Question about Claremont's run

[Ricochet Rita]

What do you guys consider to be the best other series in that timeframe? I see people mention Exalibur, X-Factor, Exiles and New Mutants.

Undoubtedly, TNM from #1 to maybe #50 (Sienkiewicz's run = ESSENTIAL). Undoubtedly, Excalibur from #1 to maybe 34 AND following Davis' run as a full creator (words & art). Highly recommendable, X-Factor by Peter David (not the first X-Factor, for Mojo's sake).

You guys also got me interested in Paul Smith, I never heard of him before. Is his X-Men work collected in some form (if so, does it read easy or do I need to read the whole Claremont stuff beforehand?)?

Some of his covers and splash pages are modern-day classics already, repeatedly tributed and kidnapped.

Excuse me if I unload to many questions on you guys, I am really grateful for all the info and your posts are all very informative and fun to read! (which is why I keep throwing in new bones mwahaha).

It's our pleasure to talk about CC's X-Men :-) .

[yogaflame]

I'm with you in preferring 80s stuff, since 70s is usually too melodramatic and talky, while 90s is very rough --in both art and writing -- though there are some things that stand the test of time... just not much of the X-Men stuff. Claremont's X-Men doesn't read like much of an 80s comic, even though it is one, due to its talky-ness, but I think that, if you can get past that, it's pretty good in plot, if not dialogue. Its problem is that it seems like Claremont is Scott Lobdell-ian in not trusting his artists or the reader to interpret the art correctly, so he has to narrate and speechify everything, as if he were writing a play. It's why I read my omnibi one-and-off, really, with some lighter comics in reserve to unwind (I'm currently near the end of the second Priest Black Panther trade, reading the tail-end of Peter David's second X-Factor run, working my way through Frank Miller's Daredevil run (which reads much more like an 80s comic) and I just finished the first Exiles uiltimate collection trade).

There are a couple things you need to realize about comics in those days. For one, I believe writers were still paid by the word, so Claremont's wordiness makes more sense in that way. Two, there was an editorial mandate that every issue could be someone's first issue, which is why Claremont has everyone explain their powers over and over again and so forth.

While there are wordless sequences here and there(like Paul Smith's amazing Storm/Callisto duel) where Claremont shows some restraint and lets the artist do their thing, I actually like Claremont's wordiness to a large extent. Yes, there are some moments of dialog which are just completely superfluous, but he really explores the characters' thoughts and feelings and the narration boxes make it more like reading a novel. There are comics today that are just 20 pages long, half of which are splash pages or double page spreads, that you can read in like 120 seconds. They are just fluff. I like biting into one of Claremont's issues and really savoring the experience.

[Ricochet Rita]

There are a couple things you need to realize about comics in those days. For one, I believe writers were still paid by the word, so Claremont's wordiness makes more sense in that way. Two, there was an editorial mandate that every issue could be someone's first issue, which is why Claremont has everyone explain their powers over and over again and so forth.

While there are wordless sequences here and there(like Paul Smith's amazing Storm/Callisto duel) where Claremont shows some restraint and lets the artist do their thing, I actually like Claremont's wordiness to a large extent. Yes, there are some moments of dialog which are just completely superfluous, but he really explores the characters' thoughts and feelings and the narration boxes make it more like reading a novel. There are comics today that are just 20 pages long, half of which are splash pages or double page spreads, that you can read in like 120 seconds. They are just fluff. I like biting into one of Claremont's issues and really savoring the experience.

This. And this.

Plus, someone said above that CC's comics seemed like he was writing a play. It is advisable to notice that his first vocation was drama and theater --good old Chris is a failed actor .

[Fuzzy Barbarian]

This. And this.

Plus, someone said above that CC's comics seemed like he was writing a play. It is advisable to notice that his first vocation was drama and theater --good old Chris is a failed actor .

Yep, I said that. I heard about CC being a theatre major, but wasn't sure if it was true.

There's exploring a character's thoughts, then there's complete melodrama and overwriting. What's the point of reading a comic when, if you takeaway the art, the story reads fine? If I compare a 'grieving issue' from Claremont to someone like Peter J. Tomasi, I much prefer Tomasi's silent approach. More doesn't always mean better. Heck, anything by Scott Lobdell seems to think that's how writing works. It's a comic, not a novel. I hate when a writer can't use their medium well, and in his first run, Claremont really had this problem. Comics are a visual medium, you should be able to trust the art to tell part of the story, not be superflous. If Wolverine's snarling, yeah, I know he's angry. It's a major case of "show, don't tell", but in this case, it was shown, but Claremont told it anyway.

