Do you agree with the saying "There no bad characters, only bad writers"?

[Jokerz]

This is a fairly common saying in the comic industry. Do you agree with it?

I'd say that yes, I do. A change in writers can have a night-and-day effect on how I care about a character.

Edit: Bah, meant to say "There are no bad characters, only bad writers" in the title.

[Kieran_Frost]

Pretty much, yes. There are a few characters that are a train wreck, but even then a great writer can redeem them. It's comics, so anything bad in the character's nature or personality can be erased/changed/retconned.

[FanboyStranger]

Absolutely agree. I think that with some thought and imagination almost any character can work, even ridiculous and lame ones. Even offensive characters can be redeemed if a creator approaches them from a different mindset and with a different intent. Take Matt Wagner's use of Ebony White in the new Spirit series-- what was once an offensive, racist character has been transformed into the interesting driving force of the series without whitewashing the character or denying his past.

[John Ossie]

Pretty much, yes. There are a few characters that are a train wreck, but even then a great writer can redeem them. It's comics, so anything bad in the character's nature or personality can be erased/changed/retconned.

Yeah I agree with this basically.

[Goggindowner]

Yes. Absolutely. Even a completely broken character can become fantastic if the right person comes along and takes the reigns of storytelling in an interesting direction.

Superman, for example, is a broken character. Too many powers, basically unstoppable. But every now and then, a writer comes along that finds interesting ways to challenge the man of steel and it makes the character work for a while.

[John Ossie]

Yes. Absolutely. Even a completely broken character can become fantastic if the right person comes along and takes the reigns of storytelling in an interesting direction.

Superman, for example, is a broken character. Too many powers, basically unstoppable. But every now and then, a writer comes along that finds interesting ways to challenge the man of steel and it makes the character work for a while.

My example would've been Daredevil. Not that I'm saying he's ''broken'' or anything it's just that he's a character that I don't usually care about but Death of Jean DeWolff had him so well written that he was actually my favourite character in that story, and that was a Spider-Man story.

[DrNewGod]

I agree. I'll also say that there are some characters that take more effort than others (see Red Bee and The Fin for examples).

[FanboyStranger]

Yes. Absolutely. Even a completely broken character can become fantastic if the right person comes along and takes the reigns of storytelling in an interesting direction.

Superman, for example, is a broken character. Too many powers, basically unstoppable. But every now and then, a writer comes along that finds interesting ways to challenge the man of steel and it makes the character work for a while.

I don't think Superman is broken. I think the problem is that so few creators approach Superman in an imaginative fashion. When you have a character that could do anything, the sky should be the limit for the character. The aphorism for the past 30 years has been "the 'man' is more important than the 'super'", but I think the man should be a given and the way forward is to explore the super. That doesn't mean you have to throw anything out, but you approach the stories from a more inventive place. You can't keep telling the same six or seven Superman-by-numbers stories over and over again.

[Greg]

I totally agree. That's why I give a little side eye when people say "I love the writer but I'm not interested in any of these characters so I won't bother to check it out." That makes no sense to me. I've grown to love so many characters I would have never thought I would if not for giving them a chance, especially due to writers I've enjoyed.

[Look]

This. I totally agree.

characters like the Sentry were lame, its one thing having a charcter that does not fit what's worse is a writter messing up an established good character

I don't think Superman is broken.

the Superman problem is many classic characters are too good, too pure and are now out-of-time. The new trends are Dark, Gritty, Dirty, Gothic, Realistic character like Batman, Wolverine or Daredevil or characters from the Wakling Dead these are characters that sell. Some think Superman must also change and become dark, glum but it can also transform the character too much, Superman should still be bright and not dark and un-inspiring

A lame villain could become a compelling character

One of my favorite reads is the re-prints of those classic Dredd books, its a British comic with all kinds of lame villians but that's not the point the main story is Dredd himself and the post holocaust survivors in Mega City One. Dredd is like all the worst parts of Batman, Punisher and Robocop combined, I suppose what's interesting about the comic is its social commentary about all the social issues happening in British culture at that time, its interesting with the hero becoming borderline villain.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Yes. Absolutely. Even a completely broken character can become fantastic if the right person comes along and takes the reigns of storytelling in an interesting direction.

Superman, for example, is a broken character. Too many powers, basically unstoppable. But every now and then, a writer comes along that finds interesting ways to challenge the man of steel and it makes the character work for a while.

One could say that about the New52 Wonder Woman which is why I dropped her book long ago. Brian Azzarello's Greek mythology angle which bored the hell out of me didn't help either.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

Sometimes I do.

[People Of The Earth]

Rather than bad writers, I'd say bad stories.
Odds are bad writers will produce more bad stories than good writers, hence the shortcut I believe you made, that much is true.

[FanboyStranger]

Rather than bad writers, I'd say bad stories.
Odds are bad writers will produce more bad stories than good writers, hence the shortcut I believe you made, that much is true.

I'd add that ignoring the artistic part of the equation is a big mistake, too. The old maxim is that a terrible storytelling artist will ruin a story no matter how well it's written, but a great artist will elevate even the most mediocre material. For some reason, writers have tended to get more attention over the past two decades, but most of those writers will note that they'd be nowhere without their artistic collaborators. There are a lot of books where the plot is boiler-plate, but the artist turns it into something memorable through storytelling and stylistic choices.

[BTNLegend]

It really depends for me. If the character is lame in appearance and has quirks that I'm just not a fan of and a good writer comes along to "fix" him/her, it's no longer that same original character. For me, it always starts with how good the first incarnation of a character is, which is where I develop or don't develop attachment to the character. For example, if I didn't like Reed Richards from the get-go because I didn't like his powers or his scientific smarts and someone decided to retell his story in a better fashion while retaining those same traits that I initially didn't like, I'll still not like the character and think he's lame. If those traits were disposed altogether for a new revamp, then I wouldn't even consider it the same character.