I've recently been looking into Wild Cards [en.wikipedia.org] and it forerunner Theives’ World [en.wikipedia.org] and it got me to thinking about the general concept of these shared collective projects.

Now allow me to define something here right off. A community project while a shared work is not the same as a collaborative work. A community project as I'm defining it for this discussion is merely an open casting call. We've seen lots of projects were anyone can submit a page, drop their characters in and things along those lines. However a collaborative project for purposes of this conversation is an actual collective work between a semi-exclusive team done with coordination, shared ideas and original works.

In theory this was the whole idea behind the original Image Comics and for a while sort of was but egos and Images legendary poor management meant this idea quickly fell apart among squabbles and legal troubles.

As near as I can tell there are no such collaborative projects in comics right now, unless you count the Wild Card mini-series and adaptations in comics form. This seems rather shocking to me given the success of Wild Cards and Thieves’ World. And I'm not just talking about amateur or semi-pro creators but I'm also speaking on the deep absence of such projects even among professionals. For the most part the best one can hope for is a graceful transfer between writers or a two person partnership it seems.

Sure ego, legal rights and creative constraints all go with group work but at the same time it just seems very strange we've not seen much or any of this sort of thing in the comic world. Do you think the comic medium/business model just doesn't support this sort of thing, particularly when you need to throw artists in to the mix?

Maybe it is just that comic authors don't talk and associate as much as literary writers do but personally I suspect the difficulty involved in not only co-ordaining writers (which is like herding cats) must be even more difficulty when you also have to co-ordinate artists as well and given the relative speed of good writing vs good art I can see the process being very time consuming and taking away from each members respective time. Nonetheless I'm curious if any such projects actually do exist out there and if they are any good.

I've always wondered how a collaborative project would work. Getting a team together is hard work. Everyone has to be on the same page (no pun intended) and in the right frame of mind (also no pun intended) and working at a pace that will get things done without being frustrating to the other participants.

And then you have to worry about the interaction between people. Ideally you you'd all be buddies.

I can't imagine what it would be like on a larger scale where they're not all working on one project, but on different projects within the same world. (Which is what Image was originally right?)

It would take good solid relationships between the people working, I believe, and someone with good management experience.

I think a lot of people just have their own ideas about what they would like and thats fine. When people are calling for help in the networking forums they don't really seem to be up for a lot of change in what they would like, they're pretty specific about what they want from their potential writers or artists. I'm not sure there are a lot of people who would work on a joint story with people and then actually participate regularly.

How would you start on anyway? "Hey guys, I want to write this story, but I want you to help? See I'm gonna write about what happens in New York and I'd like you to write about the ongoings in L.A." I guess you'd just sit down and make a concrete world with rules and then go about your ways?

(Sorry if this seemed a little random. I wrote out my first post and it was a little more put together and my connection timed out when I submitted it. Its so late/early at this point I couldn't quite remember my point anymore. >.> )

Well not that I'm a pro or anything but it seems to be that pros who are already used to working with editors, publishers, co-authors and other collaborators like cover artists would probably not have as difficult a time of it as first timers not used to working within creative restrictions. Further I also imagine it is different getting writers who are used to getting paid and can reasonably expect their collaboration to be published then it is to try and round up a group of people who are doing their own thing, for the love of it without a clear path to publication.

That said I imagine this would start the same way most such pro-projects starts. Someone picks up the phone and starts convicting people this a good idea that could really go somewhere.

I guess I would compare it to that book on web comic writing that came out a year or two ago where a lot of the published creators got together and wrote. No doubt one of them called up and said "together I bet we could write a book and get it published."

The closest thing I've found so far is the 52 series which while still under the oversight of DC management was largely put forward by the authors and was a totally collaborative work. I know from the commentary in 52 that they basically met constantly to go over where their respective stories where, where they were going and how they could fit it all together into the current issue. A lot of them didn't know the other's end game expect it the vaguest sense but they all knew pretty well what was going to happen next week as they spelled out the details panel by panel for the current week's comic. I know consequently the story changed a lot as the team worked together. Originally it wasn't going to be even close the story it ended up being. The story really grew organically.

I think a lot of people fear restrictions on their creativity be they editorial or collaborative restrictions, but I've always found restrictions just make creative people come up with creative solutions to work within those restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DevaShard [en.wikipedia.org]

This seems to be a pro collaboration. Though it is not American, it does use American staff and artists.

My question for you is, how do you see the DC/Marvel superhero world as different from a collective collaboration?

