How can it be made easier for comics writers to write good stories?

[Carabas]

LOL. Well, OK.

You have an... interesting discussion style.

[Potanical Pardon]

Give them a pencil and paper quickly.

Notice that I said "ONCE A WRITER HAS CLEARLY PASSED HIS PEAK."

There are plenty of old writers out there who don't get work any more. Should they be getting it?

I can think of some that shouldn't where I instantly go: "WHY? Stop writing!"
Levitz and Chaykin immediately come to mind. Loved Levitz as President, but damn. Talk about dated references. Perez, Jurgens, Grummet and Byrne are also guilty of that but it's not as drastic yet. And to the next generation for the same reasons, Busiek, Lobdell (wow, what a major difference fifteen years makes), Jenkins, Liefield (but he always sucked),

[t hedge coke]

Give them a pencil and paper quickly.



I can think of some that shouldn't where I instantly go: "WHY? Stop writing!"
Levitz and Chaykin immediately come to mind. Loved Levitz as President, but damn. Talk about dated references. Perez, Jurgens, Grummet and Byrne are also guilty of that but it's not as drastic yet. And to the next generation for the same reasons, Busiek, Lobdell (wow, what a major difference fifteen years makes), Jenkins, Liefield (but he always sucked),

That's the thing, though. It's always personal taste.

I think Chaykin's a machine when it comes to comics. He's a monster. He's beautiful.

Lobdell, to me, is pretty much the same now as he was fifteen years ago. Jurgens is the same as he ever was. Liefeld is Liefeld; he's on purpose himself. It hasn't gotten worse, and, if anything, he's done fantastic things as a publisher, in the last few years. If you don't like Liefeld in 1993, you're not going to like Liefeld in 2005 or 2015.

I don't really think twice about buying Paul Jenkins' comics. Jenkins' Civil War mini, for example, was vastly superior for me, to every other part of Civil War. His Sentry stuff, pretty much runs circles around anyone else trying to use the character, even if they used him well.

It's always a matter of taste. And, who you notice. Wonder Woman fans seemed to hate Jodi Picoult's run, but have no problem with the writer of Amazons Attack, no matter how reviled that mini is, getting more work from DC. Some toilers in the vineyard just don't get noticed. Others get noticed but aren't to absolutely everyone's taste.

(And, then you end up with "Grant Morrison is a niche writer" or "Alan Moore isn't for everyone," when they outsell pretty much any of the supposedly populist writers, day in, day out.)

An editor or publisher has to be above fans' passions. Just because this "fan" doesn't like what someone's doing right now, doesn't mean the fans who do like it, who are fans of it, aren't paying money to get that thing they like. They count, too, and probably more than those who aren't going to buy it anyway.

[t hedge coke]

let's look at H.G. Wells. Pretty clearly, he had a peak period of fiction writing.

No, Wells had a period where he sold better. His work continues to be strong and interesting to many readers through to his death. Someone's opinion that this period is better doesn't make it so. "Better" writing cannot be objectively decided.

Graham Greene, whose opinion on literature I would trust fairly far, thought Wells' last novel, All Aboard for Ararat, was one of his finest. The Holy Terror was warmly received on publication.

But, there is a small selection of science fiction works that law and contracts made easy to compile and reprint cheaply and repeatedly, as if they were his complete or most important works. And, so, those are what are most often read, usually by teens, or made into movies since no one needs to be paid.

So, he had a career as a writer that spanned many decades, all best-selling, all well-lauded. Any "peak" is personally decided based on non-universal criteria.

[Prisoner 6655321]

I think that the premise of this thread is kinda flawed but I'll still chime in. I don't think it's anyone's role, even the publishers to make it “easier” for writers to make “good” stories. That said, the publishers could and probably do make it harder sometimes to write the stories said writers want to write with editorial mandates. As a reader, however, I realize that some amount of these are sincerely for the best so I wouldn't go so far as to say they ought to be eliminated. From what I understand about the world of comic books (from an industry perspective) though is that it's a fairly insular culture and things could probably be made better for minority writers, especially when it comes to women. There really does seem to be a surface push to change this but I have no idea how many of the new more diverse talent pool that the big two seem to be pulling from are treated on the inside.

