| > I've been seeing so much criticism of Geoff John's recently and while everyone is entitled to their opinion - I just don't get it.|
There have been complaints about Johns since the beginning, it just depends who is talking more loudly at the time, the detractors or the supporters. Originally I liked Johns for the most part even if he had some flaws, now I like him less and less but he can still turn out an interesting story sometimes.
| > In the era of decompression, failure to notice continuity, eccentric subplotting, glacial action, and heroic characters who aren't just dark but down right reprehensible - John's tells clear stories, juggling huge casts effectively, with a nice ratio of action to plot developement.|
JSA has been a trap for Johns in terms of decompression and glacial plotting. He will develop a lot of subplots and danglers that he never gets around to or at least it takes several years. Did we ever find out where the Crimson Avenger came from or what her purpose was? He also tends to pick and choose continuity he likes. The whole reworking of the Green Lantern mythos involves him referencing old DC history and almost always retconning the way it was originally presented into something else. Writer's prerogative, I guess, just as it's the reader's prerogative to dislike it. Whatever problems he's had on JSA haven't kept me from liking the book. Green Lantern, on the other hand, I find very tough to like.
| > Johns on his worst day kicks Loeb's ass up and down the block.|
Never really been a Loeb fan so I can't disagree.
| > I would rather read Johns worst story than 75% of the mainstream writers out there.|
Well for me Johns' worst story was Green Lantern Rebirth and I think more than 75% of the other writers working today can beat that story.