DCs biggest strength is also it's biggest weakness...

[frostedone]

And comics in general.

Having multiple writers is good since it gets some variety, employs more people, and we gets some really good runs.

It is also a bad thing sometimes, when people get assigned to write a character that they do not get at all, like Beechen writing Batgirl...

Bad runs also lead to excessive retcons, which I have a love-hate relationship with. They can be used to correct problems, but if the writers did a good job and the guys in charge made sure of that, then there should have been no reason to retcon anything.

Batgirl in the last couple of years was particularly bad, and the ressurrection of Jason Todd should not have happened. They should not have retconned the Clayface pretending to be Jason in Hush...

Basically my main point is that the people in charge and the editor's should assign writers to comics that the writer understands, and there should be more consistency with characters, and less need for retcons.

Anyone agree?

[jackdaw53]

You made a fair number of statements.... some of which I agree with, some I don't.

First, if you stick to just DC mainstream comics I'd actually argue that actually a small number of writers (Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, Gail Simone) tend to have a very pervasive presence. Its not just that they write a large chunk of the "main" comics and events... but that their decisions and styles influence a chunk of other titles. Geoff Johns is particularly influential. So, I'm not sure that wide writer variety is a DC strength right now. From my bias, there's a fair chunk of favorite writers I'd like to get more DC mainstream work. (e.g. John Ostrander, Peter David, Tim Truman, Ed Brubaker, Bill Willingham, Greg Rucka, and Brian Vaughan.)

(But... picture changes considerably if Vertigo titles taken into account.)

In other areas (e.g. Need of getting right writers on each title, and need to reduce retcons) whole-heartedly agree.

[Ghost Shark]

Thinking on it, I'd have been fine with it if they actually brought Jason back during Hush. It was a much more plausible explanation than the Superboy punch.

I like the dynamic of him being back, just as I like the idea of Spiderman being single, but in both cases, the way they were done was a total cheat.

[kingofsnake]

They need to have editors with a more hands on approach to books. Really in more of a "script supervisor" kind of role. I think you could have one editor who was familiar with a number of characters working on several books at once, making sure storylines go in the right direction but also making sure the writers didn't make their characters do something false inorder to propel the storyline. Or to help convey character's personality to certain writers in charge of a book if they don't think that writer is using the right voice.

I think even the worst writer in DC could write a pretty phenomenal book if they were working in conjunction with one of the more experienced staff members.

[earl]

"Thinking on it, I'd have been fine with it if they actually brought Jason back during Hush. It was a much more plausible explanation than the Superboy punch. "


The worse thing is that they explained it at all. If they would not have done that dumb annual story, it would be a mystery and people might not look at that story in the same way. Of course, it doesn't help that they went and then did that dorky storyline in Nightwing, which was complete junk.

If it was me, I'd play it out that the whole annual story is a figment of Jason Todd's fractured mind or something planted by Ra's Al Ghul. If decided to make this actually the 'Jason Todd' that was Robin, I'd make the story straight up that Ra's stole the body and used a Lazarus Pit to resurrect him and then worked on his mind as a tool to manipulate the Detective.