The definition of “good” is exceptionally subjective. I'm pretty sure if this conversation devolved into everyone talking about their favorite things there would be a great deal of argument. People like different things for different reasons. Also, I would argue that there are some pretty great comic books out right now. The big two aside , in my opinion , this is currently one of the best eras for comics in general. Honestly, the number and quality of amazingly good creator owned books right now is pretty amazing.

The idea that writers reach their “peak” or whatever at some age, I don't buy it. Sure, sometimes individual writers do kinda peak off, hit ruts or whatever but I don't think this really has anything to do with age or the amount of time they've been making comics. Writers don't have expiration dates. If anything, good writers get better with time but this is a generalization, not a rule. That said, I think a lot of what looks like this to many readers is due to changing expectations. Every time a new comic or relevant piece of fiction comes out that is truly “groundbreaking” the rules of the game change. People see things from a new angle and know they can expect more. Sometimes, comic book writers just don't seem to evolve as much as they need to to retain relevance to the readers. Other times they do. If they haven't yet, they still can.

I don't mean to imply that it's easy for an artist to get involved in the industry but it seems disproportionately harder for writers to do so. For the most part, it seems the criteria is that you either need some stuff published in some form or at the very least, find some artist to work with and help you make some sample pages. These seem like unreasonable barriers. Writers should be best at writing, their abilities to self publish, work in other mediums, or negotiate some kinda deal with an artist have not much at all to nothing at all to do with their abilities as a writer of comic books. Limiting the potential talent pool by these criteria is in someways sensible (I mean, how much resources should reasonably be allocated to reading scripts) but also more or less arbitrary and doesn't necessarily lead to the best comics possible being made. If I need a dentist my criteria should be “who's the best dentist” not “who's the best dentist who can make art films”. I think the industry would be made much better if this were somehow changed and there was a consistent method for new comic book writers to break in on the merit of their ability to write good comic book scripts, not negotiate a deal with an artist or any other criteria.

Also, I think comicbooks in general could use benefit from better journalism. No insult to any one who writes about comic books but it all tends to be pretty pedestrian. Where are the A.J. Lieblings, Norman Mailers, Arron Cometbuses and Hunter S. Thompsons of the comic book journalism world? The industry would benefit greatly from more insightful (not necessarily harsher) criticism and more artistic coverage of the field / culture in general.

[sunofdarkchild]

No rule is absolute, but here is my main one.

Have the editors function like editors and the PR people like PR people so that the people doing the writing are the ones telling stories. The editor is not supposed to be the story-teller, and the PR people are supposed to sell the stories that are written by the talent, not dictate to the writers what they think the focus groups want.

Editing means correcting mistakes and maintaining a level of quality control and continuity. Mandating events, that characters be killed, that characters are off-limits, that x character must fight with y character all serve to put writers in a box.

That isn't to say that mandates should be off-limits altogether. But they should be clear, have good reasons for existing, be broad enough to work with, and preferably should be spelled out before a writer starts. For instance, Chris Claremont was told that his original ending for the Dark Phoenix Saga wasn't good enough because Jean's actions required a harsher punishment. He was not mandated to kill her. He decided on his own that that was the best option available to him. Mandates should leave writers with multiple options on how to proceed.

Another example: to me 'Kara Zor El can't be used because we have a no more Kryptonians policy' makes far more sense as a mandate than 'no Cass Cain and no Stephanie Brown but yes to Dick, Jason, Tim, and Damian.' The former is because of specific problems with having more Kryptonians and part of an overall direction, while the latter looks like nothing more than the random whims of editors who prefer male characters to female characters. That's why the former allowed for the largest cast of supporting characters in Superman's history in the triangle era while the latter just made both readers and writers angry. However, if they removed Tim and Jason as well as Steph and Cass they could have reasonably argued that the point was to keep the bat-family from being cluttered. Too often the mandates seem random like that.

