's creation - but you can find some hints. For example, compare the first post-Kirby issue of Captain America to the preceding issues. I would say that the change in style (and story quality) is huge. Yet, both periods are attributed to storywriter Stan Lee. Likewise, the Lee/Ditko team would produce stories very different from the Lee/Kirby team.
Because of this dilemma, I have tried to list only writers whose writing I know from several different titles and who have worked with several different artists. In such cases, I think it would be fair to say that I have by now formed some idea of the writer's personal input and writing style.
And finally, before I give the actual list, I will point out some techniques that I find characteristic of good comic book writers. Take heed, all aspiring (and current) comic book writers who happen to read this! While these are simply my personal findings, they *are* based on a long personal experience. Typically, an author who made my 5-star category was well fluent in all of these.
1) Enrich the Marvel universe
Good writers frequently contribute characters, concepts and themes which become permanent parts of the Marvel universe. You do not necessarily even have to keep inventing entirely new characters: explore an existing little-known character and give him a personality (this is what Chris did with Wolverine - gradually, with Byrne and Miller, turning a minor character into one of the *big* ones).
Poor writers simply rehash the old existing stuff or introduce poorly thought-out characters that are quickly (and mercifully) forgotten by the other writers and readers alike. Or undo the exact purpose of this point by rationalizing/explaining away ideas and concepts contributed by earlier creators without offering much in exchange. Their 'rationalizations' are often not satisfying in any sense and only result in further contradictions and confusion in the comic book universe - and eventually need to be retconned away or ignored by the later writers.
2) Find the balance between light and shade
Pretty much anybody can write pompous, dark and gloomy stories. Or crazy parodies in the vein of 'What The..?'. But can you write integrate both humor and a sence of dark menace in the same story - credibly? A good writer can. Without the light, there can be no shadows, and without the shadows, the light would not seem that bright. Even Goethe knew that.
3) Find the correct mood for the book
A bad writer writes all books the same way. Or simply the wrong way. The Spider-Man is not supposed to be a dark and sinister horror-story book (at least it wasn't, until Todd McFarlane got his own Spider-Man book). Ghost Rider is not supposed to be a comedy book. The Mighty Thor is not supposed to be a commentary on the modern society, at least not primarily. Etc.
4) Draw on the existing mythology
When a bad writer starts on a book, he (apparently) often says: "I don't want to read the older trash. Now look, *I* will tell *my* stories, f*ck the previous crap." And then he ignores/trashes characters and storylines that had been lovingly and carefully developed for years by the previous writers (probably even kills off characters he is not interested in); instead, he introduces new storylines that are simply bland compared to the previous ones. The old fans of the series will hate the writer for this, and the new readers will get a completely twisted idea of what the series is/was like.
A good writer will have done his background research first and knows how to employ the existing story material, characters, and themes and exploit them to the fullest.
5) Keep the reader intrigued
You will want the reader eagerly expecting your next issue. There are several plot devices that you can employ to achieve this.
Subplots: Gradual buildup & exposition, vague hints, unexplained mysteries, mysterious strangers, and such. Something that looks very minor and trivial when it occurs the first time but gradually turns out to be something very major that could have serious effects on the main characters' lives or the whole Marvel universe. The art of subtly constructed subplots escalating into major events was lost a long time ago.
Mystery: This is the classic means of intriguing the reader. Secret identities, mysterious backgrounds, whodunits & howdunits (locked room mysteries), they all belong here. Who is the Hobgoblin? Why does the new superhero insist that we must never ask about her past? Where did Wolverine's adamantium come from? Who murdered Captain Muscle - in a sealed room - and how? Why is a man walking with a purple mule in the desert? DC (appropriately, "Detective Comics") has a great tradition of such 'detective' mysteries in books like Batman and The Elongated Man.
Surprise: Do not write painfully predictable stories. If a reader can guess what will happen in the next issue, you have already lost the game! Keep 'em guessing - and then surprise them completely! Drop enough clues to make your readers say "I *should* have seen that coming!" when you drop the bomb, but make sure that they *didn't* see it coming. Your clues should be vague, confusing and misleading enough so as not to give anything away.
