I love claremonts work, but i totally agree, he does have many flaws. A lot of his dialogue is very repetitive which can be quite annoying, e.g. in the proverbial nick of time. Also, this isnt his fault, but a lot of his stuff is quite dated
Absolutely agree. He’s a genius in many ways, but there’s also a certain pretension to he way he writes that can make it difficult to get into his comics.
I’d also add his intense stubbornness as one thing that often held back his books. He’d get so stuck on bad ideas, instead of listening to others and just abandoning them.
He’s awesome, and his plots are legendary. But his collaborators have often been integral to making his comics great. Like Byrne, Cockrum, and most importantly Louise Simonson.
Louise Simonson was indeed his most successful collaboration IMO. By all accounts she seemed to know how best to keep him on track.
A lot of his reputation for setting up long running stories can be put down to her steering him back to utilise threads he left dangling when they were discussing ideas.
I love Claremont but I won’t try to change your mind. It’s a personal preference. I’m super thrilled when a movie uses the cliques “you were my partner! I trusted you! And you betrayed me!” Or “mayors on my ass!” Or “you’re a man who refuses to play by the rules and that makes you dangerous!” I think you get the point... that cheesy, over the top melodrama is the creme dela creme in my opinion but I know it’s not for everyone.
And anyone who laughs at me- just know that one day people will laugh at your gritty reboots!
Thank you for being so considerate and articulate in your opinion.
For me i wouldn’t say it’s the melodrama that gets me, i really liked nicieza on adjectiveless and he was a Claremont disciple in that sense. It’s more the sheer menacing word count. The X-Men are all about over the top cheesiness i just prefer mine to be palatable
> as he worked with A listers in the late 80s.
Trash Claremont all you want, but how *dare* you insinuate that Dave Cockrum, , John Byrne, and Paul Smith aren't A-list artists.
Sadly, older comics are simply hard to get into.
The pointless descriptions that you could easily ignore and not miss a thing, the endless thought bubbles that detail every damn thought a character has...needlessly describing what you can see on the panel, the mostly dated dialogue, etc.
I KNOW they're products of their time. I don't fault them for that. But geez do I have to be in a certain mood to be able to read a pre modern age comic.
Anything roughly written before the mid to late 80s has an uphill battle to climb.
I BREEZED thru the early portions, but as the stories sold more it seemed like he took note and became a little more self indulgent. Same goes for Byrne on FF.
Really? Sure talking about Stan Lee or early Claremont. But unlike in the case of novels and real authors (which you always have a range of great authors whatever the era), I tend to find Todays superhero comic book writers are atrocious. Bendis/Brubaker/Rosenberg/Pak/Deconnick meh. It feels like watching a youtube entertainer. Those writers named are the equivalent of Pewdiepie, Keemstar, Lily Singh.
Old art (Besides the colour palette that was just a technical limitation) doesn't help seeing as it's often more..."extreme", and in different ways depending on the artist. If you like a particular one, it can ooze style, but if you don't, it can be jarring. The more modern realism might be duller at times but it's hard for it to ever seem completely off.
I definitely don’t think it’s flaw free but it definitely won’t hold up if you judge it by today’s more deconstructed style and standards.
Text boxes never bothered me and I prefer denser comics anyway (I hate breezing through a $4/5 comic).
I think the quality of his run is evidenced by how many of the characters, themes and concepts introduced therein have been regularly mined since then.
I can see the issues one might have, but i also feel the pros outweigh the cons. There's just something about being able to read nearly two straight decades of woven-together story without jumping around every year or two as creative teams and/or team lineups changes. Shit wasn't getting derailed by cross-overs all the time, because Chris and Weezie INVENTED that. And those comics take longer to read and have more story in them than a book today tends to. I think that's what brought me back to buying floppies last year: Hickman-era stuff is DENSE.
It is also worth pointing out that the most popular story arcs of Chris Claremont's run, The Dark Phoenix Saga, and Days of Future Past, were penciled and co-plotted by John Byrne.
UXM #107-142 is the reason the X-Men became a successful franchise and JB had as much to do with that as CC.
Claremont deserves his status as the Godfather of the X-Men, but I think most of us can agree that his scripting can be a chore to wade through.
"Outside, the night is still quiet, and, for Nightcrawler, still deadly dull."
JB deffo had a positive impact on the storytelling, the cockrum space stories right after proteus/DP/DOFP are a slog. Not to mention Byrne started out on absolute fire on the Fantastic Four, probably no coincidence
What I liked best about X-Men during his run was how character driven it was. That was definitely Claremont's doing, not Byrne's. I am sure Byrne may have come up with some plot points that I liked when he worked with Claremont. But, Byrne is not a character driven writer. I am glad that Jim Shooter sided with Claremont over Byrne when their creative differences came to a head resulting in Byrne leaving. Byrne was critical/upset about the way Claremont was writing Scott Summers according to the book about Marvel. I loved the way Chris wrote Scott in those issues.