I know there were various reasons for this writing style, but I still don't like it. But hey, to each his own.

[Ricochet Rita]

There's exploring a character's thoughts, then there's complete melodrama and overwriting. What's the point of reading a comic when, if you takeaway the art, the story reads fine? If I compare a 'grieving issue' from Claremont to someone like Peter J. Tomasi, I much prefer Tomasi's silent approach. More doesn't always mean better. Heck, anything by Scott Lobdell seems to think that's how writing works. It's a comic, not a novel. I hate when a writer can't use their medium well, and in his first run, Claremont really had this problem. Comics are a visual medium, you should be able to trust the art to tell part of the story, not be superflous. If Wolverine's snarling, yeah, I know he's angry. It's a major case of "show, don't tell", but in this case, it was shown, but Claremont told it anyway.

I know there were various reasons for this writing style, but I still don't like it. But hey, to each his own.

Ey, but I do agree with you, absolutely (well, except for Lobdell being a good writer ;P )! I'm an enthusiast of this medium, I deeply love it, and a really well-made piece is a pleasure for me. I'm only explaining that CC's foibles have got some reasons, and that his devotion, sensitivity and imagination balance them out --at least for me. Over time, he was able to improve his style writing some delightful pages --many of them mutes or almost mutes.

[DDD]

1- Chris was not the norm. He was mocked back then for being too wordy. I think it was even the reason why Byrne left if you read his FAQ. My friends thought UXM had too many words, the comic press thought it had too many words. It had a lot of words.

2- Chris could write silent panels when necessary.

[Zero Hunter]

You guys also got me interested in Paul Smith, I never heard of him before. Is his X-Men work collected in some form (if so, does it read easy or do I need to read the whole Claremont stuff beforehand?)?

I think the only thing you really need to read before hand is the Dark Phoenix Saga since that story ties in heavy to a lot of the issues Smith drew especially issues 174 and 175. You also need a few issues before his run started since he came on in the middle of the Brood Saga. He started on issues 165 but the Brood Saga started in issues 162.

For me I think my love of that period comes from the fact that this was the first issues of X-Men I ever got.

[Panic]

I am currently starting the Dark Phoenix Saga and after this I will go on and read Days of Future Past and try to track down Mutant Massacre. What do you guys consider to be the best other series in that timeframe? I see people mention Exalibur, X-Factor, Exiles and New Mutants.

Excalibur is not in the same tone as the Claremont X-Men stories you've been reading. The Alan Davis art is gorgeous, but the writing is, imo, Claremont going to seed. Claremont saw Excalibur as the much tonally lighter companion to The X-Men, which had gone dark in the Mutant Massacre story-line and was going to stay that way; "cosmic comedy" was how the editor described Excalibur at the time, I believe. Claremont's writing is pretty heavy-handed here, with his characterisation of the five main heroes being kind of Marmite - you're either going to love it or hate it.

There's not much subtlety here - Kitty Pride is an adorable teen genius with a soul so pure she can wield the darkest magic without corruption, Nightcrawler is flawlessly kind and noble, Rachel is the most powerful, important person in the omniverse and an object of desire, Captain Britain has devolved into a caricature of English upper-class entitlement straight out of an old American movie, and Meggan is an unbelievably sweet and innocent girl with little brain or backbone of her own. As someone who likes well-rounded characters with flaws, strengths, and subtleties... I kind of thought this was horrible.

Generally fans of Kitty and Nightcrawler love Claremont's writing here, and if you are a Kitty & Kurt fan, this is pretty much the equivalent of fan-service. As someone who pre-Excalibur had counted Captain Britain and Rachel Summers as two of my favourite characters ever, I hate Claremont's writing here.

And just to labour the point, the issues where Davis steps away as artist reveal just how much Claremont is relying on him to make the whole thing work. Davis's own stint as writer is much better, but he isn't as good a writer as Claremont was in his prime, imo, and the book still leans more toward the comedic than the dramatic.

New Mutants I think starts out slowly but solidly, then kicks into high gear when Bill Sienkiewicz starts drawing the book. His art is fantastic, but not everyone's cup of tea, so if you're not familiar with it you might want to search on the net for some samples of his work from this period. I think Claremont's writing is very good here, and I treasure my trades of New Mutants from this era. I do think the character's of the New Mutants themselves are less interesting than their X-Men counterparts, but when the writing and art are this strong you barely notice.