But - if you use the plot devices Mystery and Surprise, NEVER cheat your readers! "Cheating", in this context, means not giving enough relevant clues to your readers, outright lying to your readers (rather than just confusing them), and/or coming up with an extremely implausible and unsatisfactory resolution. I consider the real identities of Bloodaxe and Marnot examples of such cheating. Your readers will be disappointed if they feel cheated - they want at least a sporting chance at cracking the puzzle. Heck, even in the DC Identity Crisis, all the clues you really needed *were there* - and it was still pretty unlikely that you could figure it out until near the end of the main series, i.e., when a startling discovery was made in the autopsy. Even at that point, you were probably wrong about the murderer's identity and motive - but at least you *could* have figured it out...and that's how a puzzle *should* be constructed! The Identity Crisis (which I did not even like as a story) was 'fair' in the detective fiction sense, but Bloodaxe and Marnot were not.
Change: Do not simply retell the same stories over and over ("Now, let's have Spidey fight the Vulture again... next issue, another battle with Doc Ock...." that kind of stuff). You will want the book to change. If the reader knows that - after the current crisis that the hero is encountering - things will be back to normal again (business as usual), how can you really ever surprise the reader? Your big storyline must eventually result in big, permanent changes. Or at least there must be a very real _chance_ that such changes will occur. The reader will never know when/if they do, and that'll keep them guessing.
Note that you should be very wary of "permanent changes" that involve deaths of characters who have been in the book for a long time, especially if you have not introduced lots of new characters to replace and obsolete them (see point 1 above). Otherwise they'll be back from the dead before next Christmas, sure as death & taxes. You just don't kill off Aunt May without providing new equally interesting supporting characters first. Or if you do, you will have to provide a retcon explaining that it was not really Aunt May who died and the real Aunt May is still alive. Been there, seen that happen. And don't even mention One More Day...
6) Learn the art of writing self-contained standalone stories
Today, pretty much everybody is writing terribly overinflated n-part stories. It's not even fun anymore - especially since most of those stories could have been easily condensed into one or two issues, if written in the 1960s or 1970s style. Ask yourself: do I *really* need so many issues to tell this story? Do I need 15 issues, would 12 issues suffice? If 12 issues would be enough, could it be as easily condensed into 10 issues? Etc.
There's nothing wrong with writing long, epic stories. Several writers in my 5-star and 4-star categories have done that very successfully. But that's *not* what we are getting these years. Instead, we are getting stories that aren't long because they are epic (they *aren't* epic!) but that are long because, well, they are long. This problem, symptomatic of modern superhero fiction, is often derisingly called 'decompression' by the fans of classic superhero fiction.
The writers in my 5-star and 4-stories categories have demonstrated a skill that lesser writers seem to lack, especially today: the skill of writing single-issue standalone stories. When the lesser writers (rarely) attempt one, the best they can come up with is a pathetically simple filler issue with a neanderthal plot. A good writer can, in a single issue, tell a complete story that is as complex as a 4-parter by a lesser writer. Or even more complex. It's merely a matter of storytelling skill. (See also point 9 below.)
You do not have to sacrifice your subplots for such single-issue stories - and you should not! For example, have the main character meet someone (from the longer subplot) on one page in your single-issue story, and elaborate on the meeting later. Or display a sinister dialogue by some 'behind-the-scenes' characters on one page.
7) Develop those characters
Remember - your characters are not supposed to be just a horde of Joe Average clones. They should have different backgrounds, different personalities, different goals and motivations, etc. You will want to have characters that readers can identify with or sympathize with. You will want the reader to understand the characters. A good way of achieving this is writing a one-issue story (see 6 above) from the viewpoint of a specific character.
Good minor (supporting) characters can also be a major asset for a comic book. What would TASM have been without Aunt May or J.J.J. - or the rest of the Bugle staff, or Peter's classmates? Or the Mighty Thor without the Asgardians?
One of the main reasons why the Ant-Man never took off in the Silver Age like TASM or some other core books was, I believe, the lack of supporting characters. You had the Ant-Man and the Wasp, and that was it. They had no civilian identities, no friends, no regular supporting characters or anything like that.
