I just want to ask something: Why do writers always complain about editors? I mean I can get why, but isn't an editor try to do his job? So he has to butcher a story or whatever. Isn't this in the job description? We had a conversation with a friend a while back. Paul Jenkins is one of my favorite writers, up until frontline #11, where he makes Iron Man a hero, but in the rest of the issues you can see that he is trying to say that he is a war profiter, and he is the traitor of the pro side. Those things change in #11. I hated that Jenkins said that it's ok that Iron Man planted the Atlantis was, just so people will have faith in the initiative, and name it as a good thing. A friend of mine said that that was editorial, and they butchered his story beacause they couln't have Iron Man as such a bad guy. And my opinion was "Well, he didn't know about it from the beginning? And if he didn't, he should save it somehow".
So anyway, I think that writers sometimes complain about the editors just to be portrait as the good guys, and because they can't blame themselves any other for a sales failure. Am I too harsh?

We don't. Not always.

There are good editors and bad editors, and several variations in between.

I personally have been blessed with some very, very good editors over the years, starting with Archie Goodwin who was probably the best editor comics ever had.

Bad editors...? I've had a few, but I've tried to avoid working with them.

-- Uncle Rog

I don't want to be sounded like an idiot, I understand why some times writers complaining. It's just that I think that some times they are overreacting, or they just blame some one else. That's all.

I've heard so many references to how Archie did a great job as an editor. Can you tell us a little of your recollections and working experience with Archie?

Also, I'd be curious to know what you have to say about Mark Gruenwald.

Well, for instance, Rob Leifeld complained about editors...

That's what I'm talking about...