X-Factor was not written by Claremont. I remember the Louise Simonson/Walt Simonson run being good, though not as good as Uncanny X-Men at its prime.

[DDD]

They were trying to continue the Captain Britain series with Excalibur.

[Batmil]

I don't think AoA is all action, there is definitely a decent plot going, but it isn't anything with a deeper meaning or anything. From what I've seen, the art isn't that bad. Some of it is fun nineties art. I've seen some pretty bad nineties art -- Liefeld, earlier issues of Mark Waid's Flash run, early issues of Peter David's first X-Factor run -- and what I've seen isn't that bad. But take what I say witha grain of salt; again, I haven't actually read through AoA.

Exiles is pretty far outside the timeframe of those other things. Exiles is from the 2000s, and is pretty good, but isn't really an X-book in a traditional sense. But I've heard good things about New Mutants, though I had trouble getting through the first trade, and Excalibur, which I think is a more fun read, but it's not heavy with X-Men themes and stuff, and is more straight-up superhero stuff.

Hey, always good to see new X-readers, especially in the current climate. Smith did a lot of the art in the Brood Saga, which reads fine on its own. His run concludes soon after, and I haven't got to it yet (stupid king-sizse annual is making me take a break to catch up on Frank Miller DD). Remember though, these are older comics, so the characters or narration tend to explain stuff anyway. This is either a blessing or a curse, depending on how you read it; you're going from story to story, so it's probably good for you (though it can still get tiresome, since readers apparently have the memories of goldfish to Claremont), but if you binge the run or are a longtime reader, it gets pretty tiresome and annoying. I'm not sure if Claremont ever had thigns like lighter continuity gags explained, but if he did, I think it'd annoy me (that kinda stuff always does, I prefer those things to be a quick fanservice piece, then we move along).

Sounds rather interesting, is that Brood saga any good? And is it still available? I couldn't find it! Yeah my 90s image is mostly based around muscular long, blonde-haired Thor lookalikes so it might not be as bad...

Undoubtedly, TNM from #1 to maybe #50 (Sienkiewicz's run = ESSENTIAL). Undoubtedly, Excalibur from #1 to maybe 34 AND following Davis' run as a full creator (words & art). Highly recommendable, X-Factor by Peter David (not the first X-Factor, for Mojo's sake).

I am intruiged by the New Mutants now, unfortunately those trades are difficult to find.. they should release ultimate collections!

There are a couple things you need to realize about comics in those days. For one, I believe writers were still paid by the word, so Claremont's wordiness makes more sense in that way. Two, there was an editorial mandate that every issue could be someone's first issue, which is why Claremont has everyone explain their powers over and over again and so forth.

While there are wordless sequences here and there(like Paul Smith's amazing Storm/Callisto duel) where Claremont shows some restraint and lets the artist do their thing, I actually like Claremont's wordiness to a large extent. Yes, there are some moments of dialog which are just completely superfluous, but he really explores the characters' thoughts and feelings and the narration boxes make it more like reading a novel. There are comics today that are just 20 pages long, half of which are splash pages or double page spreads, that you can read in like 120 seconds. They are just fluff. I like biting into one of Claremont's issues and really savoring the experience.

I have quite the same (until now) I just finished reading UXM #129 and I really love how Claremont narrates it. While (after you guys said it) I do see what you guys mean by now trusting his artists, I actually find it quite nice to have some background information to grasp the full context, although I am sure that I will change this opinion the more issues I read. About that editorial mandate, that wasnt't such a bad idea really, I always loved some information or summaries in the book in case I missed something important (i tend to read a lot at the same time so sometimes I forget stuff).

I think the only thing you really need to read before hand is the Dark Phoenix Saga since that story ties in heavy to a lot of the issues Smith drew especially issues 174 and 175. You also need a few issues before his run started since he came on in the middle of the Brood Saga. He started on issues 165 but the Brood Saga started in issues 162.

For me I think my love of that period comes from the fact that this was the first issues of X-Men I ever got.

Ah, that's satisfying to read, going to try and locate the stuff!

Excalibur is not in the same tone as the Claremont X-Men stories you've been reading. The Alan Davis art is gorgeous, but the writing is, imo, Claremont going to seed. Claremont saw Excalibur as the much tonally lighter companion to The X-Men, which had gone dark in the Mutant Massacre story-line and was going to stay that way; "cosmic comedy" was how the editor described Excalibur at the time, I believe. Claremont's writing is pretty heavy-handed here, with his characterisation of the five main heroes being kind of Marmite - you're either going to love it or hate it.

