Is Frank Miller as Great a Writer as He is An Artist?

[Timothy Hunter]

Frank Milller is considered one of the greatest writers in all of comics. While I love Frank's work, I wouldn't say that he is as great a writer as he is an artist. Unlike Grant Morrison or Alan Moore, whose writing always shine through no matter who the penciller is, Miller's writing is so interlocked with the visuals, that his stories live or die depending on the art.

For example, let's compare the Alan Moore penned Spawn 8 and the Frank Miller penned Spawn 11, both illustrated by Todd Mcfarlane. McFarlane is a great artist, but I wouldn't say he's a great storyteller. His art, while impressive isn't always the most coherent. Regardless of this, Alan Moore wrote a great issue of Spawn. His witty humor and inspired world building flourished in spite of McFarlane not being a great match for the writing when compared to Kevin O'Neill on League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or Dave Gibbons on Watchmen. In contrast to this Frank Miller's Spawn 11 is about the same level of quality as a pedestrian issue of Spawn: Confusing and needlesly verbose.

[Kirby101]

Miller is at his best when he is writing and drawing both. He is a great comics creator.

[Kai "the spy"]

Miller is indeed a fantastic writer. He always swings for the fences, and even if not all his work is great, it is always interesting. Even when he delivers something I don't like, it's still interesting.

[Zero Hunter]

Miller USED to be a great writer and artist. Now he is neither. His art especially has been garbage for many many years now.

[Mister Mets]

In my view, he's probably even better as a writer.

Daredevil: Born Again might just be his best work, and someone else illustrated it.

If he wasn't as good of a writer, he would still be a hell of an artist, but I wouldn't rate him higher than quite a few of his contemporaries: George Perez, John Byrne, Paul Smith, Bill Sienkiewicz, John Romita Jr.

However, there are very few writers who can match his best work, or the impact his work has had.

[babyblob]

A better writer for sure. I have loved a lot of his writing. I have never really been drawn to his art that much. Not that he is bad. He is just not an outstanding artist where as a writer he blows me away.

[Malvolio]

Miller does always swing for the fences. But like a baseball player who always swings for the fences, when Miller doesn't hit a home run, he usually strikes out. No in between.

[jetengine]

Miller hasn't been a good writer in years. He's just embarrassing himself now.

[batnbreakfast]

Miller hasn't been a good writer in years. He's just embarrassing himself now.

Last Crusade is reallyreally good. No interest in Spartans or anything else

[Jim Kelly]

In the 1980s, I would have said he's a good writer but not as good an artist. However, he tried to do the best he could with the artistic talent he had--and with Klaus Janson and Lynn Varley helping him out, he managed to improve. Looking back on his writing, I realize it was derivative of other better writers. But we learn by copying the people we admire--as a teacher once said in my younger days and I never forgot that.

In the 1990s, I would have said he's a better artist than a writer. I think having found his basic theme in his writing, he never improved on that. However, his art had improved greatly. Maybe because, again, he was copying better artists. But by copying them he learned a lot about anatomy, perspective and chiaroscuro.

Since then, he's just rested on his laurels. Having become "Frank Miller," he didn't have to do anything but put his name to the work. So he didn't even need to try. And I think trying is the thing that made Miller better. The art he did in 1990s had to take a lot of hours to produce and I can see why someone, getting older, just wouldn't want to put in those hours if they didn't have to.

[GOLGO 13]

Miller hasn't been a good writer in years. He's just embarrassing himself now.

Well, what more is there to say?

[ed2962]

His best work is undeniably behind him. He was a solid writer for a number of years then went to being kind of hit or miss. I don't even mind the change in his art style, although visually he's morphed into a kind of underground cartoonist which might not be suited for superheroes. Back in the day he was an important creator and definitely helped move the comics industry forward.

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, I didn't like a lot of his new stuff for quite a while, but I really liked the first two issues of "Superman: Year One". The third issue would have been great, as well, if it hadn't felt so rushed, as if it had been originally a four-or-five issue project, and he had to cram all his ideas for two to three issues into a single one.

[Joker]

Love him as an artist, loved him as a writer. Still love the work he's doing now, visually. Artist grow and change.

Holy Terror was an awful story, but the art was incredible. I don't care for much he's written in quite a while, but I still adore his illustrations.

I guess I always thought he was more interesting as an illustrator.

[Mace Dolex]

I normally dont follow writers that much, if the story is good I'm content with that, now based on that I did like Dark Knight Returns, Year One and Daredevil Born Again but All-Star Batman was total garbage. I didn't follow any of his 90's work except for Spawn vs Batman and that was incomprehensible too.

As for his art, his earlier work on Daredevil was adequate and easy to follow but not on the level of a Neal Adams or John Byrne. His work on TDKR I can understand he was trying something a little out of his usual style and it took me a few reads to get used to it because at first I thought it was sloppy and unfinished, his work on the sequel was just laziness on his part.