[Trey Strain]

That's your opinion and a tad wrong-headed opinion, mate. What you think is good fiction, others may not- just like you may not enjoy what they do. Taste is subjective. There's absolutely no such thing as peak. I write, and study literature- I can assure you that writing matures with age. Everything matures with time. You're not the same person at 22 that you are at 25 that you are at 50, it's just fact. Your world view changes, your voice changes, your ideas change, YOU change. To say writing hits a "peak" is to deny the human experience, I think.

We don't need to hear that "that's an opinion" any more. Saying "that's an opinion" is to state the obvious and to believe that you've uttered a profundity. But you haven't.

Anyway, to say that writers just keep getting better as they get older, or to say that they never pass their peak, is just silly. All you need to do is look at their output and its reception. Don't even try to make that case.

Oh wait, "What's good is just an opinion," right? Well it isn't where your favorite writer's work is concerned, is it? By God, his writing GOOOOOOOOD, and it's always going to be that way, and that's a fact! Right?

So here it is: My favorite writer will always turn out good work and will never decline, and that's a fact, and if you ever say that his work has declined, that'll be just your opinion.

OK, that's clear.

[Trey Strain]

I think that the premise of this thread is kinda flawed but I'll still chime in. I don't think it's anyone's role, even the publishers to make it “easier” for writers to make “good” stories. That said, the publishers could and probably do make it harder sometimes to write the stories said writers want to write with editorial mandates. As a reader, however, I realize that some amount of these are sincerely for the best so I wouldn't go so far as to say they ought to be eliminated. From what I understand about the world of comic books (from an industry perspective) though is that it's a fairly insular culture and things could probably be made better for minority writers, especially when it comes to women. There really does seem to be a surface push to change this but I have no idea how many of the new more diverse talent pool that the big two seem to be pulling from are treated on the inside.

The definition of “good” is exceptionally subjective. I'm pretty sure if this conversation devolved into everyone talking about their favorite things there would be a great deal of argument. People like different things for different reasons. Also, I would argue that there are some pretty great comic books out right now. The big two aside , in my opinion , this is currently one of the best eras for comics in general. Honestly, the number and quality of amazingly good creator owned books right now is pretty amazing.

The idea that writers reach their “peak” or whatever at some age, I don't buy it. Sure, sometimes individual writers do kinda peak off, hit ruts or whatever but I don't think this really has anything to do with age or the amount of time they've been making comics. Writers don't have expiration dates. If anything, good writers get better with time but this is a generalization, not a rule. That said, I think a lot of what looks like this to many readers is due to changing expectations. Every time a new comic or relevant piece of fiction comes out that is truly “groundbreaking” the rules of the game change. People see things from a new angle and know they can expect more. Sometimes, comic book writers just don't seem to evolve as much as they need to to retain relevance to the readers. Other times they do. If they haven't yet, they still can.

I don't mean to imply that it's easy for an artist to get involved in the industry but it seems disproportionately harder for writers to do so. For the most part, it seems the criteria is that you either need some stuff published in some form or at the very least, find some artist to work with and help you make some sample pages. These seem like unreasonable barriers. Writers should be best at writing, their abilities to self publish, work in other mediums, or negotiate some kinda deal with an artist have not much at all to nothing at all to do with their abilities as a writer of comic books. Limiting the potential talent pool by these criteria is in someways sensible (I mean, how much resources should reasonably be allocated to reading scripts) but also more or less arbitrary and doesn't necessarily lead to the best comics possible being made. If I need a dentist my criteria should be “who's the best dentist” not “who's the best dentist who can make art films”. I think the industry would be made much better if this were somehow changed and there was a consistent method for new comic book writers to break in on the merit of their ability to write good comic book scripts, not negotiate a deal with an artist or any other criteria.

