This is an issue that has bugged me for years.  It seems that when i hear comics discussed in any other meduim (be it magazines, tv, movies, internet, etc.) all i hear praise for are the "greats" like Gaiman, Moore, Miller, Morrison et. al., all the while utterly ignoring Mr. Byrne's immense canon, longevity and influence on the industry and us readers.  I have not and would never qualify my love of JB's work.  It is what it is, and it's great.

And yes, I did say JB has an "immense canon".  Make of it what you will.

Hey....I agree with JB.

After all I write on my FB page....." I love John Byrne's work"....'nuff said.

There is no mystery to why this is. JB has always  written, more or less, for an "all-ages" audience while  the vast majority of the works created by those you mentioned were aimed at adults (or quasi-adults)or attempted to change an existing property into something geared to the tastes of an aging fanbase.

No matter how good JB's stuff was or is, he'll never get the critical acclaim given his chosen style. It's unfair,  but it's the way it works across all entertainment/art mediums. Walt Simonson, Roger Stern, Jim Starlin, etc, etc, all suffer the same unfair bias.

Call it appeasement, or call it yet another manifestation of that annoying habit some fans have of not being able to simply express a liking for something without having to QUALIFY it. As if they are afraid that saying "I like Joe Fonebone's work!" will unleash a torrent of demands that justification must be given for liking an issue Joe did fifteen years ago, when he was recovering from brain surgery and drawing with his feet.

++++++++

Well, that nut calling himself Joe Zhang did post one of those "his old stuff was better" tirades in the article's comment section, so...

I enjoyed the articles because I thought there was a lot of good information there that I had never seen before.   I was a kid when I read the issues, and I never read all of the interviews where Mr. Byrne discussed his plans for the series.   I would have loved to go on the full ride that Mr. Byrne intended.   Reading Al Milgrom's resolution to the separation, when the Vision played a key role in re-integrating Banner and the Hulk, was memorable, but somehow a letdown for me, even at the time.   I can see how Mr. Byrne's characterization of the Hulk as a mindless, destructive brute with no redeeming qualities was perhaps set-up for the death of that character as he was envisioned at that time.   What a great way to set up an in-story, in-continuity "reboot."