There's not much subtlety here - Kitty Pride is an adorable teen genius with a soul so pure she can wield the darkest magic without corruption, Nightcrawler is flawlessly kind and noble, Rachel is the most powerful, important person in the omniverse and an object of desire, Captain Britain has devolved into a caricature of English upper-class entitlement straight out of an old American movie, and Meggan is an unbelievably sweet and innocent girl with little brain or backbone of her own. As someone who likes well-rounded characters with flaws, strengths, and subtleties... I kind of thought this was horrible.

Generally fans of Kitty and Nightcrawler love Claremont's writing here, and if you are a Kitty & Kurt fan, this is pretty much the equivalent of fan-service. As someone who pre-Excalibur had counted Captain Britain and Rachel Summers as two of my favourite characters ever, I hate Claremont's writing here.

And just to labour the point, the issues where Davis steps away as artist reveal just how much Claremont is relying on him to make the whole thing work. Davis's own stint as writer is much better, but he isn't as good a writer as Claremont was in his prime, imo, and the book still leans more toward the comedic than the dramatic.

New Mutants I think starts out slowly but solidly, then kicks into high gear when Bill Sienkiewicz starts drawing the book. His art is fantastic, but not everyone's cup of tea, so if you're not familiar with it you might want to search on the net for some samples of his work from this period. I think Claremont's writing is very good here, and I treasure my trades of New Mutants from this era. I do think the character's of the New Mutants themselves are less interesting than their X-Men counterparts, but when the writing and art are this strong you barely notice.

X-Factor was not written by Claremont. I remember the Louise Simonson/Walt Simonson run being good, though not as good as Uncanny X-Men at its prime.

Now this is some solid information, thanks a bunch Panic! I am really intrigued by the New Mutants, Excalibur seems rather interesting but I do love me some dark comics so I might save that for later.

I am already thinking ahead of myself but what's the general consensus on Mutant Massacre and, even though it's not related, Wolverine by Claremont and Miller (this seems like an instant succes)?

Once again, you X-fans are amazing! You are really turning me over, might have to change the name to Xmil or something :P

[Panic]

I can scan you some pages from the series you're interested in if you like. It might take me a couple of days to get around to it, and CBR's rules limit me to only three pages per issue, but if you'd like a sample I'm happy to oblige.

The Claremont/Miller Wolverine series is good, imo. I re-read it a year ago and found it stood up well. Interestingly, Miller left lots of blank space in his art for Claremont's notoriously wordy prose, only to find Chris decided to hold back on the narrative boxes - it somehow made the whole thing quite stylish.

[Fuzzy Barbarian]

Double post

[Fuzzy Barbarian]

Ey, but I do agree with you, absolutely (well, except for Lobdell being a good writer ;P )! I'm an enthusiast of this medium, I deeply love it, and a really well-made piece is a pleasure for me. I'm only explaining that CC's foibles have got some reasons, and that his devotion, sensitivity and imagination balance them out --at least for me. Over time, he was able to improve his style writing some delightful pages --many of them mutes or almost mutes.

Woah woah woah... I NEVER said Lobdell was a good writer! How DARE you put those words in my mouth?! Those words!! Lobdell a good writer... the very idea! I demand an apology!

Joking aside, yeah, I get that you were just giving reasons for CC's writing style. My comment was also in response to yogaflame, but I was on my phone, so quoting it would've been harder than just addressing it in text.

Sounds rather interesting, is that Brood saga any good? And is it still available? I couldn't find it! Yeah my 90s image is mostly based around muscular long, blonde-haired Thor lookalikes so it might not be as bad...



I am intruiged by the New Mutants now, unfortunately those trades are difficult to find.. they should release ultimate collections!




I have quite the same (until now) I just finished reading UXM #129 and I really love how Claremont narrates it. While (after you guys said it) I do see what you guys mean by now trusting his artists, I actually find it quite nice to have some background information to grasp the full context, although I am sure that I will change this opinion the more issues I read. About that editorial mandate, that wasnt't such a bad idea really, I always loved some information or summaries in the book in case I missed something important (i tend to read a lot at the same time so sometimes I forget stuff).



Ah, that's satisfying to read, going to try and locate the stuff!



Now this is some solid information, thanks a bunch Panic! I am really intrigued by the New Mutants, Excalibur seems rather interesting but I do love me some dark comics so I might save that for later.