Also, I think comicbooks in general could use benefit from better journalism. No insult to any one who writes about comic books but it all tends to be pretty pedestrian. Where are the A.J. Lieblings, Norman Mailers, Arron Cometbuses and Hunter S. Thompsons of the comic book journalism world? The industry would benefit greatly from more insightful (not necessarily harsher) criticism and more artistic coverage of the field / culture in general.

Criticism of comics tends to be worthless because most people who follow comics hero-worship certain writers.

[Trey Strain]

Give them a pencil and paper quickly.



I can think of some that shouldn't where I instantly go: "WHY? Stop writing!"
Levitz and Chaykin immediately come to mind. Loved Levitz as President, but damn. Talk about dated references. Perez, Jurgens, Grummet and Byrne are also guilty of that but it's not as drastic yet. And to the next generation for the same reasons, Busiek, Lobdell (wow, what a major difference fifteen years makes), Jenkins, Liefield (but he always sucked),

There are some highly regarded writers who have dropped off but are covering it up well by carefully picking their shots as to when and what to write. That's the best way to handle it, and the comics companies should help them out with that by periodically handing them assignments that they'll probably do well with.

[Prisoner 6655321]

Criticism of comics tends to be worthless because most people who follow comics hero-worship certain writers.

That's like saying there shouldn't be investigative journalism because news outlets are ran by corporations or there shouldn't be literary criticism at all.

[t hedge coke]

There are some highly regarded writers who have dropped off but are covering it up well by carefully picking their shots as to when and what to write. That's the best way to handle it, and the comics companies should help them out with that by periodically handing them assignments that they'll probably do well with.

Evidence? Any?

[lorec]

This is an interesting thread, to say the least. How to make it easier for writers to write good stories? I will echo what others have said in that it is very subjective. I'll give my own experience with a writer that some people just drool for, Grant Morrison. My very first exposure to him was his run on New X-Men, beginning with 114. By and large, I didn't like his run at all. There were some good things, but overall, I didn't like it. It's my opinion and at the time X-Men was my favorite comic and I also had completionist tendencies, so I have the entire run. I vowed never to buy anything Morrison wrote again. Years later, the owner of my LCS was like, you need to check out Batman and Robin, Morrison is killing it. Reluctantly, I did, and I loved it. I'm reading Morrison's JLA run and also have some of his Batman stuff as well as his Batman Inc stuff, all of which I have enjoyed. Maybe I changed, grew up some from 2001 to when Morrison wrote Batman and Robin, I don't know. Maybe Morrison became a better writer, again, I don't know. What I do know, is that my definition of "good" isn't the same as anyone's on this board, not entirely.

Back to the question, how to make it easier for writers to write good stories, I'll some things below.
1. Less annual events, that's a big one. There doesn't need to be one every year.
2. No more forced crossovers. If they happen organically, fine, but don't interrupt current arcs in books to do so. It messes with the rhythm of the story of the book that got interrupted.
3. For me, I happen to like continuity. I like the legacy aspect that DC had before the New 52. I agree it's got to be handled carefully, but I think it can be.
4. Less editorial "involvement" where possible.
5. Less is more. I'm looking at Batman and in years past Wolverine. Yes, I know these characters sell and sell wildly, but for me, that oversaturation of Wolverine led to me dropping the book a few years ago. That and the stories just weren't good.
6. Prisoner 6655321 said it in his post, how about new and different writers. I realize this can be tricky but there has to be a happy medium. An artist can submit their work at almost any time to almost any publisher, but a writer almost always has to have sequential art to go along with their script.

[Mia]

I would say hire people based on their writing skills/style and imagination and who can hand in stories on time. Fine if you want to hire your buddy but at least make sure that buddy can produce good quality work. Not just because he laughs at your jokes and buys you your drinks.

My prejudice as a Marvelite is coming in here, but I would like to see comic book stories that are more couched in reality have the hero and heroine be subjected to the usual ups and downs in life, as well as suffer from the same hang ups that most adults encounter by going through nasty old life. I am not talking about neurotic navel gazing and angst. More layered multi-dimensional characters.