I see them as different because in X-men Magneto can destroy Manhattan while at the exact same time Spiderman can be swinging around the same area perfectly fine. While these stories ostensive take place in a shared universe the fact is they are not collaborative works, they are dozens of work teams occasionally strung together by editorial mandate. Even their own crossover events like Civil War are clearly not collaborative and have major contradictions and discrepancies.

I find it hard to call something like Civil War collaborative when most of the staff didn't even know that the leads decided Iron Man was supposed to be the good guy of the event and that pretty typical for Marvel and DC. This isn't to say Marvel and DC can't do such projects, as I pointed out 52 was actually a collaborative mini-series, it just seems they typically do not.

The key difference between Civil War and 52 is that in civil war a company memo went out saying everyone needs to do stories about X and X and X with X almost all done in a vacuum with little or no contact except for editors vs 52 where writes got together and plotted out a story jointly, talking and sharing ideas constantly and were free to adjust and change things as they went.

Stuff like Civil war is more like a writing assignment given to a class. "Okay class today's assignment is to write something on Civil War." I mean consider everyone on DD was told they had to do comics on Cat Girls that wouldn't be a collaboration as defined by "a semi-exclusive team done with coordination, shared ideas and original works." since we wouldn't coordinating or sharing ideas just all working under a comic thematic umbrella. And outside of events typically most authors on Marvel and DC don't even know is going on in other titles unless their editors tells them to work it into their book. In short (haha too late) as defined for the purposes of this conversation Marvel or DC somics are not a collective work but just lot of stories which us a common setting for stories within the company for purposes of marketing.

The 52 series sounds really neat. As far as artistic restrictions go, I have to agree, but it does take a little practice. I don't know if you're familiar with written role play, but there are plenty of restrictions and rules in that. Your story is just one piece of a bigger whole that other writer/players and the game master envision. I actually work much better in these situations. I'm always at a loss when I start a new game and they tell me its freeform, lol.

So my question to you is does the world of comics need more collaborative stories? Other than the artistry that is people working together to create something is there something to be gained?

The last time I checked, Marvel has this thing where their major writers (Bendis, Brubaker, Millar etc) get together in meetings to discuss future storylines. I believe this started somewhere around Civil War.

Personally I don't really like the idea that much. At this point I don't even want to work with an artist on something (unless I can pay them and have them draw what I wrote), not to mention working with other writers. Imagine you have this good story idea that you've been building towards for a while... and then suddenly you can't do it, because someone else needs a specific character or location. While having to improvise can lead to good results, in this case quite often it leads to compromising the creator's vision.

Or, let's just use a Marvel related example = Loeb nearly ruining Ultimate Spider-Man with his Ultimatum crap.

I'm all about creator's vision. Probably that's why I love comics so much, it appears to be one of the few media where the creator can convey his/hers vision with minimum outside interference. You can't have that in cinema for example.

In other words: I prefer independence, personal vision and uniqueness over collectives, shared worlds or stories "written by commitee".

Edit: Oh yeah, speaking of 52. I remember reading somewhere that neither of the writers involved in it wants to repeat the process. Working on a weekly book with a bunch of other writers = really draining.

Aurora Borealis
The last time I checked, Marvel has this thing where their major writers (Bendis, Brubaker, Millar etc) get together in meetings to discuss future storylines. I believe this started somewhere around Civil War.

Personally I don't really like the idea that much. At this point I don't even want to work with an artist on something (unless I can pay them and have them draw what I wrote), not to mention working with other writers. Imagine you have this good story idea that you've been building towards for a while... and then suddenly you can't do it, because someone else needs a specific character or location. While having to improvise can lead to good results, in this case quite often it leads to compromising the creator's vision.

Or, let's just use a Marvel related example = Loeb nearly ruining Ultimate Spider-Man with his Ultimatum crap.

I'm all about creator's vision. Probably that's why I love comics so much, it appears to be one of the few media where the creator can convey his/hers vision with minimum outside interference. You can't have that in cinema for example.

In other words: I prefer independence, personal vision and uniqueness over collectives, shared worlds or stories "written by commitee".

Edit: Oh yeah, speaking of 52. I remember reading somewhere that neither of the writers involved in it wants to repeat the process. Working on a weekly book with a bunch of other writers = really draining.