Keeping points 2 and 3 (above) in mind, if a character's personality traits have already been established in the earlier stories, do your utmost to remain consistent with them - do not make sudden major changes to established character personalities! Do not turn the Spider-Man into a giggling sadist who beats the heck out of people just for fun. Do not turn Captain America into a playboy with a serious libido problem who tries to hit on underage girls. Do not turn Wolvie into a boring university professor. Do not give the Silver Surfer the Impossible Man's sense of humor. Etc.
Thought balloons, although not in vogue these days, are an excellent device for fleshing out your characters. Show us how your characters experience what is happening, how they interpret the situation, why they decide to do what they do, what they choose not to say aloud, etc. By using thought balloons, you can let a character become the narrator of the story from his/her perspective - even for a page or two. Apparently, thought balloons are being actively discouraged by modern editors. Nowadays comics tend to be scripted like movies, i.e., mostly action and dialogue, and very few thought balloons, which are generally not practical in movies (except as a disembodied voice, which does not really work for all kinds of movies). But please do not neglect this device - it has been used to great effect by some of the best writers. And it does not actually even matter whether you place the text specifically in a thought balloon or in a caption, as long as it is clear that it is the character's voice and thoughts.
Of course, the device can be bad if used stupidly. Let's take a very simplified example. Our hero is ambushed by an unknown masked enemy. If you give the hero thought balloons that say "He caught me by surprise! Who is he? No idea! I've never met him before! He hits me! Ouch! That hurt! He hits me again! And again!" or something else as inane/obvious, your readers will soon wish that you weren't using thought balloons at all. So try this: "He's stronger than I am, but seems to be holding back. Wait! That symbol on his mask, I've seen it before...where?" Presto! Still not the greatest script ever, but at least you have turned the thought balloons into a storytelling device.
8) Learn how to write intelligent characters
An intelligent character can be a major asset in the hands of a capable writer. And since we are dealing with supercharacters here, simply smart/intelligent is not good enough, we want super-intelligent, super-smart - the super equivalent of Sherlock Holmes. The intelligent character can take an almost narratorial role by explaining to the other characters (and the reader) what is going on; he can anticipate the enemy's next move and can play a major active role in determining how the story proceeds. And more often than not, he will divulge far less than he knows.
Some of the best examples that I can think of are Thanos by Jim Starlin (especially in the final issue of Warlock Chronicles) and - surprisingly - Brainchild, as written in TUXM #458, definitely one of CC's finest moments since his return to Marvel. I never thought I would ever see a book where I like that character, but Mr Claremont achieved the (nearly) impossible here.
As a corollary to this point, I should mention that super-STUPID characters, too, can be a major asset - for comic relief. Consider the Hulk in the Defenders (as written by Gerber), or the second incarnation of Drax the Destroyer (as written by Starlin). And then there's a whole comic book series by Sergio Aragones, featuring a monumentally stupid character...
9) Learn the art of layering stories (Warning: advanced pupils only!)
The real eye-opener for me was the following comment by Roger Stern when asked whether comics should be targeted to kids or more mature readers:
I have no problem with comics targeted to "mature readers" (or immature readers, for that matter), but my personal preference is to write stories for all readers. It is quite possible to write stories on multiple levels, so that both younger and older readers enjoy them.
( http://marvelmasterworksfansite.yuku.com/topic/5494?page=6 )
When I read this, I realized that I had liked Stern's stories a lot when I was young. But I still like them a lot even though I'm not exactly young anymore. Not so with some other stories which I had liked when I was a kid. I think Mr Stern is on to something here.
But that is just one aspect of layering your stories. You can also layer different plotlines, different timelines, different narrator/character perspectives into a single story. How? You've probably already read one story which is a perfect example of this: The Watchmen (DC) by Alan Moore. You can read it a number of times, and you may still spot something new, making every reading experience fresh, almost as if you were reading it for the first time. It is more than just an intellectual exercise by the writer to make the reader go "Wow!", it actually enhances the reading experience and the re-readability value. I'm not saying that every story (or any other story!) should be as complex as The Watchmen, but if you want to see how layering works, that's your number 1 stop. And even if you don't go for Watchmen complexity, be aware that if your plots can regularly be summarized as "getting from point A to point B", your few readers are likely to be a very bored bunch of readers. Remember, you wanted to intrigue them (point 5 above), not lull them to slumber.