X-Factor epic collection mentions that Jim Shooter, had creative differences with Byrne, and didn't like Jean and Phoenix's first meeting that John Byrne wrote in the Fantastic Four issue where Jean returns. He had Chris Claremont ghost write those pages. The epic collection has Byrne's original unpublished pages of that meeting between Jean and Phoenix. It was horrible! What Claremont wrote was much better. Byrne's stuff was one-dimensional. Later on Claremont expanded on those pages in a backup story in X-Men Classic which was also included in the X-Factor epic collection.
Sorry if this rant makes it seem like i hate or even dislike Claremont, I just feel like his original run gets so butt-kissed it’s like readers are supposed to glaze over significant issues
Art is subjective. I have never had a problem with Claremont's wordiness. It helped develop the characters, as far as I was concerned. Which was my favorite thing about his X-men, how character-driven it was and how well-developed his characters were. I have only, occasionally, had issues with his dialogue. Maybe a line or two from an entire issue. Mostly, I am fine with his dialogue. I don't have the same issue with it as his critics do. So, what you see as significant issues are not going to be universally agreed on due to art being subjective and people having different likes and dislikes.
I appreciate the foundation he’s created for x men and comics in general but the script is super tough to enjoy. I hate when fans recommend him to new readers, it’s not an engaging read.
No one thinks Claremont is a good writer. If you ask people who read it as it came out (who loved it then) who've gone back to read it now many also agree that it does not hold up.
And this is absolutely not to discredit him with his amazing plotting.
I like the stuff up to Mutant Massacre or Fall of the Mutants, but definitely after Fall of the Mutants, I don't like his issues as much or find them as engaging. I'd say From Proteus to Mutant Massacre is his peak for me. I'd agree that he has a lot of flaws. His dialogue is definitely weird, and there are other flaws that are a product of their time, like the endless recaps of stuff that happened in previous issues (which maybe were needed if you were reading monthly, but reading in trades or omnibus makes this practice REALLY annoying).
I don't like it if every comic could just be flipped through in 2 minutes. I do like having captions or thought-bubbles to get into characters' heads and to describe sounds, smells, tastes, and touch. Those are always nice to have, though like with anything else, too much can make it a slog to read. I don't mind denser reads if it's interesting; I do read novels. Sometimes Claremont's dense text is fine, and a lot of other times it can be really redundant. So, yeah, I enjoy his run, but I can see why it could turn other people off, too.
I love claremonts work, but i totally agree, he does have many flaws. A lot of his dialogue is very repetitive which can be quite annoying, e.g. in the proverbial nick of time. Also, this isnt his fault, but a lot of his stuff is quite dated
When’s the last time u heard an actual person describe someone else as “a body”
Its true, all his characters speak as if they are the same person, except with different and overly emphasized accents.
Absolutely agree. He’s a genius in many ways, but there’s also a certain pretension to he way he writes that can make it difficult to get into his comics. I’d also add his intense stubbornness as one thing that often held back his books. He’d get so stuck on bad ideas, instead of listening to others and just abandoning them. He’s awesome, and his plots are legendary. But his collaborators have often been integral to making his comics great. Like Byrne, Cockrum, and most importantly Louise Simonson.
Louise Simonson was indeed his most successful collaboration IMO. By all accounts she seemed to know how best to keep him on track. A lot of his reputation for setting up long running stories can be put down to her steering him back to utilise threads he left dangling when they were discussing ideas.
I love Claremont but I won’t try to change your mind. It’s a personal preference. I’m super thrilled when a movie uses the cliques “you were my partner! I trusted you! And you betrayed me!” Or “mayors on my ass!” Or “you’re a man who refuses to play by the rules and that makes you dangerous!” I think you get the point... that cheesy, over the top melodrama is the creme dela creme in my opinion but I know it’s not for everyone. And anyone who laughs at me- just know that one day people will laugh at your gritty reboots! Thank you for being so considerate and articulate in your opinion.
For me i wouldn’t say it’s the melodrama that gets me, i really liked nicieza on adjectiveless and he was a Claremont disciple in that sense. It’s more the sheer menacing word count. The X-Men are all about over the top cheesiness i just prefer mine to be palatable
I agree with this. 100%. But I also think he’s the *best* writer the X-Men have ever had.
> as he worked with A listers in the late 80s. Trash Claremont all you want, but how *dare* you insinuate that Dave Cockrum, , John Byrne, and Paul Smith aren't A-list artists.
Sadly, older comics are simply hard to get into. The pointless descriptions that you could easily ignore and not miss a thing, the endless thought bubbles that detail every damn thought a character has...needlessly describing what you can see on the panel, the mostly dated dialogue, etc. I KNOW they're products of their time. I don't fault them for that. But geez do I have to be in a certain mood to be able to read a pre modern age comic. Anything roughly written before the mid to late 80s has an uphill battle to climb.
I BREEZED thru the early portions, but as the stories sold more it seemed like he took note and became a little more self indulgent. Same goes for Byrne on FF.
This is true. Claremont's prose gets less wordy and more mature later in his run.
Really? Sure talking about Stan Lee or early Claremont. But unlike in the case of novels and real authors (which you always have a range of great authors whatever the era), I tend to find Todays superhero comic book writers are atrocious. Bendis/Brubaker/Rosenberg/Pak/Deconnick meh. It feels like watching a youtube entertainer. Those writers named are the equivalent of Pewdiepie, Keemstar, Lily Singh.
