Sure. They have been following up (dealing with the consequences of male Amazons on PI, starting to address the god of war role, etc.) but I think they're been following up in ways that are dull, regressive, and generally less constructive than destructive of what Azz and others built. (By the way, even Aegeus seems to be a diminishment rather than constructive followup on past writers' work; this shallow whiner seems a lot less interesting than the old ecoterrorist could have been.) If they were doing something completely different but doing it well, I'd be happier. Naturally, if they were following up successfully, I'd be happiest of all.
I don't think it's mostly because she's a
new writer; I think it's more because she's a
bad writer--IMO, of course, and just as far as this book is concerned. Like I said, I didn't think her work on the Oz book was bad. But her writing here has struck me as cliched, banal, weak in character development and plot development, often incoherent, and just generally lacking in craft. Of course, as a new writer, she could grow and improve, and I hope she does; but that possibility hasn't added to my enjoyment of what we're getting now.
What would make you think it's not a genuinely common opinion here ? It seems to me that each issue, including the first, has started drawing negative comments here even before reviews have started to appear elsewhere. We don't seem to be waiting for the critics' lead.
Anyway, it's not like critics are alien beings. They're just comics fans who have blogs or jobs with websites. They're not necessarily unlike the people who post here. If they and we share opinions, it's not necessarily a question of either influence or coincidence; maybe it's just that many readers, whether they are published "critics" or not, share similar criteria (which the book happens not to be meeting.) It's not "group think" if a lot of us are independently reaching similar conclusions; that's called a consensus.
I actually think that critics and posters have given the book a reasonably fair shot, at least by the standards of the internet. Take Tim Hanley, for instance; he absolutely hated the first issues and most of what followed, but he was more than willing to acknowledge that the annual, in his view, was not that bad. But unfortunately, the next issues disappointed him again. Similarly, I though I might be seeing a tiny bit of improvement in the writing even before the annual, but I haven't seen it continue in this new arc, Lots of us have acknowledged some improvement in the art--but, for me, that this doesn't make up for the writing.
I'm almost jealous of you; generally, I think it's more fun to be a non-conformist and maverick. That's why it was fun to defend issue #7. But, when it comes to the current run, I can't help it if a lot of people are right.
I'm not going to change my opinion so that I can be a non-conformist.