It's not false in the case of Invisibles. But it was awesome, probably because he was out of his head whilst writing it.
I haven't been amazed by Grant Morrison's work since the 2000s. His last great work was The Filth, perhaps. I'll always look at his past work with affection and respect, but his takes on Batman and Superman are a waste of his great talents, and things like Seaguy and We3 are just ideas crudely cobbled together. I'm also getting very, very tired of his ego and his personality, name-calling Fantagraphics and Chris Ware for no reason, writing Supergods, which was an ode to all the times corporate comics screwed creators, his ridiculous defense of Brad Meltzer (anyone who uses the adjective Joycean to describe Identity Crisis is suffering from dementia), his blindness to his own shortcomings - I continue to wait for a brave interviewer to list, one by one, every instance of rape in his own comics, right in his hypocrite face! -, and his constant attacks on Alan Moore, which Moore is courteous and mature enough to ignore, it all just makes me feel fatigued with Morrison and his work.
My main problem with most of his work is that it seems to be missing something though I'm not entirely sure what it is. It really bothers me it some extent because I ordinarily like stories of the type that he writes, I love having to really dig into a story to figure out things and I absolutely love that Morrison can take a forgotten piece of history and bring it back into the light. For some reason though I haven't liked the majority of his work because of its missing something that I guess must be criticial for me it be able to enjoy it.
Characters come and go, revamped and revisited. But as long as you enjoyed them, remember them and continue to appreciate them, then that character, your hero or heroine, will always exist.
Because the dude is a great writer who tells enthralling, interesting, fun, and often serious and dark stories. He blends so many genres together, he makes things work that shouldn't. His characters don't ever stand around explaining their motivations to one another(and the audience). He's a fantastic storyteller.
My brother and sister of the atom.
We are the X-men, and we stand together
"Once the context of depth has been added, some automatically give him the benefit of the doubt and go out of their way to look for hidden meaning."
The comment about him being akin to a jazz musician / improvisation works.
Morrison has flatly stated in pitches and in interviews that he gets his best ideas when he's in the midst of writing his work, the nitty gritty. That's why he doesn't do final dialog and narration until he sees the artwork. The whole concept of the Giant Bat in Batman: Return of Bruce Wayne, for instance, was born of Andy Kubert's design work.
But improvisation doesn't mean throwing things against the wall randomly and hoping they stick. He understands the greater themes he's playing at, the feelings he's trying to invoke, the statements he's trying to make in a broad sense, and he understands fundamentally how to do it. You can only improvise well when you have an almost instinctual, and complete, command over the form you're working in.
But he's not starting his books with intricate graphic representations of plot points and character interactions for the next 63 issues. He doesn't know how every bit is going to play out. That's Hickman, and Moore. That isn't Morrison or Gaiman.
Secondly, Morrison's so-called "attacks" are just him respectfully disagreeing. The fact that Moore does less criticizing of Morrison's stuff is just more of an indication of how he doesn't really read other people's comics anymore, whereas Morrison is more active in reading other peoples' work and being vocal about it.
Moore is always taking the piss out of other writers. The idea that he doesn't regularly talk about Morrison because he's being courteous in this rivalry is just silly and badly misinformed.