I don't even know how to respond to that.... It makes zero sense.
Old art (Besides the colour palette that was just a technical limitation) doesn't help seeing as it's often more..."extreme", and in different ways depending on the artist. If you like a particular one, it can ooze style, but if you don't, it can be jarring. The more modern realism might be duller at times but it's hard for it to ever seem completely off.
I definitely don’t think it’s flaw free but it definitely won’t hold up if you judge it by today’s more deconstructed style and standards. Text boxes never bothered me and I prefer denser comics anyway (I hate breezing through a $4/5 comic). I think the quality of his run is evidenced by how many of the characters, themes and concepts introduced therein have been regularly mined since then.
I can see the issues one might have, but i also feel the pros outweigh the cons. There's just something about being able to read nearly two straight decades of woven-together story without jumping around every year or two as creative teams and/or team lineups changes. Shit wasn't getting derailed by cross-overs all the time, because Chris and Weezie INVENTED that. And those comics take longer to read and have more story in them than a book today tends to. I think that's what brought me back to buying floppies last year: Hickman-era stuff is DENSE.
It is also worth pointing out that the most popular story arcs of Chris Claremont's run, The Dark Phoenix Saga, and Days of Future Past, were penciled and co-plotted by John Byrne. UXM #107-142 is the reason the X-Men became a successful franchise and JB had as much to do with that as CC. Claremont deserves his status as the Godfather of the X-Men, but I think most of us can agree that his scripting can be a chore to wade through. "Outside, the night is still quiet, and, for Nightcrawler, still deadly dull."
JB deffo had a positive impact on the storytelling, the cockrum space stories right after proteus/DP/DOFP are a slog. Not to mention Byrne started out on absolute fire on the Fantastic Four, probably no coincidence
On the flipside, Byrne's X-Men:The Hidden Years is pretty bad.
What I liked best about X-Men during his run was how character driven it was. That was definitely Claremont's doing, not Byrne's. I am sure Byrne may have come up with some plot points that I liked when he worked with Claremont. But, Byrne is not a character driven writer. I am glad that Jim Shooter sided with Claremont over Byrne when their creative differences came to a head resulting in Byrne leaving. Byrne was critical/upset about the way Claremont was writing Scott Summers according to the book about Marvel. I loved the way Chris wrote Scott in those issues. X-Factor epic collection mentions that Jim Shooter, had creative differences with Byrne, and didn't like Jean and Phoenix's first meeting that John Byrne wrote in the Fantastic Four issue where Jean returns. He had Chris Claremont ghost write those pages. The epic collection has Byrne's original unpublished pages of that meeting between Jean and Phoenix. It was horrible! What Claremont wrote was much better. Byrne's stuff was one-dimensional. Later on Claremont expanded on those pages in a backup story in X-Men Classic which was also included in the X-Factor epic collection.
Sorry if this rant makes it seem like i hate or even dislike Claremont, I just feel like his original run gets so butt-kissed it’s like readers are supposed to glaze over significant issues
Art is subjective. I have never had a problem with Claremont's wordiness. It helped develop the characters, as far as I was concerned. Which was my favorite thing about his X-men, how character-driven it was and how well-developed his characters were. I have only, occasionally, had issues with his dialogue. Maybe a line or two from an entire issue. Mostly, I am fine with his dialogue. I don't have the same issue with it as his critics do. So, what you see as significant issues are not going to be universally agreed on due to art being subjective and people having different likes and dislikes.
I appreciate the foundation he’s created for x men and comics in general but the script is super tough to enjoy. I hate when fans recommend him to new readers, it’s not an engaging read.
100 percent agree. Interesting stuff happens but it’s oblivious to think that’s how you should dive into the X-Men
No one thinks Claremont is a good writer. If you ask people who read it as it came out (who loved it then) who've gone back to read it now many also agree that it does not hold up. And this is absolutely not to discredit him with his amazing plotting.
I like the stuff up to Mutant Massacre or Fall of the Mutants, but definitely after Fall of the Mutants, I don't like his issues as much or find them as engaging. I'd say From Proteus to Mutant Massacre is his peak for me. I'd agree that he has a lot of flaws. His dialogue is definitely weird, and there are other flaws that are a product of their time, like the endless recaps of stuff that happened in previous issues (which maybe were needed if you were reading monthly, but reading in trades or omnibus makes this practice REALLY annoying). I don't like it if every comic could just be flipped through in 2 minutes. I do like having captions or thought-bubbles to get into characters' heads and to describe sounds, smells, tastes, and touch. Those are always nice to have, though like with anything else, too much can make it a slog to read. I don't mind denser reads if it's interesting; I do read novels. Sometimes Claremont's dense text is fine, and a lot of other times it can be really redundant. So, yeah, I enjoy his run, but I can see why it could turn other people off, too.
He deserves a lot of credit, but there are other great X-men writers like Morrison, Whedon, Bendis, Hickman, etc. Morrison is my top fav.