Tom King's Batman or Scott Snyder's Batman

[The Lonely Man]

Snyder, not even close, Snyder probably wouldn't make my top 10 in an all time favourite Batman writers list but I'd take him over King every single time.
I'm at the point now with Kings run I'm really close to dropping Batman, after almost 30 years.

Bat rhymes with Cat. We get it.

Batman under King has been relegated to a bit part player in his own book, can't do anything, go anywhere or tackle any situation without his awesome kick ass wife to be, for whom nothing and nobody is a stretch too far, it's not enjoyable for me any longer.

[Cap'n_RDM]

King.

I don't get the Snyder hype at all.

[nonsense man]

more people seeing the truth or stating it daily that is great

[Aioros22]

Right now, with King relying on nothing but self stroking and nonsentical babling, neither of them.

[bat_girl_cc]

Snyder by far...hes not the best but hes far from the worst...which King is near...

[SixSpeedSamurai]

Snyder, it's not even close. Halfway through N52 Batman and it's like a breath of fresh air after reading Kings entire run so far on Batman. Fun, exciting stories, action, gadgets, Bruce Wayne. King's is a slow slog with very little of the fun stuff. My only knock on Snyder is way, way too much dialogue.

[Askia]

As someone who hasn't liked Batman outside of The Animated Series, The Red Hood, and Mask of the Phantasm; I really enjoyed Snyder's run. To me, he made Batman feel more human. I also loved his lore/world building and story progression. Harper is meh to me, but I love Duke and enjoyed the We are Robin series. I like how he was slowly included which allowed me to get to know his character. Sadly, it seems like most don't like him so I wonder how long he will last...

Going back to King, I dropped it after the first issue. It was a like a return to the type of Batman that I loathe.

[gregpersons]

Tom King is a fine scotch.

Scott Snyder is Mountain Dew.

For anyone doubting King's storytelling, read "Sheriff of Babylon."

[BatmanJones]

I appreciate them both a lot. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that I prefer King's run since I prefer it to every Batman run.

I found a thing Snyder said recently very enlightening. He said that King doesn't like to know where he's going with his stories. He likes to find out along the way. Snyder says he couldn't do that, that he has to have a plan. Maybe the lack of planning/letting the story reveal itself to the writer approach by King is why a lot here don't like him but when I read that Snyder quote it clarified my love of King's run and my slight misgivings about Snyder's.

I'm a playwright and theatre director by trade and in each case I work as King does in this way. I don't like to go in having the answers. I like for the story to reveal itself to me. My playwriting hero Samuel Beckett was the same, though he was incredibly meticulous. (The two things aren't exclusive to one another.)

As a theatre artist I like to make people feel, not think. When someone tells me after a play, "I loved it, it really made me think," I graciously accept the compliment but privately I'm dying inside a little because I don't want to make audiences think; I want to make them feel something.

To me King's run is much more from the heart than from the head and Snyder's run is the opposite. King (ideally) makes one feel. Snyder (ideally) makes one think.

One isn't inherently better than the other; I just prefer something that makes me feel to something that makes me think (also not exclusive to one another) so that Snyder quote helped me to understand why it was that I so prefer King's run to Snyder's or any other.

I still admire Snyder's run quite a lot and I'm always hoping I'll enjoy his writing just a little more than I actually do, because I've enjoyed his work in the past. King is just on an entirely different level to me. Snyder seems like a comic book writer to me (which is great) while King seems like a poet (which to me is greater).

[BatmanJones]

Out of a morbid curiosity, when has King “knocked it out of the park”?

Sheriff of Babylon
Omega Men
Grayson
The Vision
Mister Miracle
Batman

In other words, pretty much always.

[swing kinker]

Snyder's first 20 or so issues were excellent but for me it fell off the cliff after that. I haven't read all of King's run yet but it was getting better after a poor start when I left it last.

[swing kinker]

Honestly, both runs feel like glorified fan fiction and now I miss Grant Morrison three times as much as I did when he left.

That being said, I have to choose Snyder. Court of Owls will pretty much go down as the most iconic Bat Story of the decade. Also, Greg Capullo's art was great.

Interesting, I felt like Morrison's was very well written fan fiction with him incorporating every era and a million Easter eggs etc

[CryNotWolf]

I much prefer Tom King over Snyder. Snyder is boring. He's a given, a tepid, unevolving constant that I've seen write by other names on other titles endlessly ever since I've been reading comic books. I do not find Scott Snyder entertaining in the slightest.

I appreciate them both a lot. I don't think it's a secret to anyone that I prefer King's run since I prefer it to every Batman run.

I found a thing Snyder said recently very enlightening. He said that King doesn't like to know where he's going with his stories. He likes to find out along the way. Snyder says he couldn't do that, that he has to have a plan. Maybe the lack of planning/letting the story reveal itself to the writer approach by King is why a lot here don't like him but when I read that Snyder quote it clarified my love of King's run and my slight misgivings about Snyder's.

I'm a playwright and theatre director by trade and in each case I work as King does in this way. I don't like to go in having the answers. I like for the story to reveal itself to me. My playwriting hero Samuel Beckett was the same, though he was incredibly meticulous. (The two things aren't exclusive to one another.)

