Dan DiDio. Joe Quesada. Jim Shooter. Bob Harras. There have been a number of controversial Editor's in Chief at Marvel and DC (mostly Marvel) over the years, and I'm wondering how much they really matter (or should) to the average reader. It just strikes me as odd when folks boycott an entire company based on a few editorial or creative decisions (something I've seen on many different boards, aimed at both companies.

And this isn't aimed directly at Uncle Twitchy (like I said, I've seen it on other boards, too) but his comment in the Slott/JRjr thread sort of inspired it, and I didn't want to derail that thread.

Important in what way? Important in guiding the overall vision of a company, or important to an individual reader? I think the answer differs depending.

The latter. Many folks won't read Marvel because of Quesada or DC because of DiDio, and I'm curious as to why, when it comes to books that you would otherwise like.

They can be VERY important. Look at Julie Schwartz at DC in the lat 50s. Without his vision and direction, the Silver Age might never have happened. In todays world, Didio and his vision of DC has brought the company to its knees, while Quesada has allowed his talent to essentially run the show (within bounds of reason) and as a result has increased sales. Any of the above scenarios could have worked out the opposite way, so I'd say the EiC is pretty critical.

Okay, I'm editing the thread title to avoid confusion.

I think people just need a name to pin the blame on.

Byrne won't work at Marvel because of the current regime. Well, the current regime is not the same regime that got rid of him. Say what you want about Quesada, but once Jemas left, Marvel stabilized much, and dare I say, there was a return to the types of stories that people grew up on, albeit retooled for today's audience. But look at Thunderbolts. Revamped under Jemas/Quesada. Brought back under Quesada.

I boycotted Marvel when they killed Hawkeye. Sorta. I basically found that with the death of the Avengers, and my lack of desire to keep up with the monthly grind made a great breaking point. Yet there was Marvel still giving me Tbolts, She Hulk, HC collections of the Avengers...

For all the controversy, my bookshelf has never looked better, or had a better choice of product, until Quesada rolled into town.

Who knew?

I swear off tons of books on the basis of bad writing, art, or a general direction I'm not enjoying (the Crisis/52/Countdown mess at DC comes to mind), and I hesitate to buy books that tie into those, but if I were to boycott DC (which is tempting sometimes) I'd miss out on The Spirit, Brave and the Bold, Green Lantern, Booster Gold, etc. I'll be the first person cheering when DiDio leaves, but in the meantime I'll continue getting books that I enjoy that seem to be published despite his influence.

I can understand the idea of someone thinking an individual or individuals did or are doing damage to a company's product, and therefore avoiding that company's product - even the good stuff - until said individual is gone.

Baseball analogy: New owner scoops up a baseball team and dismantles everything you loved about the team. You refuse to get tickets to go see a game until a new owner comes into town.

I don't know that I'd go either route, but I suppose I can understand it. It can be a matter of principle. "Philosophically you are 180 degrees removed from me, in a bad way, therefore I will not support your endeavors even when a few of them hit the mark."

Myself? Wouldn't matter to me if a drunken Paris Hilton was the EIC, I'd continue to read the books I want to read and ignore the rest. If her EICdom resulted in fewer books I want to read, well, no skin off my back. Plenty else out there for me.

But my take isn't for everybody.

Either you like the books or not.
I don't boycot Marvel because of Queseda, but given they have not anymore anything worth to be called an universe, and that they seems to have forgot the past, given that those character are not the ones with whom i grow up anymore, the only Marvel books i read are the ones writen by Claremont.
At Dc the problem is different: They still have a coherent universe, what i dont like is the violence in supposed all publics, universe deffining books like infinity crisis. But you can still most of the time choose to ignore the books and the writers you don't like, their universe is still coherent.
And Babs needs to be fixed. Fixed conformly to the pre-crisis version.

If you boycott because of an EiC, is there a general duty to follow through with a good stalking?

Despite the fact that neither company is doing things that appeal to me with their mainstream universe, I still find monthly titles from both that I will read regularly. Quesada has given me Omnibuses, increased numbers of Essentials, and a brisk trade publishing schedule, Didio has given me Showcases, so both of them have brought me comic happiness in one way or another.

I boycott books that Matt Linton recommends.

Word.

I'm a big Dan Buckley fan! I think he's been great for Marvel post-Jemas.

SAy what you want about Shooter, for many years when hew was EiC the books came out on time and were mostly good. A lot of superstars either got their starts or rose to prominence under him: Byrne, Perez, Miller, Claremont, Golden, etc.

Then, of course, he wrote SECRET WARS and started Marvel on the path to Hell. But that is another story . . .

Your take works for me.
IAWEWITP

If not for Secret Wars I would never have gotten into Marvel.