Cheers!

Jeff: I don't know. I don't think that the writers and artists are trying to make the books quicker reads. I don't know that the more detailed artist is a hindrance to the writer's story. Geoff Darrow does help to make Zircher's argument, though. From reading the first few issues of Shaolin Cowboy, it isn't a complex, mature read...just an off the wall idea with crazy bits of action and the artwork as the payoff.

Two people who don't are Geof Darrow and Frank Quitely. You linger over each page, savor them, since they're put so much detail in. Ditto, of course, for Perez and Jimenez, and Davis and Hitch, and a whole bunch fo others not on the top of my head. On one level, they're not serving the story drawing so much background, so many details, such expression and perspectives you just have to hold back the book and marvel at it.

But on the other hand, those are all a-list talents. Just like most all fo the a-list writer talents get name-checked for providing too much detail in their scripts for the artists to have much of a say in things.

Someone, writer or artist, ends up driving the book. Often it's neither: and thus a bad book. Every once in a while writer and artist mesh so well together the book is a monthyl miracle. But usually peopel need to pick. And usually the tie goes to the writer.

But not always.

"He's insulting writers!"

"No! He's insulting artists!"

"NO! I KNOW! HE'S INSULTING FANS"

...gah. I hate the internet.

I'm currently writing for a role playing game company. And I got an interesting complaint in an email last night. It appears that I have too much plot in my games, and not enough action. Which brought me to mind of comic books.

This player "instructed" me that the "correct" way to plot a role playing game was:

1. PCs meet and find out about the bad guy
2. PCs fight something unrelated to the bad guy, part of the environment
3. PCs find out where the bad guy is / be given his secret weakness
4. PCs fight the bad guy's minions or face his traps
5. PCs fight the bad guy.

I looked at his list of bulletpoints, and imediately thought, "Sounds like a 90s Image comic." And, that's when I realized I was being unfair.

So, yes, a 10 year old COULD plot a comic (or a role playing game). On the one one hand, it would likely be formulaic and predictable; but on the other hand, some readers (or players) want formulaic and predeictable.

Theno

So, maybe one way for the industry to move forward is for artists and writers to acknowledge the importance of the other and to tell better stories. To be fair, I think the best writers already do this (Moore, Morrison and Ellis have all talked about their relationships with writers, and writing towards an artists style--am sure there are others but these are the ones that I know). Just don't know as much about the less prominent creative relationships.

But now the only hate is that I hold for myself.

@Joe Rice - I don't hate Europe, I'm from Europe. Ireland to be specific. It's half past four here, not half eight in the morning.

I understand not everyone is this detailed, nor should they be, but a lot of comic scripts I've seen cover beats, breakdowns, pace, panel numbers. These are directorial issues. Quite often the artist will do this him/herself.
Keith Giffen's role in 52 is probably the nearest to a directorial role someone could have, but even then it's cinematography and arguably editing for consistency of pace.
A ten year old could have plotted the Dark Knight Returns. He couldn't have written it. A ten year old could also have drawn it. It'd be rubbish, but it's do-able.
This statement is not a complement towards artists. It is arguably a statement of the current state of affairs, which is depressing and it is provoking debate, which is great, but it's definitely an insult.

And to take the artists' side here for a minute, that's probably a good thing.

Point B: While there certainly are some full-control writers in the (director) mode, I don't think they're all that numerous; nor do I think most writers in any field could really pull this off. And the ones that do tend to have an artistic background to begin with. Morrison, Moore . . .artists. There are some writers, though quite good, I wouldn't trust visualization to . . .they're word writers not picture writers.

Point C: Dunc why do you hate Europe?

There is almost a page of description for the inside cover alone. The writer/director, writer/artist comparison is a often a false one as many of the most high profile comics writers (or Moore at least) will provide a script with a level of detail that would constitute directing in other media (I say this as a theatre director). This changes all the time and depending on the individuals involved. Currently I think a better comparison is
writer/artist to writer & director/cinematographer & actor. Again, it doesn't apply to everything but it's a good rule of thumb. I would compare Gibbons on Watchmen to Ledger/Bale/etc. on Dark Knight, not to Nolan.