Quick Poll: Do You Think Tom King is a Good Writer?

[Timothy Hunter]

Tom King has probably the most outspoken critics in comics. Let's see if they are the majority or a vocal minority.

[CaptCleghorn]

Tom King has written some truly incredible stories. He's also written at least one real clunker.

[Pohzee]

You woulda put this up a year ago I woulda said he was on track to be the best of all time. But I haven't been floored by a lot of his recent stuff, so I'll just go with great writer. He's written most of the best stories to come out of DC in the past decade.

I mean, he's easily one of DC's best writers, but that's not saying much

[Restingvoice]

The very first Nightwing issue where he has Batman beat up Nightwing so he won't get captured again after a whole arc of Batman worried and distracted about Nightwing in Forever Evil I figured he's the type of writer who will ignore other book's canon characterization to fit the story he wants to tell.

The very first Batman issue where he has Bruce doing his Batman work out almost naked on Wayne Enterprise's helipad I figured he's still a writer who does meta or ridiculous joke that ignore canon logic.

So I know going in that there will be quirks and for the most part, I accept it, because he's already giving signs that he is this type of storyteller.

However, all of this was before the story went Breaking Bat. Before he's talking about superhero trauma. When the story is about the characters undergoing stress, tragedy, and trauma, I expect it to be less quirky, and for the most part it was, but still...

There shouldn't be a meta-joke about how Robins kept dying done by the Robins when Tim just recently died and Bruce was worried that Bane is going to kill them. The Sanctuary interview tape should be used to discuss the Robins' own trauma instead of making a meta-joke about people confusing different Robins.

So most of my problem with him came in the decision making, not the story itself.
Writing the plot but not choosing the characters for Heroes in Crisis.
Inappropriate joke timing.
Picking and choosing character history or creating his own which other writers do this too but they shouldn't if it's in continuity
25 issues of BatCat (I think) and 25 issues of Breaking Bat are way too long

I'd say I can enjoy his works fully when I'm not familiar with the character history, and mostly I can tell what he's trying to say. Some may need a reread and I don't personally like it, but I get what he was going for... I think. His short stories are good but man the payoff is so slow when he's writing a long series.

So I guess he's good...? with a lot of buts in a heavy continuity story? Like I absolutely hate Heroes in Crisis in context with what's happening in Rebirth, but I can see me liking... no... okay with it if it's out of continuity.

Honestly "King is a writer who can win an Eisner while annoying the sh*t out of the fandom" sounds about right.

I'm sorry this is long but context matters. I can't just say he's good, period or bad, period.

[kingaliencracker]

Yes, he's good...

...but Heroes in Crisis definitely tarnished his momentum considerably.

[KangMiRae]

I haven’t read all of his works, especially his Batman. (I’ll start with the next writer), but he’s not a bad writer by a large margin. He’a been building his reputation but slipped up is the best way I’d describe it. I don’t think it’s fair to tarnish his name because of one lemon.

[Batman Begins 2005]

The Vision was superb. Batman run bad. Ditto Heroes in Crisis. Hit and miss.

[Johnny]

There should've been an "inconsistent" option. When he's good, he's really good, when he's bad, he's really awful.

[Vampire Savior]

His Batman is, in a word, dreadful, and trying to push diversity on characters that did not originally have that is stupid, like trying to retroactively turn Kyle Rayner into a Mexican. I don't care who started that, he continued it. You want a Mexican hero? Then create a Mexican hero that was meant to be Mexican.

Heroes in Crisis certainly doesn't help him.

Ultimately, my opinion of him is negative.

[Korath]

I would say good overall, despite by utter disdain for what his Batman's run has devolved into, and the catastrophe that was HiC.

Because, overall, he fails mostly be being over-ambitious and under-performing when it comes to crafting the details which made a story a story and not a collection of random vignettes and phrases put next to each other. It's important to note that there is definitively story arcs I found worse than his Batman since issue 50, so even discounting Mister Miracle (which is his only other work I've read so far) I cans till see him as a good writer.

However, for me, his success and critical acclaim are underserved, especially the latter, which show mostly how clique-like and elitist the world of professional critics is. And I'm not talking in terms of fanboyism vs. professionalism, but more to the fact that professional critiques often express a form of disdains at popular (as in, loved by the masses) novels, movies or comics. I had a discussion of reddit about King earning the Eisner for best writer, and the other person stated that he is post-modernist pushing the boundaries of what a story is, in comics. It may be true. But to me, at some point, a story cease to be a story and becomes another form of art. But such are (like Stand on Zanzibar) becomes so detached with everything which constitute my experiences that I can't approach it like a story, and thus can't receive whatever message the author wanted to convey.

In King's Batman, the case in point is issue 74, where he tries to depict a young Bruce as so innocent and pure that nothing could prevent him from being sure that good would come out of an horrible story. But the choices of words and deeds that King picked to convey this idea twisted it in : Bruce was always mentally instable and his parent -especially his mother- terrible people who failed to realize it at all and didn't provide him with the help he needed to grow up in a healthier mental state.

[numberthirty]

Non-Issue...

[DanMad1977]

Batman: Mixed feelings, rather negative
Vision: really good
Miracle: Great
Hic: Bad

Does that make him mediocre?

[king81992]

If he overcame his trauma fetish, King would be an excellent writer. For now, he ranges from mediocre to bad.

[MajorHoy]

I don't like much of what I've read of King's solo-writing. I tend to avoid buying books he's the writer on.

That said, I can't judge if he's a "good writer" or a "bad writer". Technically speaking, for all I know he could be a very competent writer.

I just don't want to buy / read his work these days.

[katefan]

I would say good overall, despite by utter disdain for what his Batman's run has devolved into, and the catastrophe that was HiC.

Because, overall, he fails mostly be being over-ambitious and under-performing when it comes to crafting the details which made a story a story and not a collection of random vignettes and phrases put next to each other. It's important to note that there is definitively story arcs I found worse than his Batman since issue 50, so even discounting Mister Miracle (which is his only other work I've read so far) I cans till see him as a good writer.

However, for me, his success and critical acclaim are underserved, especially the latter, which show mostly how clique-like and elitist the world of professional critics is. And I'm not talking in terms of fanboyism vs. professionalism, but more to the fact that professional critiques often express a form of disdains at popular (as in, loved by the masses) novels, movies or comics. I had a discussion of reddit about King earning the Eisner for best writer, and the other person stated that he is post-modernist pushing the boundaries of what a story is, in comics. It may be true. But to me, at some point, a story cease to be a story and becomes another form of art. But such are (like Stand on Zanzibar) becomes so detached with everything which constitute my experiences that I can't approach it like a story, and thus can't receive whatever message the author wanted to convey.

In King's Batman, the case in point is issue 74, where he tries to depict a young Bruce as so innocent and pure that nothing could prevent him from being sure that good would come out of an horrible story. But the choices of words and deeds that King picked to convey this idea twisted it in : Bruce was always mentally instable and his parent -especially his mother- terrible people who failed to realize it at all and didn't provide him with the help he needed to grow up in a healthier mental state.

Well said. I would say, though, that I have a lower opinion of his work overall. I believe he is a one note writer who focuses too much on mental/emotional trauma and I shudder to think of what he's going to do with/to Adam Strange.