Artist versus Writer: whose more important?

[the invincible ironfran-cis]

What's more important to telling a good story: the artwork, or the actual dialogue? (Not the plot or the storyline). If you could only have one, which would it be?

[Gargus]

The writer.

No matter how good it looks if its boring to read them its pointless. Or the dialouge is convoluted or broken then its frustrating. I hate it when I have to re-read a page 2 or 3 times because the words together dont make very good sense. If it doesnt flow nicely then its annoying to concentrate on what your reading and doesnt stick as well with me.

But then again the artist is also important, but just not as much as the writer. The art compliments what your reading, if they clash then it looses alot. Not everyone can be hitch I understand. Like the art in winter soldier from captain america art wasnt to hot but brubakers writing made it not matter to much to cause I was interested in reading.

If I buy a comic and the art is more interesting that whats being said then Ive wasted my money.....Yes I am looking at you superman story with great art by jim lee and shittastic writing by brian azzarelo.

[drwho]

I have to disagree and say its the art because that is the first thing that is noticed and if it looks bad then you will not know how well it was written because I dont buy books with art i dont like.

[tjarvis]

Writer. I'll never buy a comic because of pretty pictures, but I'll always buy for a good story.

That said, good art goes a long way toward making me consider a book.

[The Shadow]

I have to disagree and say its the art because that is the first thing that is noticed and if it looks bad then you will not know how well it was written because I dont buy books with art i dont like.
Same here.

[drwho]

Writer. I'll never buy a comic because of pretty pictures, but I'll always buy for a good story.

That said, good art goes a long way toward making me consider a book.

That sounds like a George Bush and Bill Clinton answer.

[Alan2099]

A good artist can make a badly written book enjoyable.

It's much harder for a bad artist to make a well written book enjoyable.

[Carlton Donaghe]

I don't understand your question. Whose more important *what*? Was Jack Kirby's pencil more important than his brush? Their more important pair of pants?

[Edit:]

Artist versus Writer: who's more important?

Oh, now I get it!

Artist and writer are equally important. And so's the editor.

[Chiasm]

Did the 90's and early Image comics teach some of you nothing or were you not reading comics then. The writing MATTERS a LOT.

[Sanagi]

Classic silly question.

If you must have an answer, though, it wouldn't be a comic if it didn't have drawings.

[ultimatespyder20]

The writer, without him or her there wouldn't be a story.

Alec

[highwatch]

The writer tells the artist what to draw, without that you can't realy have a compelling story.

That's my opinon.

[Young Avenger]

I have to disagree and say its the art because that is the first thing that is noticed and if it looks bad then you will not know how well it was written because I dont buy books with art i dont like.

I feel the same way.

[Will Moffat]

They are both as important as each other.

Artists convey emotion and context to the dialogue, very important in comicbook storytelling.

[Starkicker]

What's more important to telling a good story: the artwork, or the actual dialogue? (Not the plot or the storyline). If you could only have one, which would it be?

If we're talking about artist vs. writer, in the end the writing gets me to buy a book every month, where a good artist might get me to buy a poorly written book once.

But if the question is art vs. dialogue, it's art. A talented artist can create a great story with zero dialogue.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Classic silly question.

If you must have an answer, though, it wouldn't be a comic if it didn't have drawings.

Not necessarily... have you read Alpha Flight #6?

I agree with Carlton Donaghe: the artist and the writer are equally important. Comics is a visual-verbal medium. The words and the images shouldn't compete with each other for superiority, but should work together so harmoniously that they become a single discourse.

So in my opinion, your question is like asking which of my shoes is more important than the other. They can't serve the purpose they were designed for unless I have both of them.

[joeybdot]

This is just a chicken or the egg, type of conversation.

I say writer. Mainly because I'd fall into that category over illustrator. When I write (not that im a bigshot, or have any published work) I usually write within art terms. For a brief period I wanted to be an illustrator, I can envision everything to the final detail but I can't execute it with line. I can only do it with description (words).

I wrote a few pages for an artist, and I gave him pretty detailed stuff and he whammed it out of the park, with his own vision, and mine being the basis. So therefore I say without one you don't have the other, in comicbooks at least.

[the invincible ironfran-cis]

Classic silly question.

If you must have an answer, though, it wouldn't be a comic if it didn't have drawings.


It is your choice. I don't suppose anyone's choice is silly; there are emotional reasons for it.

