Shooter made statements in interviews in the fan press, that were rather negative to Kirby, even insulting.  That is what I am referring to.  Now, given the nature of the fan press, I am willing to concede that some things may have been taken out of context and edited to fit a specific point of view, especially some of the Comic Journal's pieces.

And, no, you do not describe my issues with Shooter.  I don't blame him for the loss of the books of the 70s.  They were cult hits, at best, whose time had passed.  I blame the chaos of the revolving door E-I-Cs.  Part of the reason the Writer-Editor title and power came about was to protect former EICs from reprisal.  Roy Thomas cut the first deal when he stepped down.  Gerry Conway and Marv Wolfman did the same.  The motivation is no more a scam than a writer-artist; rather, it was to ensure they were insulated from a successor making an arbitrary decision which affected their work.  Gerry Conway is accused of doing such things when he took over,  even taking away books that he wanted to write.  If true, that is far more capricious behavior.

As I stated several times, my problems with Shooter are in the later stages of his tenure.  By the mid-80s, he had made statements that made him come off as an arrogant jerk.  Again, maybe he was taken out of context or spun to appear in a bad light.  However, as the 80s wore on, the quality of the material dropped drastically.  Interviews of the period, from people who left the company, routinely pointed fingers at Shooter.  Maybe he is the scapegoat for decisions above him; but, there were multiple descriptions of behavior that struck me as childish and evidence of poor leadership.  I didn't see that at Valiant; but, he was ousted, so something was going on behind the scenes.  Since little info ever came out from anyone, other than a difference of opinion, I leave that out of the equation.  When Defiant started, he made ridiculous statements that were patently false and stirred up a s@#$-storm of rebuttals that painted him as a screaming, dictatorial jerk.  That seemed to match the perception I had of him, based on his own statements in print.  Now, maybe I interpreted that info to match an already preconceived notion.  I'm human.

Yes, Weisinger and Kanigher were as bad, if not worse, and Gil Kane and Alex Toth have painted Julie Schwartz as far less lovable than the fans have (though those are two creators who have been known to be prickly).  Shooter trained under Weisinger, which I think contributed to his behavior in the latter days.

Again, as I have said at least twice before, I thought Shooter did a fine job in the early days, but a poor one at the end.  I thought he did fine work at Valiant.  I thought Defiant and Broadway were either mis-steps or just bad material, from someone who was burnt out.  As I also stated before, I think some of Shooter's problems in the latter days at Marvel were due to burnout; and, if some stories about his lifestyle during the 80s are even remotely true, he may have been burning the candle at both ends.  I think he has been used as a scapegoat for a lot of things; but, I think he also bears a lot of the responsibility, editorially, for what Marvel had become by the time he was fired.

My background is as a naval officer.  In our world, the captain is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on the ship, whether directly involved or not.  He is responsible for training and leading the people who do the work, as well as rewarding them and punishing them, when appropriate.  I believe the same holds true for anyone in a leadership position, whether a corporate executive or a retail store manager, or a boy scout leader.  The leader sets the example and enforces it.  Shooter was a good leader in the early days and a poor one in the latter days, by my standards.  Something happened in between, either ego, burnout, outside issues, or a combination of things.
 

I'm not really that concerned with Valiant and Defiant. However, the Valiant situation was reported on in Forbes and elsewhere in the mainstream business press. They support Shooter's accounts of the various intrigues with his business partner Steven Massarsky and the venture capitalsts financing the company. Barry Windsor-Smith, who was something of an accomplice to Shooter's ousting, has since acknowledged Massarsky was slime and Shooter got screwed. I've never come across anything resembling what you say about Shooter and Defiant.

As far as Marvel near the end of Shooter's tenure, I listed several projects from then that rate as the company's best. From the first tier: Miller and Mazzucchelli's Daredevil: Born Again, Miller and Sienkiewicz's Elektra: Assassin and Daredevil: Love and War, DeMatteis & Muth's Moonshadow, and the Moebius series. From the second tier: Simonson's Thor, Groo, Elfquest, the Claremont/Bolton "Vignettes" series in Classic X-Men, and the Murray/Golden The 'Nam. I didn't list the David/McFarlane Hulk, but a lot of people like it. Sam Glanzman's A Sailor's Story, which was acquired before Shooter left, has its admirers, too. I'm sure there are other examples. Perhaps you just lost interest in the material. Here's a test: Do you feel the quality improved after DeFalco took over?

I'm just gonna walk away from this; it all boils down to opposing opinions and we can accept or refuse to accept each other's "evidence" until the Skrull cows come home.  I am just going to say good day.

First off, all four were credited equally with co-plotting the issue. Michelinie probably knew but I find it implausible that Layton and Perez weren't aware either yet signed off on it by letting their names be credited as such. Equal credit = equal blame.

Second, again, you conveniently overlook the apology issue of Avengers Annual #10 released on Shooter's watch. It's one thing to allow a mistake to fester and drag on, it's another to acknowledge it and try in some form to rectify it. So yes, Shooter is deserving of that much as well.

And speaking of the talent exodus under his watch, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. This is a business, Shooter takes over as new management. As so-called 'professionals', these creators should just buck up and do the jobs they're being paid for while adjusting to the new dictates of management. Yet if they still feel like they're being mistreated in some fashion, then go find another job. If they do, fine, more power to them. But instead of being irate over my favorite creator leaving one comic company, as a consumer, I'm just going to check out his/her new work for a rival company and see what they do in a new sandbox.  Business moves on.

 

I wonder why we feel compelled to take sides in a 40-year-old dispute between people we've (mostly) never met about matters we (mostly) have no inside information on?

Cei-U!
I summon the idle speculation!

Yes, I think that's fair. Or at least, I can certainly say it applies to me. I don't want to speak for anyone else.
Aw, and you started off so well. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I already said above that Gerber and Englehart left before Shooter became EIC - and I don't believe anyone disagreed with me either. "Fan entitlement" is the kind of insult that can be thrown at almost anyone who liked anything, ever, when it comes to comics. Who wants to see their favourite series cancelled? You could just as well accuse Shooter's supporters of defending him because of their sense of fan entitlement over all the comics they liked under Shooter's regime.

I know, you mean that the fans blame Shooter for cancelling this or that. I don't think that's the case - personally, as you can see from one of my posts above, I wasn't even sure MoKF and ToD had been cancelled by Shooter or not, and didn't care enough to look it up.

Of the five "extremely headstrong people" you listed, I have to say that Byrne is the only one I've ever heard described that way, not that I claim to know much about the personalities involved - though Colan in particular has always been described as the exact opposite, as far as I'm aware. Thomas and Wolfman were ex-editors themselves, so I can see how they may have been difficult to deal with - but if Shooter wasn't able to figure that out, that was a failure on his part, I'd say, if his job was to keep hold of top talent. Wolfman went on to do a very popular series at DC, so presumably he would have been someone it was in Marvel's interests to hold on to.

But - again, speaking only for myself - I had already stopped reading Marvel for the most part by the time Shooter took over. I can't think of anything I'm really sorry I missed during his reign. Even the best stuff, like Miller's DD, was pretty one-note and repetitive, to my taste, and I stopped reading it about half-way through Miller's run. I see Shooter as a competent but mediocre writer who was incapable of supervising anyone more talented than himself, because he had a limited view of what comics can do.