Obviously, this is something that should not be even attempted by hacks and amateurs - if they do, they'll just end up writing some unreadable pseudoartistic nonsense (see 12 below). Start cautiously, experiment, and learn as you go.
10) Find your own voice
Do not simply imitate what the others have been doing - they are better at doing their own stuff than you will ever be at imitating it. Of course you can always *learn* from a master, but that is not the same thing as blindly plagiarizing their styles.
11) Think outside the comics - think outside the box
Where does a good writer find his/her inspiration? Well, it is obvious that the writer has to do his homework first (see 3 and 4 above). But if you stop there, your stories can be little more than pastiches of some other writers' styles (see 10 above). Even if they are perfect, they will be nothing more than perfect pastiches. To break out of this vicious cycle, you will have to look farther, beyond the boundaries of comic books. That's where the best loved writers have found their inspiration - and fused it into the comic book cosmology.
The Mighty Thor provides a telling example of this. There have been creative teams who have cited Lee & Kirby as their all-time favorite creative team on Thor (nothing wrong with that, Stan & Jack's Thor run can justifiably be called definitive). But their own output reads like watered-down versions of Lee/Kirby Thor, bland and boring. Now consider Stan & Jack - *they* were not basing their most famous Asgardian stories on some other comic books. They found their inspiration in various sources (mainly Norse mythology, but also other sources like Shakespeare), which - integrated into the Marvel Universe - gave their Thor stories that unique vibe. The same holds true for the other significant Thor writers as well: Walt Simonson was inspired by the Eddas and Tolkien, Roy Thomas applied his knowledge of classic literature, etc. You can actually notice that in their writing, which - at best - transcends conventional comic book narration and achieves something deeper.
You can also find this in other titles: Claremont's X-Men stories were influenced by scifi/fantasy literature and movies, Starlin's cosmic stories by his university studies (psychology, among others!), Peter David's newer X-Factor stories (as well as some of his Hulk stories) by his love of film noir, etc.
12) Know your limits
Do not attempt to make your characters speak 'Asgardian' (Shakespearean) English if you have absolutely no idea of the grammar and have to go by the guess, scoring far more misses than hits. You will just end up with headachingly broken expressions like "thou speaketh" (which is, by the way, the Shakespearean equivalent of "you speaks").
Do not attempt to write intelligent characters (see 8 above) if you are not up to it. Chances are your 'intelligent' character will emerge as an annoying snob who is merely spouting meaningless eight-syllable words. That is not smart, that is actually pretty stupid.
Do not attempt to write complex, multilayered storylines with a billion subplots and danglers in Chris Claremont's 1980s style if you are not up to it. You will just end up confusing your readers (and yourself). And no, it does not help even if your name IS Chris Claremont - it just makes things worse.
In general, never showcase your ineptitude to the reader! Exhibit your strengths, not your weaknesses.
So there. Here's my list. (Remember - this is a very PERSONAL listing.)
----------------------------------
***** 5 STARS ***** (unconditionally superb - I'd buy anything by these writers)
Stan Lee (at his best): What can I say? The man who is responsible for starting the majority of the Marvel books that we read even today and penned some of the best and most enduring classics, who am I to blame him?
Chris Claremont (up to his resignation at the beginning of the 1990s): What would the X-books or the whole X-universe be without CC? Yet he was no less masterful in his handling of single-main-character titles such as Spider-Woman or Iron Fist. The ideal embodiment of the storytelling principles as outlined above. An exceedingly versatile writer ranging from the homely to the terrifying. His versatility is well documented even in his different X-titles alone: TUXM, New Mutants, Excalibur. Same writer, yet very different in tone.
Roger Stern: The Midas of classic superhero fiction writing. No matter which book he turned to, he always produced nothing less than stories that would end up as unquestioned classic issues of the book in question. Always inventing new surprising twists, yet always consistent with the theme and mythology of the book that he was writing. True, he can be held as somewhat responsible for the Spider-Man's 'power inflation' that would follow in the 1990s - after all, I don't think that many of the earlier writers would have thought of pitting the Spider-Man one-on-one against the Juggernaut, let alone letting him *win* - but the way Mr Stern wrote these stories really cannot be disliked.