Which do you regard as more important to the story? If there were no words: would you be able to enjoy it as much; would you be able to follow it. Is it the written word, or the image that moves you more?

[the invincible ironfran-cis]

In response to my own query: I would say that...

It is the cover of the book (although, traditionally we are discouraged from judging a book by so) that sucks you in; and not even necessarily the insides. I have always judged books by there cover; whether that is fair or unfair.

But, even though I consider myself an artist--rather than a writter--I would have to concede that it is the story telling that is the major contributor to our entertainment.

Consider classic radio theatre for example: when the written word is expressed, it allows you to imagine how the characters would look, entirely on your own. In many instances, I would have to say, very confidently, this has gotten me even more engrossed than by an airing of television episodes of similar plot.

If there were no words, the art would be enjoyable still--but the overall story would be a bore. And consequential, I would (as most I think) cease to continue reading the book.

The art is there for accent. But the dialogue is the meat.

McFarlane, et al, were great detailers of the visual; but not so much of the verbage.

[dingo]

You can't really have one without the other. However...

A good writer will keep me on a book with a bad artist.

A good artist will not keep me on a book with a bad writer.

It used to be that a good artist may get me to pick up an issue I see on the shelves but now the cover artist is so rarely the interior artist that that has become very rare.

[Iron Syndicate]

It's a symbiotic relatioship.

A writer will only benefit from a good artist, as it is the art that intially draws readers in, but on the flipside, it is good writing the keeps 'em coming.

So on the get-go it is the art that's more important, but 5 minutes later the writing takes a front seat.
Even though the two have to constantly be maintained and high quality for the book to work.

[Albert]

You can't really have one without the other. However...

A good writer will keep me on a book with a bad artist.

A good artist will not keep me on a book with a bad writer.

It used to be that a good artist may get me to pick up an issue I see on the shelves but now the cover artist is so rarely the interior artist that that has become very rare.

That's pretty much in line with my view as well. I will tolerate bad art if the dialogue is good and in line with the characters. To a point. If the bad art continues over more than 4 - 5 issues, however, I will very likely drop a title, good story or no.

If the art is excelent and the story poor, I may pick up an issue here and there.. but that's a rare occurence. Linser is the only example I can think of.

[lordlad]

The writer.

I wouldn;t buy a Chuck Auston book even if it's painted by Alex Ross.

[DDM]

The writer is more important than the penciler. Salvador LaRocca is a great artist, but under Chuck Austen & Peter Milligan has drawn some crappy stories.

[Tommy]

Good art can save a mediocre story. However no amount of good writing can save jumbled incoherent art.

[mortari]

The writer.

I wouldn;t buy a Chuck Auston book even if it's painted by Alex Ross.

and...
Gail Simone's 2 issues of Teen Titans were great, even with Rob Liefeld art.

[dingo]

Good art can save a mediocre story. However no amount of good writing can save jumbled incoherent art.

Yeah, but by the same token...

Good writing can save mediocre art. However no amount of good art can save jumbled incoherent story.

So, what are you trying to say?

[Tommy]

Good writing can save mediocre art.

Yes it can.
However no amount of good art can save jumbled incoherent story.
Not true. Great art has managed to salvage many a time-travel/inter-dimensional/clone story. If Bryan Hitch or any of the other photorealism guys were to draw the clone saga I would still read it.

[drwho]

OH no its civil war on the messageboards Proartists vs. Prowriters!!!!! The comic community will never be the same after this debate.

[drwho]

Comics are an art form without the art it is just like reading a book. The art is what defines something as a comic.

[dingo]

Comics are an art form without the art it is just like reading a book. The art is what defines something as a comic.

No, it is both.

Pictures without a story (or plot) is just pictures.

It needs both a story and pictures to be a comic.

[jim1175]

Well if I had to live without one or the other, I could live without the art. Do an experiment for me if you will (I did this myself):

Get out one of your favorite books, even one that you have read already & go panel by panel, page by page, only looking at the pictures, NO READING AT ALL! I got though about two pages before I was having a breakdown. Now try it the other way; go panel by panel reading the book, but DO NOT LOOK AT THE PICS. It didn't bother me nearly as much.

That is how I concluded that the dialog is more important then the art. (The story of course is the key).

I found that this also works with TV; I'm okay as long as I can hear it even though I'm not looking at it, but if I'm watching it & can't hear it... It drives my crazy. Experiment for yourselves & let us know.







No, it is both.

Pictures without a story (or plot) is just pictures.

