Do people still think the Post-Crisis writers were better?

[sunofdarkchild]

I think I’d view it as a more focused and competent editorial system and editorialphilosophy, rather than necessarily better writers of greater “freedom.”

My main complaint about the Post-Triangle Era Superman books is that editorial inconstancy and bad leadership often undid whatever good work a writer did before, and often lead to talented writers and up-and-comers fleeing the books more than anything else.

The Post-Crisis Era began really as just a Bronze Age staff getting new continuity to play with, and there were plenty of missteps as there were in any other era - Byrne’s Sleaze story is rightly a moment of shame for the era, for instance.

But editorial then knew how to strike where the iron was hot, manage multiple books, and to let things develop and grow on each other. Most of the ‘00s-‘10s Superman books had moments of brilliance or promise, that then wound up being dropped and ignored within a few years.

This is the correct answer. The Superman editors were so much better in the late 80s and 90s than they have been since.