Aurora not that I want to talk you out preferring single creator projects since those have their own sent of virtues by all accounts but since I just read this I feel confident saying you are a little off base in some of your assertions. They said working on a weekly comic for a year strait with constant deadlines was really draining, not working with other writers. In fact if you read their weekly commentary they said they really enjoyed working with the other writers and that working together radically improved their stories. Apparently the mystery of “52” meant something totally different when they started for example. What they said they didn't like was the editors (some of whom would literally walk up and down the hallways saying 52 was crap).

Also I note you use the term written by committee which I think is missing the whole point of collaboration. The example you gave of Marvel actually IS writing by committee but that isn't the same as the collaborative approach in Wild Cards. In the Marvel model, the same one used in Count Down to Final Crisis, writers are told what to write from on high (either editors or a committee of lead writers) and told how it has to tie in and if it ruins their own idea well that is just tough. For example the writer JMS was told he had to write One More Day with the plot being Peter selling his marriage to Mephesto to save his aunt from gunshot in a botched assassination or be fired. Further he was denied his own creative input like his request to bring Gwen Stacy back instead of Harry Osborn. In Wild Cards the series is more a creative round robin which each member putting down their own tune and then various authors find ways to connect the stories. It is all about a cooperative atmosphere vs a mandated direction. Really I highly suggest reading Dream Songs vol 3 where George RR Martin talks about what it was like being on the project and then being the one everyone wanted editing the book. It is by all accounts a lot different then you seem to suggest. Which isn't to say a LOT of projects with corporate editors don't end up that way but Wild Cards and 52 were both creator/writer driven projects rather then editorial driven ones (which is why 52 had so much conflict with editors who were mad they didn't have more say).

I've never heard of Wild Cards having a problem like the one you describe with people snatching up characters. If you have a good team (and why would you join a bad one really?) those sort of thing just don't happen because people work together to keep those sorts of things from happening before they become problems.

But to be fair if you just don’t feel you play nice with others or are a total control freak or any number of other reason, well then it is probably a good thing to shy away from collaborations.

I'm guessing based on what you've said you are thinking of Image comics which isn't quite the same thing, in my mind anyway. But to be fair lets go there. Image comics was a very loose collaboration when the founded it. The problem was of course no one communicated. They couldn't their own books out half the time since none of them knew much about comics aside for writing and drawing them and they had legal disputes almost from day one between the various parties. It was a lot of guys with a lot of ego and really only thrown together by their collective desire to flip off Marvel and DC. When the attracted authors like Allen Moore and Neil Giaman they managed to tick them off pretty quickly with the same crap that Marvel and DC had been about. Image didn't get together to do something together, they got together to help each other each do their own thing which is fine but very different from what I'm talking about.

I mean you are absolutely right about Ultimatum but that isn't really a collaboration, least not like I'm talking about and you are absolutely right its all about creator vision (be it in a group or individually). Really the only point where our opinions differ is that I think the problem isn't collaborations but executive meddling.


So my question to you is does the world of comics need more collaborative stories? Other than the artistry that is people working together to create something is there something to be gained?

The benefits are more than you might think. Well with a group you get a lot more ideas, styles, takes etc. etc. I can result in an author breaking out of their shell a little at least for that project. While I can’t say you always get both higher quality and quantity for your time then the individual hands if the group is a good one I can say it happens more often than not. There is no way a single author would have been able to do 52. It was exhausting for 4 people to do it together supporting each other and helping each other out. A single author’s quality would have almost certainly suffered over the course of the book. While a single author certainly can write 52 issues of a series and keep the quality of the narrative I doubt there are many, if any, who could do so on all in one year and help assist with several tie in books to make sure there are not any plot holes.

As to why the comic world needs them? Well need is an awful strong word. After all as Aurora points out a single creator can make an excellent series and there are certainly some potential drawbacks to collaborations, particularly if the group just jumps in head first, but let me ask why do books need co-authors and joint ventures? Because a lot of time it leads to something fun and new. From a creator perspective it’s the chance to deal with some characters and idea you never would have come up with on your own.

I guess the bottom line is pure and simple: I really enjoyed 52 and Wild Cards and I’d like to see a little more of things like that but they seem to happen very rarely where as "Ultimate Crossover events" and "Editor's day out stories" seem to happen a lot.

Not to self-plug too much, but we're having fun with our collaborative web series, THE CROSSOVERLORD at http://www.drunkduck.com/Crossoverlord/index.php ---we're round-robining the art, we're working off a calendar where we work in advance who does what, and we have a definite plot and end in mine.

It's loaded more with low humor than high drama, although we have our dramatic moments too. Every main character is drawn from a separate web series "outside" the story.