Steve Englehart: One of the big underrated comic book writers these days. Surprisingly versatile, and especially adept at writing 'cosmic/mystic' characters & stories (such as Doctor Strange). Oh, that doesn't mean his Batman (DC) stories were any worse! Englehart is one of my favorite Dr. Strange writers of all time, and since Doc has always been one of my favorite books, you bet I have a very deep respect for Mr Englehart.
(In fact, all my 5-star writers have have written very good Dr. Strange stories. While this obviously cannot be expanded into a general rule, it provides an interesting personal heuristic for evaluating writers.)
----------------------------------
**** 4 STARS **** (great with some minor reservations)
Walt Simonson: If I had made this list 20 years ago, Walt would have been in the 5-star category for me, without any question. Why the demotion? Well, mainly because - when re-reading his Thor run (by far his best work ever) - I realize that it is not *quite* as satisfying as I originally thought it was. The problems are mostly thematic, mainly related to mixing modern society and technology with Asgard & the Asgardians a bit too much. And then there was some uninteresting filler stuff like Judge Dr... er, I mean Justice Peace. His Thor started out gloriously, but after the Surtur saga, he seemed to have run out of really good ideas. Even the (generally great) Surtur saga was flagging towards the end. The end of Simonson's Thor run, climaxing in the Destroyer-Thor story, was brilliant, though.
The same could also be said of his FF. The big, bigger, biggest cosmic story was exactly what the book was all about, even if I didn't quite get the ending (to prevent Galactus from destroying the universe in the future, the FF destroy it themselves???). But the issues that followed seemed somewhat lack-luster.
All his stories were always very good - but not all of them were masterpieces.
Frank Miller: What he did to Daredevil, one can only praise. He took a 'second-rate' Marvel book and turned it into one of the big ones. One could even argue that he was the first one to give that book a distinct identity. Why not 5 stars? Personal preference, really. What I don't like about Miller is that some of his stories are excessively violent just for the sake of exaggerated graphical violence. Or so it appears.
Gerry Conway: Excellent storyline pacing and subplot development. A good balance between new characters and reappearing old characters. However, his style was not ideally suited to all titles that he ended up writing. He was clearly more at home with the more down-to-earth books than with the scifi/mythological stuff (like FF or Thor). His TASM issues are very good; IMO, they compare very favorably to the Lee/Romita run.
Len Wein: Stylistically quite similar to Gerry Conway but sometimes balances dangerously on the razor edge of credibility. For example, the 1976 story where Doctor Octopus 'resurrects' Hammerhead - I thought it was a bit weird when I was a kid, and now, re-reading it as an adult, the story is simply ludicrous.
Grant Morrison: An unprejudiced and unique writer. He knows how to construct gripping plots. My only complaint is that he doesn't really adapt to the mood of the books that he is writing - instead he forces them to adapt to his mentality.
David Michelinie: A versatile and prolific writer, in some ways slightly reminiscent of Roger Stern IMO, although with a very individual style. But Stern has a better understanding of the books that he is writing. Michelinie's TASM - while very enjoyable to read, especially with McFarlane's striking if unconventional art - was a major deviation from the earlier style of the book. On the plus side, he introduced enduring new characters such as Venom, the second genuinely *scary* big archnemesis for Spidey (The Hobgoblin, created by Roger Stern, was the first). On the minus side, he accelerated the Spider-Man's 'power inflation'. "The most powerful hero in the Marvel Universe" storyline was surprising and interesting, but it seems have given Mr Michelinie's successors the wrong kinds of ideas.
Peter David: A very talented writer. I wouldn't be exaggerating much if I said that he is my favorite Hulk writer ever, bar none. The gray Hulk as underworld muscle storyline was superb - despite the g*d-awful art. My only complaints are related to some of the new characters that he introduced, mainly the Pantheon and Trauma and everything related to them - they didn't really seem to quite fit in with what I expected from the book. But his X-Factor on the other hand, brilliant - both the early 1990s run and in the curren 2000s run. Marvel should really cling on to this writer!