It needs both a story and pictures to be a comic.

[jim1175]

How about Bob Ross?



The writer.

I wouldn;t buy a Chuck Auston book even if it's painted by Alex Ross.

[jim1175]

THANK-YOU!!!!!



Did the 90's and early Image comics teach some of you nothing or were you not reading comics then. The writing MATTERS a LOT.

[drwho]

I could be reading a Sesame Street comic if it was done by Alex Ross. He is a genius.

[Marc Spector]

Do an experiment for me if you will (I did this myself):

Get out one of your favorite books, even one that you have read already & go panel by panel, page by page, only looking at the pictures, NO READING AT ALL! Now try it the other way; go panel by panel reading the book, but DO NOT LOOK AT THE PICS.

A good experiment.

If you have an artist who is a top-notch storyteller, like John Buscema or Joe Kubert, the art will tell the story very well without words. It's like a silent film- a really good one!- where body language, subtle gestures, camera angles, facial expressions, character relationships, and action tell you what's happening. The dialogue can add to it, but isn't necessary, and can sometimes take away from the story if it's poorly done.

So I would generally go with art first in a comic.

Of course we all know that good art and writing together is best, and something like 100 Bullets is an example where the hip dialogue adds so much to our understanding of the characters. The words are concise and yet often have multiple meanings, like poetry. On the flip side, Risso's art adds extra scenes that delight and add humour, unlike some overly-written stories that are all "talking heads".

[Den]

As long as the art is average or better, it's the writing that matters to me.

But there comes a point where the art gets bad enough that it can diminish even the best story for me.

So I'd say 70% writing, 30% art for me.

[daletron]

writing, i can deal with bad art as long as the writing is great. the art is a plus to me

[Tommy]

Pictures without a story (or plot) is just pictures.
There have been plenty of comics sans dialog.

The writer tells the artist what to draw, without that you can't realy have a compelling story.

That's my opinon.
Apparently some one has never heard of "The Marvel Style."

Did the 90's and early Image comics teach some of you nothing or were you not reading comics then. The writing MATTERS a LOT.
Personaly I found the art pretty terrible myself. But did the 60's and early Marvel comics teach some of you nothing or where you not reading comics then? The art MATTERS a LOT.

[drewkearns]

most definately art, even if a book has a great story if i can't look at it forget about it

[DDM]

There have been plenty of comics sans dialog.




True, but the writer still writes everything; he just uses body language & internal monologues to fuel the story.

[Leebenhouse]

Even.

This arguement is pointless. But as for me, art is uber important, since if you have shitty enough of art, the best writing in the world cant make me keep buying a book.

Writing is the same way, a great artist can save a poorly written book, but only to a certain extent. New Avengers is about to get cut from my list cause of it's bad writing and variably bad art.

[kel25]

It would be nice to see this as a poll.

For me it is the writer. If the story is poorly written or uninteresting it will guarantee that I drop the book. Art is important to because if I’ve heard nothing about a title it will be that art that draws my attention. If it looks good visually I’ll pick it up and check out the story. When the art is bad it hurts the book but I can stick with it. When the writing is bad, even if the artist is Alex Ross, the book is gone.

I have to admit I’m surprised so many people are saying the art is more important. Stories can be told easier with words than pictures. Just go to a library and see what those books have more of.

[Faded]

Writer.

Both are important, but I can enjoy a story with bad art more than a good looking book with a stupid story. But both also enhance one another, too. Hmmm...yeah writer.

[jim1175]

First off it is called "The Marvel Method"

Secondly, the books in the 60's were very well written & that is how they became "classic stories"

Lastly,the 90's Image stuff was pin-up art with no substance. Everyone drooled over the art (most fans not everyone) but the dialog sucked, & that is why they are not & will not be considered "classic stories"



There have been plenty of comics sans dialog.


Apparently some one has never heard of "The Marvel Style."


Personaly I found the art pretty terrible myself. But did the 60's and early Marvel comics teach some of you nothing or where you not reading comics then? The art MATTERS a LOT.

[Siddon]

Depends on the book, I will say this though bad art lives a hell of a lot longer then bad writing. I have never dropped a book or skipped a book because of the artist.

[Jake Lockley]

For me, the writing is key. I have bought comics with mediocre artwork because the writing was strong. However, I have stopped buying comics with good artwork when the writing went south. Ideally, they complement each other, but that isn't always the way it works out.

