I've been following John Byrne's work for soooooo long. I used to wonder why he was the target of so much anger & derision from so many "fans". Of course, in the last 5 years, even I've started to tire of his stuff.

My first exposure to Byrne's art was IRON FIST. He & Chris Claremont were each the 5th person in their slot on that series (arriving a few issues apart). After a remarkable ink job by Al McWilliams, Frank Chiaramonte proceeded to BUTCHER whatever it was John was trying to do. I wasn't sure at the time WHAT he was trying to do, because I'd never seen a style like his before. (I had NO IDEA he was influenced at all by Neal Adams-- even when, years later, I finally discovered Adams' work some years after-the-fact.) It wasn't until Dan Adkins (WHAT A PRO!) teamed with Byrne that I started to like his art. (The stories also got a BIT less doom-and-gloom around then, as well.)

I got the 2nd STAR-LORD story when it came out-- stunning work! I read that issue of MARVEL PREVIEW was what led to Byrne taking over X-MEN when the book went monthly, as Dave Cockrum at the time wasn't able to handle the schedule. (Dave recently said he stayed on a bit longer than planned, as Byrne was chomping at the bit, and getting on his nerves even before getting on the book!) I always felt from the beginning that the revival of X-MEN was too damn dark, serious & gloomy all the time, but somehow Byrne's more "cartoony" style (compared to Cockrum) lightened the tone just enough to make it bearable (for me anyway).

Chris & John's run on MARVEL TEAM-UP was a high mark for that entire misbegotten series, and I actually LIKED the "slick" look Dave Hunt brought to the inks. For a few years, I used to wonder what Byrne would look like if inked by Joe Sinnott (my favorite!), and I found out in MARVEL TWO-IN-ONE #50, the story when The Thing went back in time to meet his earlier self.

Later, Byrne took over from Keith Pollard right in the middle of Marv Wolfman's interminiably long outer-space epic in FANTASTIC FOUR. I LOVED the art-- the story was only so-so. After about a year off, Byrne returned to WRITE as well as draw the book. The ONE decision that irked me to no end was when he decided to INK his own work. Joe Sinnott had been a steady mainstay on the book since the middle of the Kirby run, and seen it through Buscema, Fradon, Buckler, Andru, Perez, Pollard, Byrne & even Sienkiewicz (what was HE doing on that book???). To have Sinnott REMOVED just so the look of the title could somehow be returned to an "earlier, rougher" style... WHAT was John trying to do, revive the GEORGE ROUSSOS era????? AUGH!!!

He eventually did get slicker... and then LESS so... when Jerry Ordway took over, it was as though Byrne had finally found his "own" Joe Sinnott. Strangely, Joe inked an issue or two late in the run-- and I noticed that John's style had changed SO much since their earlier teaming, that Joe was NO LONGER a good match with Byrne. how bizarre...!

John's SUPERMAN was interesting... but WHAT was the point of the "pocket universe Supergirl", when they'd gone to such LENGTHS to KILL OFF the original, then say she "now never existed"??? (And besides-- in Post-CRISIS DC, we have Power Girl-- AND Mary Marvel!!!)

John's runs on THE SENSATIONAL SHE-HULK and BABE rank very highly in my eyes, although NEXT MEN was a bit too gloomy for me. DANGER: UNLIMITED was incredible!!!!! I was genuinely PISSED when John stopped it prematurely, because he said the sales weren't doing his bank account enough good. (Some series NEED time to build an audience-- canning the book after only 4 issues was the kind of thing those underaged drug-addict TV execs have been doing for the last 25 years in Hollywood.)

WEST COAST AVENGERS started out as a huge improvement over what the 2nd half of Englehart & Milgrom's run had deteriorated to. But John NEVER finished his projected "Vision Quest" story, derailing the book's direction 5 issues in. I loved the art (who was inking those issues?) and John did the SEXIEST Scarlet Witch in ages. But his entire run seemed aimed at imposing violent retcons over whatever anyone before him had done. (When Roy Thomas took over-- because Byrne left ABRUPTLY-- Roy set about doing to Byrne what Byrne had done to Englehart!)

Since then... SPIDER-MAN: CHAPTER ONE was not only uncalled for, but between the multiple changes & INCESSANT choppiness of the plotting, near-unreadable AND an insult to the memory of the entire Steve Ditko run which was far superior to Byrne's rehash on EVERY level. John's AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was touted as being "independant" of SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN; within months you HAD to read both in sequence or be completely lost (and I HATED J.R.Jr.'s "art" with a passion). Plus, the break in all the depressing crap was not a new direction at all, as Byrne saw Peter's life turn into the worst hell it had EVER seen. I'd finally had it-- I dropped the series for the 3rd-- and FINAL-- time. Who needs to read just to be depressed?

The first 2 GENERATIONS minis were really interesting and quite fun. The 3rd (current) one suffers from the same OVER-complexity and SEVERE choppy plottig that murdered MARVEL: THE LOST GENERATION for me. What ever happened to "straightforward" storytelling? Whatever happened to letting scenes play out, instead of CONSTANTLY being interrupted with other scenes, so that by the end of a book, you feel you haven't been able to read ANYTHING? (I CAN'T be the only one who feels this way...)

I wish-- and I feel this way about a lot of creative types-- that John would create his OWN characters-- STICK with them for a really long time-- and find an INKER who can do his pencils justice. (Even Jim Steranko admitted that other inkers always did HIS work better than Jim did himself.)