I am already thinking ahead of myself but what's the general consensus on Mutant Massacre and, even though it's not related, Wolverine by Claremont and Miller (this seems like an instant succes)?

Once again, you X-fans are amazing! You are really turning me over, might have to change the name to Xmil or something :P

Not sure if the Brood Saga is collected outside of the omnibus. It's not heavy on the X-themes, and is more sci-fi than anything. It's got some really good character work with Wolverine though, and honestly, is when he started being much more likeable, to me at least.

Didn't know the New Mutants Classic stuff was so hard to track down! Did a quick eBay search and... wow! I got mine (I have the first four) for about $10 a pop from someone who was eBay-ing their entire collection -- though honestly, it seems like maybe they were eBay-ing an ex's or their child's or something, since literally everything's starting big was usually $1, and never over $20, including OHCs -- so I guess I'm lucky I got in when I did.

Well, we started deviating from the idea of summarising issues, and more into just overuse of narration and general wordiness. I actually am okay with the summarising issues thing from older comics sometimes; when the thing was affected by other comics which are older than I am, yeah, I like to be told what happened.

I think the Claremont/Miller Wolverine mini was great. It showed a better side to Logan, and Miller was really great here. I'm not sure if this was before or after his Daredevil run, but it's almost as good as some of his stuff there. Seriously good mini. I only read it fairly recently -- I believe it was around a year ago -- and it reads really well. And it's dark, no doubt assisted by Miller's art. I highly recommend it, it's one of the essential Wolverine stories alongside Weapon X -- which I also highly recommend you read -- and Death of Wolverine. Those three are my little "Wolverine Trilogy" of a sorts. I've yet to read Kitty Pryde and Wolverine, but I've heard that's really good as well.

[Batmil]

I can scan you some pages from the series you're interested in if you like. It might take me a couple of days to get around to it, and CBR's rules limit me to only three pages per issue, but if you'd like a sample I'm happy to oblige.

The Claremont/Miller Wolverine series is good, imo. I re-read it a year ago and found it stood up well. Interestingly, Miller left lots of blank space in his art for Claremont's notoriously wordy prose, only to find Chris decided to hold back on the narrative boxes - it somehow made the whole thing quite stylish.

Oh I would appreciate that a lot! A small sample would be amazing, thanks in advance!

Woah woah woah... I NEVER said Lobdell was a good writer! How DARE you put those words in my mouth?! Those words!! Lobdell a good writer... the very idea! I demand an apology!

Joking aside, yeah, I get that you were just giving reasons for CC's writing style. My comment was also in response to yogaflame, but I was on my phone, so quoting it would've been harder than just addressing it in text.



Not sure if the Brood Saga is collected outside of the omnibus. It's not heavy on the X-themes, and is more sci-fi than anything. It's got some really good character work with Wolverine though, and honestly, is when he started being much more likeable, to me at least.

Didn't know the New Mutants Classic stuff was so hard to track down! Did a quick eBay search and... wow! I got mine (I have the first four) for about $10 a pop from someone who was eBay-ing their entire collection -- though honestly, it seems like maybe they were eBay-ing an ex's or their child's or something, since literally everything's starting big was usually $1, and never over $20, including OHCs -- so I guess I'm lucky I got in when I did.

Well, we started deviating from the idea of summarising issues, and more into just overuse of narration and general wordiness. I actually am okay with the summarising issues thing from older comics sometimes; when the thing was affected by other comics which are older than I am, yeah, I like to be told what happened.

I think the Claremont/Miller Wolverine mini was great. It showed a better side to Logan, and Miller was really great here. I'm not sure if this was before or after his Daredevil run, but it's almost as good as some of his stuff there. Seriously good mini. I only read it fairly recently -- I believe it was around a year ago -- and it reads really well. And it's dark, no doubt assisted by Miller's art. I highly recommend it, it's one of the essential Wolverine stories alongside Weapon X -- which I also highly recommend you read -- and Death of Wolverine. Those three are my little "Wolverine Trilogy" of a sorts. I've yet to read Kitty Pryde and Wolverine, but I've heard that's really good as well.

If everyone has such a high praise for TNM, why won't Marvel work around it? Sometimes I really don't get them.. ah well.. going to order Wolverine by Claremont/Miller and Mutant Massacre next!