It's sort of like "Crisis" except we're having FUN with it.----Al

Actually, I think the idea sounds really exciting. One of my favorite jobs was when I was working as a part time editor for an armature writer who was trying to get her work to be a little more serious than her peers. I LOVED that work and apart from the interaction I had with you on NS, it was one of my favorite times.

I know this is going to sound stupid, but I think I like working on other peoples projects than I do on my own. If I mixed the work together that seems like a fun balance. It would be nice to find a group of people to work with again.

I don't know if you're into table top RPGs, but I've found that its a much more enjoyable playing experience when the Game Master has other people working with him to help with the story and I've always loved those game tie ins from different GMs.

I haven't exactly read any collaborative novels yet, but I might try one if the chance comes by. I've never really thought about it before. I generally just read the descriptions until I find a story that doesn't sound like it could be screwed up too much....>.>;;;

So anyway, I think I would like to see more of this kinda of thing too. Hell, I know I'd like to try this kind of thing.

Aurora Borealis
Or, let's just use a Marvel related example = Loeb nearly ruining Ultimate Spider-Man with his Ultimatum crap.

Don't forget the infamous Countdown debacle of DC lore.

Saint Stephanie
Actually, I think the idea sounds really exciting. One of my favorite jobs was when I was working as a part time editor for an armature writer who was trying to get her work to be a little more serious than her peers. I LOVED that work and apart from the interaction I had with you on NS, it was one of my favorite times.

I know this is going to sound stupid, but I think I like working on other peoples projects than I do on my own. If I mixed the work together that seems like a fun balance. It would be nice to find a group of people to work with again.

I don't know if you're into table top RPGs, but I've found that its a much more enjoyable playing experience when the Game Master has other people working with him to help with the story and I've always loved those game tie ins from different GMs.

I haven't exactly read any collaborative novels yet, but I might try one if the chance comes by. I've never really thought about it before. I generally just read the descriptions until I find a story that doesn't sound like it could be screwed up too much....>.>;;;

So anyway, I think I would like to see more of this kinda of thing too. Hell, I know I'd like to try this kind of thing.

Funny you should mention RPG's since Wild Cards basically evolved from some of the stop sci-fi fantasy writers all reading Theives' World and playing a super hero RPG together on the weekends. I guess all those people who take their D&D games and turn them into web comics are not that crazy after all.

@elektro - Countdown is like the Final Fantasy 8 of comics.

@alschroeder - Not to nit-pick but I thought Crossover Lord was more of a community comic. Still since I like community projects (usually) I'm glad to hear one is going well in either case. I guess I'll just have to read it over and find out for myself.

I think that anime...was it Lodoss Wars or something like that? I think Louie told me that it was based off their D&D game, lol. Thats kind of neat.

But I suppose I'm getting off topic. You should definatly let me know if you hear about anymore collaborations. I'll definatly take a look at them.

Evil Emperor Nick

Aurora Borealis
The last time I checked, Marvel has this thing where their major writers (Bendis, Brubaker, Millar etc) get together in meetings to discuss future storylines. I believe this started somewhere around Civil War.

Personally I don't really like the idea that much. At this point I don't even want to work with an artist on something (unless I can pay them and have them draw what I wrote), not to mention working with other writers. Imagine you have this good story idea that you've been building towards for a while... and then suddenly you can't do it, because someone else needs a specific character or location. While having to improvise can lead to good results, in this case quite often it leads to compromising the creator's vision.

Or, let's just use a Marvel related example = Loeb nearly ruining Ultimate Spider-Man with his Ultimatum crap.

I'm all about creator's vision. Probably that's why I love comics so much, it appears to be one of the few media where the creator can convey his/hers vision with minimum outside interference. You can't have that in cinema for example.

In other words: I prefer independence, personal vision and uniqueness over collectives, shared worlds or stories "written by commitee".

Edit: Oh yeah, speaking of 52. I remember reading somewhere that neither of the writers involved in it wants to repeat the process. Working on a weekly book with a bunch of other writers = really draining.

Aurora not that I want to talk you out preferring single creator projects since those have their own sent of virtues by all accounts but since I just read this I feel confident saying you are a little off base in some of your assertions. They said working on a weekly comic for a year strait with constant deadlines was really draining, not working with other writers. In fact if you read their weekly commentary they said they really enjoyed working with the other writers and that working together radically improved their stories. Apparently the mystery of “52” meant something totally different when they started for example. What they said they didn't like was the editors (some of whom would literally walk up and down the hallways saying 52 was crap).