As a theatre artist I like to make people feel, not think. When someone tells me after a play, "I loved it, it really made me think," I graciously accept the compliment but privately I'm dying inside a little because I don't want to make audiences think; I want to make them feel something.

To me King's run is much more from the heart than from the head and Snyder's run is the opposite. King (ideally) makes one feel. Snyder (ideally) makes one think.

One isn't inherently better than the other; I just prefer something that makes me feel to something that makes me think (also not exclusive to one another) so that Snyder quote helped me to understand why it was that I so prefer King's run to Snyder's or any other.

I still admire Snyder's run quite a lot and I'm always hoping I'll enjoy his writing just a little more than I actually do, because I've enjoyed his work in the past. King is just on an entirely different level to me. Snyder seems like a comic book writer to me (which is great) while King seems like a poet (which to me is greater).

Emotion is ceaselessly intertwined with rationality, so you'll forgive me when I say this just feels like a completely empty line of reasoning, simplistic to the point of nullification, and to the discredit of both authors. If a story makes you think, it made you feel, and vice versa.

You romanticize some vague callings of King's writing, and as it speaks to you personally you deem fit to laud it in its totality with boiler-plate parlance. It's an unwarranted level of worship in my opinion...and your disinterest in entertaining his imperfections I think does your attempts to persuade others to your point-of-view no good. King is a great writer. He makes me feel, he makes me think. But that isn't something unique to him, that's the hallmark of every single good author that's ever put pen to print. And he's certainly proven himself capable of writing bad stories, as I've seen many times during his tenure as Batman's author.

But I very much disagree with the idea of sentimentalizing Tom King as a poet. I mean he certainly tries, but many times when he strings his words together, it's an utter cacophony. In that sense, I suppose it's a good thing that his Bruce BARELY even has a voice of his own. He can write an engrossing story, but he lacks the dictional grace and power that makes Alan Moore such a master of his craft. King's not resonance, he's dissonance. He doesn't elevate...he just changes. Warps, even. And when you're trying to weave together a "heartfelt" story like he purportedly seems to be doing, that's not something I consider to be worthy of some grand title of "poet" for a comic book author.

He's entertaining, but I'd hardly call him revelating.

[gregpersons]

I much prefer Tom King over Snyder. Snyder is boring. He's a given, a tepid, unevolving constant that I've seen write by other names on other titles endlessly ever since I've been reading comic books. I do not find Scott Snyder entertaining in the slightest.

Emotion is ceaselessly intertwined with rationality, so you'll forgive me when I say this just feels like a completely empty line of reasoning, simplistic to the point of nullification, and to the discredit of both authors. If a story makes you think, it made you feel, and vice versa.

You romanticize some vague callings of King's writing, and as it speaks to you personally you deem fit to laud it in its totality with boiler-plate parlance. It's an unwarranted level of worship in my opinion...and your disinterest in entertaining his imperfections I think does your attempts to persuade others to your point-of-view no good. King is a great writer. He makes me feel, he makes me think. But that isn't something unique to him, that's the hallmark of every single good author that's ever put pen to print. And he's certainly proven himself capable of writing bad stories, as I've seen many times during his tenure as Batman's author.

But I very much disagree with the idea of sentimentalizing Tom King as a poet. I mean he certainly tries, but many times when he strings his words together, it's an utter cacophony. In that sense, I suppose it's a good thing that his Bruce BARELY even has a voice of his own. He can write an engrossing story, but he lacks the dictional grace and power that makes Alan Moore such a master of his craft. King's not resonance, he's dissonance. He doesn't elevate...he just changes. Warps, even. And when you're trying to weave together a "heartfelt" story like he purportedly seems to be doing, that's not something I consider to be worthy of some grand title of "poet" for a comic book author.

He's entertaining, but I'd hardly call him revelating.

I agreed with everything until the bolded. It's clear from King's work that he's writing this story lyrically. He demonstrated that with the first three arcs, War of Jokes and Riddles, Annual #2, the Elmer Fudd one-shot, the Swamp Thing issue, the Ace/Xmas story .... most of the run. Not to say it's been perfect -- he does have flaws, and the Booster Gold arc was a dud, I thought.

I understand why King's characterization can bother some readers, but imo he's infused far more humanity into Batman and his cast than we saw with Snyder, just in a more economical way. He has a lyrical approach to his storytelling -- George Lucas and George RR Martin come to mind. Grant Morrison and Jack Kirby, too. All of those writers have significant flaws, too, and all used a lyrical approach to a grand epic story.

Snyder, as you said, is just boring. I compare him to Mountain Dew. He's "exxxxtreme" -- all hype, all posturing, but ultimately -- nothing to say. No new insight into either Batman or his world, or life and living in a more general way. He's a glorified, gleeful, fanboy which is endearing but his work is hack.

[Aioros22]

Tom King is a fine scotch.

Scott Snyder is Mountain Dew.

For anyone doubting King's storytelling, read "Sheriff of Babylon."

Sheriff is not in question, his Batman is.

Batman is (not always, true) his biggest miss so far and I don`t believe it`s a coincidence that it`s the only work of his that belongs in a major franchise until now.