Mark Gruenwald: Solid work on several titles, verging on greatness. The Squadron Supreme was nothing short of superb, one of the greatest superhero stories ever published by Marvel - or by any publisher, for that matter. Also his involvement in the big epic Thor storyline that culminated in #300 - an excitingly fresh take on the Twilight of the Gods, avoiding the old cliches while preserving the sense of apocalyptic grandeur - remains as one of the finest moments of the Mighty Thor, probably second only to Stan & Jack's and Walt Simonson's greatest achievements. His long run on Cap was also solid and mostly enjoyable, but also contained what I consider the most misguided CA story idea ever. I am of course referring to the Superia storyline where Cap's female adversaries tried to turn Captain America into a WOMAN. Uggh.
Peter B. Gillis: A grossly underrated writer - probably because he was usually only given class B or C titles and limited series to write. He has a very keen understanding of hermetic lore and symbolism, and he applies this knowledge to great effect. The epic Lovecraftian Doctor Strange storyline in Strange Tales Vol 2 is what I consider his crowning glory and one of the most haunting Dr. Strange stories ever penned. Some of his earlier stories do not quite rise to this level of greatness: not even Gillis could save the sinking ship that the "New Defenders" had become, but his work on that title can be viewed as the apprentice piece before his actual masterpiece.
Jim Starlin: His cosmic crossovers are the stuff of legend. He writes Thanos better than anyone else does. Oh, he does Darkseid just as superbly. Hmm, I wonder why...
Another aspect which makes Jim Starlin's cosmic sagas stand out from the rest is that they are tend to be more more complex metaphysically and somewhat less juvenile than your average cosmic slugfests. Apparently, university studies can't be all bad!
----------------------------------
*** 3 STARS *** (good/readable)
J. Michael Straczynski: A very talented writer, who cannot quite abandon his science fiction mannerisms when writing superhero fiction. In the FF this worked out pretty well (after all, the FF is probably the most 'scifi' of the core Marvel titles), but for the Spider-Man this was somewhat problematic. His Spider-Man stories were certainly very readable, but frequently pitting the Spider-Man against cosmic menaces on the Babylon 5 scale just... feels wrong. This is what I mean by the Spider-Man's 'power inflation'. Remember, the Spider-Man used to have arch-nemeses like a senile bald senior citizen with mechanical wings and a mentally unstable overweight scientist with mechanical tentacles. Also, some of his plot ideas for Spidey were rather boneheaded (Gwen Stacy and the Green Goblin, anyone?).
Roy Thomas: Given the amount of books that he was writing at one stage, it is hardly amazing that some of the titles suited him better than the others. Sadly, one of those that did not suit him quite that well was Thor - which happened to be one of my favorite titles. Not bad, but he was easily upstaged by the other Thor writers. (His 1990s Thor was downright horrible, though.) On the other hand, his early FF was easily as good as some of Stan's late stuff. Originally a Marvel reader, Roy Thomas is incredibly well versed in the details of the Marvel universe. By the way, wasn't it Roy Thomas who made it official that the Hulk was "the strongest there is"? But RT's vast understanding of the Marvel universe did not always translate into outstanding stories. As an aside, Roy's Conan comics were good even if a bit repetitive and predictable. In any case, I liked the comic book stories better than the second Conan movie (The Destroyer) that he was also involved in.
Kurt Busiek: The 2000s' equivalent of Roy Thomas. Again, his Marvel scholarship is breathtaking, but this does not always result in great stories. The Spider-Man's Untold Stories did not (IMO) really add anything particularly interesting to what had already been told by Lee & Ditko several decades ago. His Avengers read like an endless rehash of old stuff that was trying to cry out, "mom, look how much I know about the Marvel universe!" His Defenders was pretty much the same. Add to that, I disliked the way he handled some of the Defenders characterizations. Namor was pretty much the only Defender whom he portrayed well 'in character', that is, as being self-important, cocky, arrogant, and irritable - Namor has a well-established reputation for being all that.