Also I note you use the term written by committee which I think is missing the whole point of collaboration. The example you gave of Marvel actually IS writing by committee but that isn't the same as the collaborative approach in Wild Cards. In the Marvel model, the same one used in Count Down to Final Crisis, writers are told what to write from on high (either editors or a committee of lead writers) and told how it has to tie in and if it ruins their own idea well that is just tough. For example the writer JMS was told he had to write One More Day with the plot being Peter selling his marriage to Mephesto to save his aunt from gunshot in a botched assassination or be fired. Further he was denied his own creative input like his request to bring Gwen Stacy back instead of Harry Osborn. In Wild Cards the series is more a creative round robin which each member putting down their own tune and then various authors find ways to connect the stories. It is all about a cooperative atmosphere vs a mandated direction. Really I highly suggest reading Dream Songs vol 3 where George RR Martin talks about what it was like being on the project and then being the one everyone wanted editing the book. It is by all accounts a lot different then you seem to suggest. Which isn't to say a LOT of projects with corporate editors don't end up that way but Wild Cards and 52 were both creator/writer driven projects rather then editorial driven ones (which is why 52 had so much conflict with editors who were mad they didn't have more say).

I've never heard of Wild Cards having a problem like the one you describe with people snatching up characters. If you have a good team (and why would you join a bad one really?) those sort of thing just don't happen because people work together to keep those sorts of things from happening before they become problems.

But to be fair if you just don’t feel you play nice with others or are a total control freak or any number of other reason, well then it is probably a good thing to shy away from collaborations.

I'm guessing based on what you've said you are thinking of Image comics which isn't quite the same thing, in my mind anyway. But to be fair lets go there. Image comics was a very loose collaboration when the founded it. The problem was of course no one communicated. They couldn't their own books out half the time since none of them knew much about comics aside for writing and drawing them and they had legal disputes almost from day one between the various parties. It was a lot of guys with a lot of ego and really only thrown together by their collective desire to flip off Marvel and DC. When the attracted authors like Allen Moore and Neil Giaman they managed to tick them off pretty quickly with the same crap that Marvel and DC had been about. Image didn't get together to do something together, they got together to help each other each do their own thing which is fine but very different from what I'm talking about.

I mean you are absolutely right about Ultimatum but that isn't really a collaboration, least not like I'm talking about and you are absolutely right its all about creator vision (be it in a group or individually). Really the only point where our opinions differ is that I think the problem isn't collaborations but executive meddling.


So my question to you is does the world of comics need more collaborative stories? Other than the artistry that is people working together to create something is there something to be gained?

The benefits are more than you might think. Well with a group you get a lot more ideas, styles, takes etc. etc. I can result in an author breaking out of their shell a little at least for that project. While I can’t say you always get both higher quality and quantity for your time then the individual hands if the group is a good one I can say it happens more often than not. There is no way a single author would have been able to do 52. It was exhausting for 4 people to do it together supporting each other and helping each other out. A single author’s quality would have almost certainly suffered over the course of the book. While a single author certainly can write 52 issues of a series and keep the quality of the narrative I doubt there are many, if any, who could do so on all in one year and help assist with several tie in books to make sure there are not any plot holes.

As to why the comic world needs them? Well need is an awful strong word. After all as Aurora points out a single creator can make an excellent series and there are certainly some potential drawbacks to collaborations, particularly if the group just jumps in head first, but let me ask why do books need co-authors and joint ventures? Because a lot of time it leads to something fun and new. From a creator perspective it’s the chance to deal with some characters and idea you never would have come up with on your own.

I guess the bottom line is pure and simple: I really enjoyed 52 and Wild Cards and I’d like to see a little more of things like that but they seem to happen very rarely where as "Ultimate Crossover events" and "Editor's day out stories" seem to happen a lot.

I had a lenghty post here arguing this and that, but overall I don't feel like arguing so I'll just say...

1. If I'm wrong about 52 then sorry, I was writing it from memory.
2. Seeing that Morrison is basically allowed free reign at dc, I bet the editors were all "this is crap" because they couldn't do much about anything they didn't like... probably also why the project turned out the way it did (that is, generally people think favourably about it, as opposed to countdown).
3. I don't recall thinking Image Comics while writing my post. But overall I do like CURRENT Image, with all the varied comics they do right now, majority of which couldn't happen in a shared universe (collaboration or commitee).
4. I believe we're putting the border between collaboration/commitee in a bit different spot, let's leave it at that :D
A creator working on a weekly book? It IS possible.