I would also like to see people hired more along their writing skills/style and imagination. And writers who are intent on putting out quality product that can be read by people of all ages. Think of some of the ‘classics’ on the shelves. I enjoy re-reading The Count of Monte Cristo now as much as I did when I was 16. We need more books like that.

Hire a writer who is intent on telling quality story and appreciates a good yarn. Not someone who thinks that they can produce any old shite because the SH they write about is in the top 5 most popular super heroes and the’ idiot fans’ will buy the book regardless, so why bother to put some effort into it.

[Buried Alien]

One impediment that's emerged for the two majors (DC and Marvel) in the past ten years is the continuing effort to unify the comics and film/television media. Comics are their own beast, with their own internal workings and mythology, and trying too hard to reconcile them with current film/TV developments often results in the comics losing much of what makes them work.

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[Lee Stone]

I think that the premise of this thread is kinda flawed but I'll still chime in. I don't think it's anyone's role, even the publishers to make it “easier” for writers to make “good” stories. That said, the publishers could and probably do make it harder sometimes to write the stories said writers want to write with editorial mandates. As a reader, however, I realize that some amount of these are sincerely for the best so I wouldn't go so far as to say they ought to be eliminated. From what I understand about the world of comic books (from an industry perspective) though is that it's a fairly insular culture and things could probably be made better for minority writers, especially when it comes to women. There really does seem to be a surface push to change this but I have no idea how many of the new more diverse talent pool that the big two seem to be pulling from are treated on the inside.

The definition of “good” is exceptionally subjective. I'm pretty sure if this conversation devolved into everyone talking about their favorite things there would be a great deal of argument. People like different things for different reasons. Also, I would argue that there are some pretty great comic books out right now. The big two aside , in my opinion , this is currently one of the best eras for comics in general. Honestly, the number and quality of amazingly good creator owned books right now is pretty amazing.

The idea that writers reach their “peak” or whatever at some age, I don't buy it. Sure, sometimes individual writers do kinda peak off, hit ruts or whatever but I don't think this really has anything to do with age or the amount of time they've been making comics. Writers don't have expiration dates. If anything, good writers get better with time but this is a generalization, not a rule. That said, I think a lot of what looks like this to many readers is due to changing expectations. Every time a new comic or relevant piece of fiction comes out that is truly “groundbreaking” the rules of the game change. People see things from a new angle and know they can expect more. Sometimes, comic book writers just don't seem to evolve as much as they need to to retain relevance to the readers. Other times they do. If they haven't yet, they still can.

I don't mean to imply that it's easy for an artist to get involved in the industry but it seems disproportionately harder for writers to do so. For the most part, it seems the criteria is that you either need some stuff published in some form or at the very least, find some artist to work with and help you make some sample pages. These seem like unreasonable barriers. Writers should be best at writing, their abilities to self publish, work in other mediums, or negotiate some kinda deal with an artist have not much at all to nothing at all to do with their abilities as a writer of comic books. Limiting the potential talent pool by these criteria is in someways sensible (I mean, how much resources should reasonably be allocated to reading scripts) but also more or less arbitrary and doesn't necessarily lead to the best comics possible being made. If I need a dentist my criteria should be “who's the best dentist” not “who's the best dentist who can make art films”. I think the industry would be made much better if this were somehow changed and there was a consistent method for new comic book writers to break in on the merit of their ability to write good comic book scripts, not negotiate a deal with an artist or any other criteria.

Also, I think comicbooks in general could use benefit from better journalism. No insult to any one who writes about comic books but it all tends to be pretty pedestrian. Where are the A.J. Lieblings, Norman Mailers, Arron Cometbuses and Hunter S. Thompsons of the comic book journalism world? The industry would benefit greatly from more insightful (not necessarily harsher) criticism and more artistic coverage of the field / culture in general.

I agree.
Comics needs an avant garde or a more high-brow coverage that borders on PBS or NPR levels. Something that looks beyond the capes, variant covers, "hot" characters/artists and sales numbers and digs down deeper into the storytelling and literature of comics. Comics could be considered a literary arts, if only the current idustry and system would let it.