I can take a quick (albeit not a 'five second") glance at a script and potentially determine the basic level of technical quality. I've had countless people send me scripts where they didn't capitalize or punctuate anything correctly. Obviously no matter what the story may have been, they lacked the technical skills to be an effective author, and if you happen to be one of those people, you'll get a handy dandy rejection slip too.

And sometimes, it's just one thing that determines the quality of a script. For example, one guy posted the first four or six pages of his comic that he wanted to pitch to Image up on their message boards a few years back. He had something like fifty-seven cuss words in four pages of comic. The art was gorgeous, and his plot was sound, but who wants to read about a guy who cusses everything third word? That alone was a deal breaker. His book has not been published - by Image or anyone else - to my knowledge.

So yes, there are ways to tell at times.

Sure. I’m not up to arguing that Shakespeare is any better or worse than Michelangelo, say.

Well I'd say Michelangelo had a harder job then Shakespeare. Shakespeare cranked out a lot of plays in the amount of time that it took Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel.

After indicating he was impressed with the artwork and the look of our characters, he asked which one of the creators I was. I told him I was the creator and writer of each book and his response was, and I quote, "Oh, so you're just the writer? Do you have the artists here with you?"

When I explained that the artists were taking a break from the table, he said he'd return later to chat with them. Now, we have a running joke about how I spent years working on these characters, wrote the novels which gave the artists a story to illustrate with their great artwork, founded the company, and used my own money to publish the books and am "just the writer."

As has also been pointed out, it's so easy and less time-consuming to discover if you like an unknown artist...just look at their work. To find out if you like an unknown writer, you have to actually put time into reading at least a few pages of their stuff.

Sure. I'm not up to arguing that Shakespeare is any better or worse than Michelangelo, say.

But that's kind of irrelevant to the specific question.

Writing a decent, 22 page mainstream comic script in the month-or-so you have to work with is faaaarrrr less work intensive... And, therefore, easier than drawing a 22 page comic script in the same amount of time.

Judging writing is equally as challenging in terms of time consumption, but it really breaks down to four key elements:

1) Does this story's concept and plot make sense, both in its internal structure and in the greater context of the character's history (if such is applicable)?

2) Is the characterization consistent and logical, both within the context of the story itself, and within the greater context of the characters' histories, and if not, is the discrepancy explained within the story without hampering the plot or pacing of the story? (Or that of stories that came before, for that matter.)

3) Does the story have a finite and FINAL resolution, does the author know what that resolution is and how to get there, and are we (the publisher) willing to commit to that track to its end, regardless of the sales?

4) Is this story unique enough in its presentation so as not to be perceived as derived from previous works, be it from the author themselves, or the works of others?

Now, while those four elements are relatively simple to understand, judging to what extent a given work adheres to those elements, and whether or not it's enough to warrant pursuing publication, can be an extremely difficult process. Today, it seems to me that publishers prefer to just skate by on the reputations of authors who at least at one time in their careers met these qualifications enough to gain some notoriety for it, and are just returning to the well far too often, without concern for the damages the results are causing both their properties and the writers themselves.

Which makes sense. You can look an artist's work and get an instant reaction mostly. Writing, well that means reading, which means time. Which is something editors don't have.

Back in the day, the major and minor publishers had a way for new writers to pitch stuff. Hardly any of them do any more.

And yes, writers can write several stories in the time it takes artists to draw one, so fewer are needed to fill publishing slots at any given moment. And we very rarely get to set up tables in "Writer's Alley" and have people commission us to write quick character sketches or pithy caption boxes as an extra source of income. Sexy people do not often come up to us and ask "Will you write me into a story?" (Okay, in fairness that has actually happened to me, but only the once.)

The one saving grace in all this is that creative people (in any medium) do not thrive by merely meeting someone else's need for a quantity of output, but by creating a demand for their unique stuff over and in addition to whatever else is out there. A Jeff Parker or a Fred Van Lente create an audience for work written by Jeff Parker or Fred Van Lente, regardless of what other titles are available. An editor may only have a certain number of jobs to offer writers in a given year...but your real competition is not other writers vying for those spots; it's apathy.

But it is still really hard.