There was one, as I said before, that I'm reading multiple times through the X-Men chronologically: everything, X-Factor, X-Men, Excalibur, New Mutants, all of it. I was around…

There was one, as I said before, that I'm reading multiple times through the X-Men chronologically: everything, X-Factor, X-Men, Excalibur, New Mutants, all of it. I was around the early 1990s and I got to Excalibur 30 just recently. One through 29 were good. I've liked the story so far and then I started reading 30 and I don't know why I just didn't like the writing. I looked up to see who the writer was: it's Dana Morsehead versus Michael Higgins, who was doing 29 and some of the earlier ones. I just got used to reading Claremont in this era and I don't know why but I'm not a huge fan of Moorehead. I'm not really picky about writing. I'm an author myself. I don't judge other writers but I like what I like, I don't like what I don't like, and I just didn't like that issue. Some of it was as if it was trying too hard to be funny. Some of the jokes were stupid. I just didn't like the writing anywhere near as much in that one as I did the ones around it. I haven't read 31 and onward yet but 1 through 29, I've had a pretty smooth experience. I felt like the time escapade lasted a little longer than it should have because it was really drawn out over a long period of time but it was really fun to read. No, 30 was a little weird. I didn't really like the storyline itself. It all seemed a little bit too... I can't explain. I just didn't like that writer. Looking forward to switching back into 31. I love Claremont but at this point I'm ready to be done with the Claremont era, not because I hate Claremont, but because every comic is so thick with wording. After Claremont ended on X-Men #3, when they did the relaunch and you have Uncanny X-Men and X-Men running side by side, Claremont kind of stepped out of it pretty much at that point. For that 10-year stretch throughout the late 1990s, from 91 until 2000 or 2001, a lot of comic nerds call that the editorial era because it was more like an editorial one. There was no real vision. A lot of it was different writers taking the helm fairly regularly. They switched up writers a lot during that close to 10-year gap. I'm looking forward to seeing some variety during that before it switches back into a more main, more long-term writer after that in the early 2000s.