Busiek's Thunderbolts, on the other hand, was a brilliant series and probably his greatest Marvel Comics achievement ever. His involvement in the worst and most needless retcon in the history of Marvel comics remains the only real blot on his reputation. I'm referring of course to the 'resurrection' of Jean Grey back in the 1980s. It was done in a way that effectively annulled one of the greatest CC/Byrne epics ever ("Look, it never even was the real Jean Grey! It was just some weird alien entity that had assumed her likeness!"). Even I could think of ways bringing Jean Grey back *without* ruining the older, better story (I'm especially fond of the one that I modeled after Goethe), and I'm really puzzled that Mr Busiek could NOT. Apparently there was a dummkopf editor who wanted a retcon that specifically said the real Jean Grey never was the Dark Phoenix, which made things harder, but not impossible.
J.M. DeMatteis: A unique writer. Some of his stories work out pretty well, such as his Defenders stories and some of his Spider-Man clone stories. But he also accelerated the Spider-Man's power inflation with characters like Judas Traveler. Earlier he had an obsession to make the villains have pitiable mental breakdowns, a mannerism that tainted too many of his 1980s stories.
Marv Wolfman: Stylistically, from the same 'school' of superhero writing as Conway and Wein, but with a tendency to produce lemons more often than either of the two. Spidey's big showdown with the burglar who shot Uncle Ben was one. Why the heck did Peter remove the mask? Oh yeah, I know, he was so angry he was beside himself. But by then we knew that the poor burglar would simply have to die because of that, since there was no other way of wrapping up the story.
(Obviously, if I were rating DC writers here, Marv Wolfman would pretty much have to be in the four-star category.)
Larry Hama: A rather action-oriented writer, a hit-and-miss-affair. Definitely had some good moments, but typically his storylines tended to degrade as they progressed - take for example his Wolverine. Fine superhero action at best but at some stage he just crosses the line of good/bad taste. The same goes for his Avengers, although the gradual 'degradation' was not as marked as with Wolverine. And, heck, Rage was cool - a 1990s version of Luke Cage!
Hama's not-strictly-Marvel-universe G.I.Joe probably remains his best achievement.
Archie Goodwin: Another relatively action-oriented writer, he can be a bit similar to Hama, but without some of Larry's nasty habits. Archie did not write all that much, but what he did he did in pretty enjoyable style.
Steve Gerber: What is (was) this guy smoking? I want some of that! Well, not really - my brain would probably implode. In general, I like wackiness in comics (after all, the original CC/Davis Excalibur was a big favorite of mine, and even Morrison's Doom Patrol had a certain charm), but Gerber is a bit too much even for me. The Headmen (Defenders) and flat-wrecking Volkswagens (Captain America) make my head hurt. Especially in CA, that kind of wackiness was IMO out of place. That said, Gerber's books were almost invariably enjoyable to read. You certainly never knew what to expect next... and Gerber would always come up with something even wilder than anything you could have imagined anyway. Or, if you did, you must have escaped from a looney house. This is your brain on Gerber...
Chris Claremont (since his return to Marvel Comics): What the h*ll is wrong with Chris these days? His newer stories are like ghastly parodies of his former style. His big return to the X-Books (the Revolutions/Neo issues) resulted in some of the worst X-books published back then. His FF stories, a little before that, were admittedly much better, but kept getting contaminated by stray X-characters that did not really sit well in that book. True, Chris seems occasionally to be catching up again, but just when you think his stories are finally getting somewhere, his health fails him and he has to abandon the project. And most of what used to make him great rather than just ok/good is still missing. Where is the development of character personalities? Where are the wacko, surprising ideas that turn the whole book around? Where are the subtly escalating subplots? I've no idea - does even Chris know?
Stan Lee (at his worst): Not even Stan Lee was always having good days. On a bad day, he would (and did) write pretty mediocre stuff. For example, his first Cap issue without Kirby was rather embarrassing (the art was nice, though). Despite his earlier attitude about Rick wishing to be a new Bucky, Cap suddenly has an inexplicable change of heart (!) and takes Rick-Bucky - of all places - into the NY sewers (!) where they just *happen* to bump into an HYDRA operation (!) and so on... things get really absurd here. Probably one of the real lows in Stan's writing. I hope he has a really good excuse for it, like he was on a tight schedule, drunk, drugged, AND had a gun barrel held against the back of his neck.
----------------------------------
** 2 STARS ** (disappointing/one-hit wonders)
(list censored because I'm a nice guy)
----------------------------------
* 1 STAR * (really bad)
(list censored because I'm a nice guy)
----------------------------------
