••

Well, fuck me very much!

*****

heh-heh. First af all you were alf of the stories both by co-ploting and by giving them shape trough your art.

Secondely your art (and also JRjr/Layton) is the one that made me take interest in the art.

My passion is stories: Novels, tales, movies, comics and of course the story of our world: history.

Art is something that i always liked but, like music, it was at the second place.

I began to give it more attention because of your X-Men work, so clearly i just express my dominant taste and nothing more by the post above.

I love your art, but i love it because it tells a story more than because it is beautiful. That has to do with me, not with the respective qualities of the two creators, particularly when like here they both are favorites of mine.

I think if you enjoy a story, then the lenght is good, but if you find it dull then it reads like an eternity.

Dialogue lenght depends on the scene's needs imo.

Absolutely Martin: it's interesting if it give us an insight of the characters, and i don't mind if it resays what you can already see in the pics. Because words and pics touch us differently.

And i also like to have a narrator, and if caption boxes aren't an absolute necessity, more often than not i like to see them. The emotion of a picture may be stronger when nothing prevent you to focus on it, but the "voice" of a story-teller has a charm, that is part of what i like in comics.

...am more interested in stories than in art.

When it comes to comics, art is a big part of the story.

When Wolverine throws Colossus on a collision course towards Phoenix, I don't need to read a recitation of the Gettysburg address while it's happening.

I didn't make it far with the original silver age X-Men run either. It's true I kept thinking they took forever to read. Mostly, I didn't find them interesting.

So had they'd been more along 15 minutes, I would've kept on reading but it was too long for the enjoyment I got out of it. On the other hand, Chris could write in excess and I'd eat it all up because I was a fan. Which alienated tons of moderate fans or fans of the art.

In that sense, I think it's a good strategy to keep the reading difficulty and word usage reasonable for everyone. But as is, it's too minimalist for me.

But the story's the thing. Claremont's "overwriting" never bothered me as long as the stories were good. Without knowing how
often the writing was a "bit" that was actually undermining something JB and Chris had discussed earlier-- I ate up all the inner
dialogue and narrator prose. Of course, when I don't like the story, no amount of "overwriting" or "underwriting" or "just-the-
right-amount-of-writing" actually matters.

It gave the books a lot of re-readability because -- and this is the funny thing as far as I'm concerned -- I scan the pictures
first and just enough text to follow along. But then I go back and read and get another "experience" out of it. Some writers are
so good that I find new good stuff after re-reading many times. Stan Lee and JB come to mind.

I am a little sorry JB no longer does as much thought balloon/narrator text as he used to. I loved his inner dialogue and narrator
insights.

I prefer overwriting to underwriting.  Examples: Stan Lee over Image-type.

Frank Miller was the first person I noticed that really "wrote" with his art.  Taditionally, artists such as Kirby were undercreditted with how much "writing" was theirs.

I wonder if JB has used more words when writing and drawing or when writing with another artist.  I'd guess more words when he draws.

I miss the excitement of the old style Marvel writing...HANG LOOSE FRANTIC ONE! THIS IS IT, THE BLOCKBUSTER YOU DEMANDED! WHO SAYS THIS ISN'T THE MARVEL-AGE OF OVER THE TOP BLURBS?!? --Smiley.