[jim1175]

You know the original idea of this thread was to compare the art to the Dialog not to the story! Both the artist and the "writer" are telling the same story; one with pictures & the other with words, however the plot is a constant, i.e., it doesn't change. A lot of people are posting comparing the art to the story. The story is the story no matter what. What we are talking about here is whether the visual pictures or the written dialog are conveying the bulk of the story telling & given the choice which could you do with out (would you rather a book with all pictures telling the story or a book with all words telling the same story), in those parameters which is more important?

[Tommy]

First off it is called "The Marvel Method"
OH SNAP! Someone just nit picked in order to avoid the point!

Secondly, the books in the 60's were very well written & that is how they became "classic stories"
Yes. They were. By Jack Kirby/Steve Ditko/whoever. Then Stan Lee would come in and add the dialog that fit the pictures. Thus almost all those 60's stories were driven by the artist.

Lastly,the 90's Image stuff was pin-up art with no substance. Everyone drooled over the art (most fans not everyone) but the dialog sucked, & that is why they are not & will not be considered "classic stories"
Which was not the point I was making. (I did say that I thought the art was terrible.)
True, but the writer still writes everything; he just uses body language & internal monologues to fuel the story.
Only in certain collaborations. I have seen enough comic scripts to know how much the artist contributes to facial expressions and body language (more or less all of it).

[The Mirrorball Man]

I'm more a fan of the medium than a fan of any specific genre, so for me, the writer and the artist are equally important, and I'm much more interested in comics where the artist and the writer are the same person.

[lordlad]

A book with good writing but bad art is still readable and still can be considered classic (eg. Animal Man by Grant Morrison)

However, a bad story with good art doesn't make it a comic book..i rather called it a picture book (the recent Justice series comes to mine. Alex Ross's art is just mindblowing but the Story by Jim Krueger is 'meh'...i wouldn't call it bad but it's forgettable)

[jim1175]

[QUOTE=Tommy]OH SNAP! Someone just nit picked in order to avoid the point!

I wouldn't have corrected you if hadn't been so smug when you responded to the other poster, you could have explained your point rather then talked down to him.


Yes. They were. By Jack Kirby/Steve Ditko/whoever. Then Stan Lee would come in and add the dialog that fit the pictures. Thus almost all those 60's stories were driven by the artist.


Well originally, Lee scripted & wrote everything. It wasn't until the books really took off and more titles were added that he developed the "Marvel Method" to which you referenced. But even then it was Stan Lee that was coming up with the story & telling it to the artist (what he wanted to happen), the artist would draw the story based on the outline given by Lee & then Lee would add the DIALOG and the captions (and the sound effects). If Stan didn't put the verbiage that he did to go with the pictures, the stories might not have been classics! Don't misunderstand, I am in no way putting down the artists, they were/are the best, but this thread is comparing the story telling ability of the art vs. the dialog and I think that the written word is telling the story more then the art.


Which was not the point I was making. (I did say that I thought the art was terrible.)


Again, I'm not asking if you thought that the art was good or bad in terms of whether you liked the drawings, the question is did you think that the art was effective at telling the story and if so was it more effective then the written dialog?

[Tommy]

I wouldn't have corrected you if hadn't been so smug when you responded to the other poster, you could have explained your point rather then talked down to him.
It is a relatively simple point, with little in the way for explanation.
Well originally, Lee scripted & wrote everything. It wasn't until the books really took off and more titles were added that he developed the "Marvel Method" to which you referenced. But even then it was Stan Lee that was coming up with the story & telling it to the artist (what he wanted to happen), the artist would draw the story based on the outline given by Lee & then Lee would add the DIALOG and the captions (and the sound effects). If Stan didn't put the verbiage that he did to go with the pictures, the stories might not have been classics! Don't misunderstand, I am in no way putting down the artists, they were/are the best, but this thread is comparing the story telling ability of the art vs. the dialog and I think that the written word is telling the story more then the art.
You would probably generate a lot of debate about that. Kirby's assistant stated that everything that flowed out of the Kirby/Lee team were Kirby/co-creations and neither really contributed more than the other. However he also notes that once Stan became busier "Jack was largely on his own to figure out the details of each story, if not the basic plotline." The most famous example probably being the story where Stan gave Jack "The Fantastic Four fight God." and Jack came up with the entire Galactus trilogy. And then there is this article (http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/24compare.html) from the Jack Kirby Trader which talks about how much Kirby contributed to the Fantastic Four and how the partnership went south due to Stan rewriting Kirby's plots. (Note that the Him storyline is not a classic, while Galactus is.)