As for a creator working on a weekly book. I believe it is possible.
Kirby during his prime wrote several titles a month. Once he moved to dc, he was working on four books at the same time, both writing and drawing. That's almost weekly (some months have five weeks).
Another example is the italian comic Dylan Dog. It comes out monthly, in form of 96 page b&w pocket sized volumes, each time with a complete story. Page wise that's roughly an equivalent of 4 issues a month.
Then you have several writers writing 3-5 titles a month, which means they'd be capable of doing a weekly book (Bendis with his several series at Marvel, Kirkman with Walking Dead/Invincible/Wolfman/Haunt and also running Image Comics, Warren Ellis although in a somewhat irregular fashion, and so on).
And obviously there's manga, a lot of which is weekly. Hell, Go Nagai in his prime (early 70s) was writing and drawing at some point FIVE weekly series at once, each one around 18-22 pages per chapter).

Obviously, someone forcing self too much to work like that could burn out quite easily, but weekly series by a single creative team (artist + writer, in a way also a collaboration depending on conditions) or even a single creator are possible.

...heh, I ended up with a rant anyway :D

Aurora Borealis
I had a lenghty post here arguing this and that, but overall I don't feel like arguing so I'll just say...

1. If I'm wrong about 52 then sorry, I was writing it from memory.
2. Seeing that Morrison is basically allowed free reign at dc, I bet the editors were all "this is crap" because they couldn't do much about anything they didn't like... probably also why the project turned out the way it did (that is, generally people think favourably about it, as opposed to countdown).
3. I don't recall thinking Image Comics while writing my post. But overall I do like CURRENT Image, with all the varied comics they do right now, majority of which couldn't happen in a shared universe (collaboration or commitee).
4. I believe we're putting the border between collaboration/commitee in a bit different spot, let's leave it at that :D
A creator working on a weekly book? It IS possible.

As for a creator working on a weekly book. I believe it is possible.
Kirby during his prime wrote several titles a month. Once he moved to dc, he was working on four books at the same time, both writing and drawing. That's almost weekly (some months have five weeks).
Another example is the italian comic Dylan Dog. It comes out monthly, in form of 96 page b&w pocket sized volumes, each time with a complete story. Page wise that's roughly an equivalent of 4 issues a month.
Then you have several writers writing 3-5 titles a month, which means they'd be capable of doing a weekly book (Bendis with his several series at Marvel, Kirkman with Walking Dead/Invincible/Wolfman/Haunt and also running Image Comics, Warren Ellis although in a somewhat irregular fashion, and so on).
And obviously there's manga, a lot of which is weekly. Hell, Go Nagai in his prime (early 70s) was writing and drawing at some point FIVE weekly series at once, each one around 18-22 pages per chapter).

Obviously, someone forcing self too much to work like that could burn out quite easily, but weekly series by a single creative team (artist + writer, in a way also a collaboration depending on conditions) or even a single creator are possible.

...heh, I ended up with a rant anyway :D

1. Nothing to appalogize for. It isn't like you insulted my mom or anything.
2. I couldn't agree more.
3. You didn't say anything about Image, it just seemed like that given some of your comments. If I was off base with that then I apologize.
4. Fair enough.

As for the weekly thing, well I agree it is possible and IS in fact done from time to time but those are the rare exceptions and of those example that I am familiar with such as Bendis's work on Marvel I'd say it rather proves my point. A lot of those guys where hot stuff before but now their work is really weak most likely because they are spreading themselves to thin. A lot of those examples in my mind are exactly the sort of quantity vs quality trade off you would expect when someone is all over the place. A lot of those example start off strong when the writer is drawing on material they had at least outlined before they started the project but really seem to dip in quality after a while. I know some of those examples are instances were one person is a lead writer with a backup who helps work out specific scenes similar to what is done in TV to meet their weekly schedules.

(Plus not to bash those that came before us but honestly comics used to be a little bit easier to write for because it was all new and people had lower standards at certain points and times.)

Anyway long story short I agree it can be done, but I think for most people doing it more than a short bit often ends up with a quality vs quality trade off. This isn't to say it makes everything they do bad, but you are probably not going to write your magnum opus while you are cranking issues weekly to meet deadlines rather than giving yourself a little time and letting the writing set its own pace as much as possible.

Of course to be fair some people fast food of writing is still better and more enjoyable then another person's 3 course meal so there are times you might be happy to make that trade off to get more of your favorite authors work (and for your favorite author to collect a bigger paycheck).