[Ricochet Rita]

Excalibur is not in the same tone as the Claremont X-Men stories you've been reading. The Alan Davis art is gorgeous, but the writing is, imo, Claremont going to seed. Claremont saw Excalibur as the much tonally lighter companion to The X-Men, which had gone dark in the Mutant Massacre story-line and was going to stay that way; "cosmic comedy" was how the editor described Excalibur at the time, I believe. Claremont's writing is pretty heavy-handed here, with his characterisation of the five main heroes being kind of Marmite - you're either going to love it or hate it.

There's not much subtlety here - Kitty Pride is an adorable teen genius with a soul so pure she can wield the darkest magic without corruption, Nightcrawler is flawlessly kind and noble, Rachel is the most powerful, important person in the omniverse and an object of desire, Captain Britain has devolved into a caricature of English upper-class entitlement straight out of an old American movie, and Meggan is an unbelievably sweet and innocent girl with little brain or backbone of her own. As someone who likes well-rounded characters with flaws, strengths, and subtleties... I kind of thought this was horrible.

Generally fans of Kitty and Nightcrawler love Claremont's writing here, and if you are a Kitty & Kurt fan, this is pretty much the equivalent of fan-service. As someone who pre-Excalibur had counted Captain Britain and Rachel Summers as two of my favourite characters ever, I hate Claremont's writing here.

And just to labour the point, the issues where Davis steps away as artist reveal just how much Claremont is relying on him to make the whole thing work. Davis's own stint as writer is much better, but he isn't as good a writer as Claremont was in his prime, imo, and the book still leans more toward the comedic than the dramatic.

Panic is right: Excalibur is a comedy...and you'll better take it that way --otherwise you'll hate it, indeed. On the other hand, if you take it with humor (as it's supposed you should do), I think you'll love it. I appreciate well-rounded characters as good as anyone, but this doesn't stop me from enjoying anarchic "British" nonsense such like this series --on the contrary, I think its light weird spirit was probably the best (even the only good thing) of those awful late 80's / early 90's. Actually, I think that the characters (mainly Shadowcat and Nightcrawler, that's true) get a good development back then, though I can easily understand that a great fan of former Captain Britain could feel hurt by facing the lout jerk he has become. But, you know, alcoholism wreaks havoc in many people... It's a good thing that comic-books show it as it is :/

New Mutants I think starts out slowly but solidly, then kicks into high gear when Bill Sienkiewicz starts drawing the book. His art is fantastic, but not everyone's cup of tea, so if you're not familiar with it you might want to search on the net for some samples of his work from this period. I think Claremont's writing is very good here, and I treasure my trades of New Mutants from this era. I do think the character's of the New Mutants themselves are less interesting than their X-Men counterparts, but when the writing and art are this strong you barely notice.

I agree. Taken as a whole, I may say that TNM is the best CC's long work --you'll barely find setbacks.

About that editorial mandate, that wasnt't such a bad idea really, I always loved some information or summaries in the book in case I missed something important (i tend to read a lot at the same time so sometimes I forget stuff).

Some information is good, but just a little bit, please... Actually, I love mystery: I jumped into most of comic-book series while they're already running, and it was so exciting to read about all those strangers who were deep into a trouble which you knew nothing about but which you glimpsed bloody thrilling! Finding out all about it step by step was so enjoyable!

I am already thinking ahead of myself but what's the general consensus on Mutant Massacre and, even though it's not related, Wolverine by Claremont and Miller (this seems like an instant succes)?

Mutant Massacre is essential in X-Men history, not only for its high-quality but for its meaning: it's kinda the end of the innocence, the first time for "Nothing will be the same" (with the difference that back then this was true although it wasn't told, while since then it's told day in day out and it doesn't mean anything). It's an humongous crossover, but I traced it just through UXM and TNM. Artists are many and uneven, but writing is solid and (I think) restrained (as far as can be expected from CC). You will not remain indifferent.

As for the Wolvie mini, it's a fine piece of work, thanks to a large extent to Miller's art. IMO, it's a pity that Josef Rubinstein was the inker --I think he always weaken anyone else's pencil, and Miller in particular deserved tough inking such as Al Williamson's, for example.

Woah woah woah... I NEVER said Lobdell was a good writer! How DARE you put those words in my mouth?! Those words!! Lobdell a good writer... the very idea! I demand an apology!

Oh my!!! I do beg your pardon! LOL, honestly I found very odd that you considered Lobdell a good writer --it didn't suit. You know, English is not my native language and sometimes I misunderstand what's being told --sarcasm is specially difficult for me. Sorry! We're on the same side!