And I personally think the Fourth World counts as a classic, which was pure Kirby.

Again, I'm not asking if you thought that the art was good or bad in terms of whether you liked the drawings, the question is did you think that the art was effective at telling the story and if so was it more effective then the written dialog?
If I think the art is terrible and the writing is terrible and I going to think it is effective as a comic?

[PhoenixBoyX]

You can't really have one without the other. However...

A good writer will keep me on a book with a bad artist.

A good artist will not keep me on a book with a bad writer.

It used to be that a good artist may get me to pick up an issue I see on the shelves but now the cover artist is so rarely the interior artist that that has become very rare.
100% agree. Took the words out of my mouth.

Yes, the art is important: ie, awful art takes away from a great story. However, I don't feel awful writing takes away from great art. For me, it just kills it. If I wanted to just look at pretty pictures with no dialogue (which is to me what awful dialogue is), I might as well go to a museum or just look at online art. The writing is just too important. If the character all look cool but talk like morons, I'm uninterested.
-Nick

[jim1175]

It is a relatively simple point, with little in the way for explanation.

Just because you are aware of something, you shouldn't ASSume that everyone else knows about it.

You would probably generate a lot of debate about that. Kirby's assistant stated that everything that flowed out of the Kirby/Lee team were Kirby/co-creations and neither really contributed more than the other. However he also notes that once Stan became busier "Jack was largely on his own to figure out the details of each story, if not the basic plotline." The most famous example probably being the story where Stan gave Jack "The Fantastic Four fight God." and Jack came up with the entire Galactus trilogy. And then there is this article (http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/24compare.html) from the Jack Kirby Trader which talks about how much Kirby contributed to the Fantastic Four and how the partnership went south due to Stan rewriting Kirby's plots. (Note that the Him storyline is not a classic, while Galactus is.)


I'm happy to call Kirby the co-creator. That was not the issue!



If I think the art is terrible and the writing is terrible and I going to think it is effective as a comic?

WHICH ONE IS MORE EFFECTIVE AT TELLING THE STORY????? THE ART OR THE DIALOG??? It isn't that hard of a question?

[TransformersFan]

Rememeber the New X-men issue by Morrison with no dialogue? It's the one where Emma Frost and Jean Grey travel into Professor X's mind? It had almost no dialogue, but with Frank Quietly's great art it told a neat story. I wonder if the same could be said if it had been done by someone not up to par.

[Cephus]

Absolutely the writer. If the story is amazing, I'll put up with stick figure art, but the most amazing, wonderful art on the planet can't save a rotten story.

[Ikaris]

Both, but:

51% The writing.
49% The drawing.

It became clear to me when i flipped through the Runaways hardcover and didn't really like the art. I bought it anyway because of the great reviews.

The excellent story, made me appreciate the art!

[thebeast]

I think both are important. it's a very simbiotic realtionship. However, I think the artist is slightly more important simply from the standpoint of it's the first thing you see.

As soon as you look at the first page you know wether you like the art or not. With the writer you need to get through the story and see where they go with it before you can decide. For my money, if I pick up a comic and can't look at the artwork, I probably won't even bother with anything that follows.

--thebeast

[Sean Walsh]

That's tricky.

Fundamentally, the writer's way more important.

But since certain books and creators are treated like big blockbuster movies (SUPERMAN/BATMAN, NEW AVENGERS) the answer would be "the artist." Even though blockbuster movies' stories might suck....it still sells because the art looks super great and the company hype sucks enough people in to buy it.

If you lack a good story, and your bad story deteriorates over time, the people will only be able to take so much from just the flashy showy art. So in the end the writer is more important, IMHO.

[Darkoth]

Anyone who says writer should stop reading comics and read novels instead.Comics are a visual medium,meaning an artists medium.If it were film,the artist would be the director,cinematographer,the actors,set designer,etc.The writer would be the guy who handed him the script.

[dingo]

Anyone who says writer should stop reading comics and read novels instead.Comics are a visual medium,meaning an artists medium.If it were film,the artist would be the director,cinematographer,the actors,set designer,etc.The writer would be the guy who handed him the script.


First off, the question is who is more important. Those of use who feel the writer is more important should not simply give up comics and read novels.

Your hardline views implies that you would be just as happy to pay money each month for an artists portfolio.

