John Byrne is talking about why his old stuff wasn’t better again:
I’ve noted before that, like the dividing line between the Golden and Silver Ages, no two fans seem to be able to entirely agree on what constitutes my “old stuff”, almost unanimously agreed to be “better”, and what constitutes the “new stuff” which is, by definiton, utter drek.
A couple of auction and eBay pieces posted recently to this Forum underscore this point with great irony. “His old stuff was better” is a mantra I’ve been hearing some quarters of fandom chanting since I left UNCANNY X-MEN for FANTASTIC FOUR, back in 1980. That’s the same FF run that is now almost universally declared to be “second only to Lee & Kirby”, of course!
What’s amusing — in the way dead puppies are amusing — is seeing so much work that lies deep into “new stuff” territory now turning up for sale at what seem exorbitant prices with, apparently, no one bothered by how “bad” they are. In fact, the same pieces that were so, so, so very bad just a few years ago would seem to have been transformed by the passage of time into pieces of great merit and, therefore, financial worth.
Hmm.
I wonder if anyone is keeping track of this, somewhere? Is there an official scale, that indicates just how old a piece of “new stuff” has to be before it ticks over into “old stuff” and is instantly rehabilitated?
I’d love to see a copy, if there is. I might start backdating my work.
The best explanation for this phenomenon – or, at least, the most amusing one posted in the forum, because “Well, there came a point (around the time you stopped doing creator-owned work for Dark Horse, I personally think) where you stopped pushing yourself as a creator, instead relying on retreads of what had come before (in some cases dismissing/rewriting other creators’ work in order to reach that point). That, combined with the genre you work in moving in a direction that left you far from the cutting edge and popularity that you once enjoyed, lmade the fan subconscious consider that your earlier, more popular work was somehow ‘better’ because not only did more people like it, but it was better recieved, critically” is somehow unlikely to appear on the board – may be this:
The fan is like the female, fickle. Present company excluded though.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I’ll second the notion that, after Next Men failed, Byrne gave up on trying to be innovative and creative and said to himself “Screw that – I’ll just crank out the stuff that pays well.” That being said, I did love his art on the All-New Atom, and really wish DC were keeping him around.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
I agree. Byrne working with Simone (on Action and All-New Atom) has produced the most consistently enjoyable work I’ve seen from Byrne in years.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Perhaps the best explanation is that, as the “new stuff” gets progressively worse, everything that came before it begins to look progressively better.
September 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
He did a couple of good issues for Action and his work got worse. That issue with Livewire was the worst drawn comic of the year. I love Gail’s work and it just made it hard to read the story.
My only wish is for DC to have someone redraw “True Brit,” as his artwork in that killed a potential seller.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
I agree on the Livewire issue sucking, but his stuff on Action was fairly good and has been great on All New Atom.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Byrne has complained (shocker!) that his art on Action was ruined by a bad inker and has posted his original pages on his site, which are much, much different than the finished product.
In any case, while I prefer his 80′s style of pencilling to his current style, I don’t think his artwork has suffered in any way. His writing, however, has gotten progressively worse over the past decade, to the point where Spider-Man: Chapter One is starting to read like a classic.