I’m not sure what it means to be “someone like Dixon” anyway. If we’re not talking about politics, is it the fact that he was so prolific?
If it’s just that he was a good writer who understood how to construct a story and worked well with a variety of artists - I mean, sure? Dixon never struck me as a stickler for continuity - his books were pretty consistent with each other, but even in the O’Neil days there were some pretty significant differences in characterizations between titles.
From reading all this it means something like this-
I want more continuity. Someone in charge would make that happen I think. I love Knightfall, which Dixon worked on, so he should be in charge.
I think there’s a big difference between what was happening between Dixon, Moench, and Grant, and what has happened in the past 10 years with Morrison, Tomasi, Snyder, Daniel, King, Tynion, Tamaki, etc. Part of that is the rise of the “superstar writer” and longer arcs - when you had a bunch of shorter arcs and one-shots, it’s much easier to say “this story and this story happened around the same time, not a big deal.” When you have 10 to 100 issue arcs, finding the space for other things happening at the same time is much harder.
Given the thread title, what if, instead of someone like Chuck Dixon because he was mentored by Denny O’Neil, what if a current editor were more like–
–wait for for it–
Or did I just blow your mind?!
Seriously, though, I like his quote about considering himself a “curator” or “caretaker” to these character. Much preferred over some writers who seem to think “these characters are mine now!” and/or “I must make them more like me!”
@Mr_Morbach: Yes, someone like Denny O’Neil–“the curator or caretaker” would be immensely preferred. These iconic characters do not belong to any one writer or editor, but instead to posterity.
Denny O’Neil and Chuck Dixon are some of my faovirte comic writers. Denny O’Neil was the guy who wrote Azrael so he has a special place in my heart.
The flaw is that diversity is not always a good thing. I would rather have the best than some good and some bad just for the sake of diversity.
It all depends on how it’s done; there’s a right way and a wrong way to do just about anything. If you make a character diverse, but don’t have anything particularly interesting or unique about them as a person/character [cough-cough-Harper Row], then the diversity doesn’t really make much of a difference.
I personally think diversity is, in fact, a good thing, but like all things, it can be done well or not. I think the problem is that there’s not enough research done or narrative craft engaged, so that when “diversity” is pointed out as a selling point without those two things, it gives me a bad taste in my mouth. But I’m not in favor of “no diversity unless it’s the top level quality”. I just would like them to not use that itself to market - I want it to just be an accepted fact that we live in the real world, and the comics are coming from that reality. Tell me stories about the people first, though.
I think the real problem with diversity in comics today is because it should be Diversity and Inclusion and not just diversity.
I think there is something to be said for standardization among the Bat titles, and standardization makes it more likely that a reader will pick all titles every month. But I assume that is a trade-off they are making in courting the highest caliber writers - one way they attract them to DC’s Bat titles is not meddling with their plans.
No idea what Comicsgate is and don’t feel the need to research it to chime in here
I never thought Dixon was a great writer, though don’t recall how much of his stuff I read before reaching that conclusion. O’Neill’s history made an obvious case for him overseeing all the Bat titles, and Dixon’s history is not anything like that.
If DC has a fantastic writer on a title, I think their main priority should be keeping that creator. And otherwise, keeping a closely-linked continuity between titles is a good idea (though not as an excuse to set up three-year storylines like Knightfall).
I’m not convinced that the “star writer” treatment is good, long term, because of the frustrations is can build up in the other writers you have, who you do need, even if they aren’t the “star”. I think Morrison, Snyder, and King each did a lot of long term damage to the Bat office, in terms of editors shuffling off the hard work of integrating the consequences of their choices in the main title onto other writers without getting those writers’ input or consent.
I think that the idea of a “star” writer run is the main problem with the batbooks and in comics today.
I think Tynion worked hard against that tendency. But he’s gone now. I think WIlliamson will also work against it, but I don’t think he’s able to take the same role of leadership that Tynion did.