We all buy comics for the story, both the artist and writer have a part in portraying that story. I just happen to believe the writer has the part most integral to the success of the comic.

[Darkoth]

First off, the question is who is more important. Those of use who feel the writer is more important should not simply give up comics and read novels.

Your hardline views implies that you would be just as happy to pay money each month for an artists portfolio.

We all buy comics for the story, both the artist and writer have a part in portraying that story. I just happen to believe the writer has the part most integral to the success of the comic.

Could you explain to me how the writer is more important when the artist is doing the bulk of the work,bringing four color life to the written work?

[dingo]

An earlier post of mine...

You can't really have one without the other. However...

A good writer will keep me on a book with a bad artist.

A good artist will not keep me on a book with a bad writer.

It used to be that a good artist may get me to pick up an issue I see on the shelves but now the cover artist is so rarely the interior artist that that has become very rare.


The writer is more important to the story.
The writer crafts the story as a piece of art.
In my opinion, (which is all I am trying to justify), the artist is only required to make sure that the story can be followed. They are only required to be competent at their craft for me to enjoy a good story.

[chickrockguitar]

I have to say, "Artist". Yeah, I'm one of thsoe people that, no matter how good the story is, if I don't like the art, then I find it REALLY hard to read. And so in that case mostly, I don't.

I think comics is about the art. Afterall, if you want a good read, then pick up a prose novel. Not that the writing is unimportant to comics, becasue it is. If the art is there and the writing is not, it kind of a lets down the art, in a way.

Just my two cents :)

[Sean Walsh]

Could you explain to me how the writer is more important when the artist is doing the bulk of the work,bringing four color life to the written work?

Because without a good writer, the artist is just drawing stuff with no good flow or meaning or point.

[dingo]

I think comics is about the art. Afterall, if you want a good read, then pick up a prose novel. Not that the writing is unimportant to comics, becasue it is. If the art is there and the writing is not, it kind of a lets down the art, in a way.


Same point as I made above...

If by my placing more importance on the writer I should read a book, then by that logic by prefering the artist you should look at a portfolio.

I (we?) read comics because I think they bring together most of the best elements of story telling. I just thing the writer (the one who plots the story) is the most important.

[SpartanX]

I must say Writer, mos def. But I always love a good artist. Both are important, but hey the writer creates the story.

[Darkoth]

An earlier post of mine...




The writer is more important to the story.
The writer crafts the story as a piece of art.
In my opinion, (which is all I am trying to justify), the artist is only required to make sure that the story can be followed. They are only required to be competent at their craft for me to enjoy a good story.

I agree that an artist must be a competent draftsman and storyteller to tell a story convincingly,even if thier heart isn't in the work.Buscema's Avengers comes to mind,but how far more enjoyable his work is on Conan.Still,a guy like Buscema is a demi-god in the creative proccess unique to comics,while writers have a seperate set of talents more suitable for written prose.Some writers do understand the mechanics of sequential storytelling and are an asset in the creative proccess,but they are not the ones who ultimately put the most work into it.It's the artist working 13 hours a day or more,six or seven days a week,page by page who put the heart and soul into comics.I mean you no disrespect dingo,(I enjoy reading your comments) but I just can't fathom why people would give equal credit to writer and artist.

[dingo]

This is probably just going to be a case of agree to disagree, which is fair as I can see most of your points are valid opinions.

Except this bit...

Some writers do understand the mechanics of sequential storytelling and are an asset in the creative proccess,but they are not the ones who ultimately put the most work into it.

I think you are selling short the process of writing a comic. It is not the same as writing a novel or script. "Some writers" is a bit of an insult to the skill required to tell a story in that manner, and the brilliant way the best writers do it.

[Darkoth]

This is probably just going to be a case of agree to disagree, which is fair as I can see most of your points are valid opinions.

Except this bit...



I think you are selling short the process of writing a comic. It is not the same as writing a novel or script. "Some writers" is a bit of an insult to the skill required to tell a story in that manner, and the brilliant way the best writers do it.

Perhaps, I'll admit that I am a bit jaded,particularly with the influx of big name writers from other media making a bid in the world of comics.Have you heard Dan Slott's thoughts on "decompression"?

[dingo]

Perhaps, I'll admit that I am a bit jaded,particularly with the influx of big name writers from other media making a bid in the world of comics.Have you heard Dan Slott's thoughts on "decompression"?

Yes I have :)