Maybe I missed it but I didnt notice him talk about when an artist changes there style completely, in an almost overnight transformation. There is an artist that I used to love that has changed his style to the point that it isnt something that I really like. I still read the artists comic,and have even gotten used to the style, but I still prefer his older style. I am in no way saying that his older stuff is better. Unless your able to blow that persons current artwork out of the water, you can't say that(imho). Of course as the column points out you shouldnt say that anyway, its as rude as pointing. Which I hate. To me people like John Byrne and Art Adams have always been great and I have loved watching there artwork evolve. I guess there are so many factors as to why a person would like a persons artwork that an artist could go crazy wondering why a critic dislikes there artwork. Especially if they only say "uuhhhh, your older stuff is better".

So Mr. Byrne is upset because fans can't quite articulate their disatisfaction on current trends--whether its his artwork or storytelling. (Or other writers' and artists' work, for that matter.) Well, excuuuuuse me!

Perhaps Mr. Byrne should develop a fill-in-the-blank form or a questionaire to enable his less than erudite fans to better express themselves. Or better yet, perhaps he should just proclaim himself King and behead those who dare question his greatness. Nevermind, that so much of what passes today in the comics industry as 'plot' or 'character development' is simply poor writing.

As for art...? I wish to thank Mr. Byrne for pointing out to the less-enlightened masses that Neal Adams wasn't in fact as good as we thought he was. Indeed, Byrnes gleefully tells us that Adams was 'merely' better than those around him at the time, but that when studied today, his work doesn't quite stand up. Now that I know, I guess I won't bother to collect the upcoming Adams' collection.

As for our Mr. Byrne's work...well, I guess I'll just have to avoid it. After all, I hear that his old stuff was better.

I think Byrne (I won't call him "John" as I have never met the guy, let alone am his familiar) is right. It's insensitive and useless to use this comment in a personal critique, even if it is true. Especially when it is true, what do you expect them to do about it? They just can't pull a time machine out of their back pocket!

What's done is done, for better or for worse, and Byrne knows that.

Actually, I think that was the point. I don't believe that Byrne is actually defending the subpar work of today (nor can he) but merely mentioning that using a work of the past as a standard not neccessarily of subjective quality is useless.

So the old stuff was better. What's the writer going to do with that now? That's the point.

CJA

>>So the old stuff was better. What's the writer going to do with that now?

Build me a time machine!

CJA