Overall I agree with you. And I agree MRP.

However, Enigma is absolutely unreadable. And Milligan is about 85% miss and 15% hit.

Well, here's the kicker; you are talking about mainstream comics. Superheroes, mostly. Oh, sure, there's some horror and fantasy in there; but, we are mostly talking superheroes. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say better, as much as a fresh perspective. Moore was definitely better. Gaiman mostly stayed away from superheroes and created his own kinds of stories, though there are antecedents in prose and comics.

Here's the thing, most authors reach the peak of their ability by the age of around 40. They tend to do their most influential work within their first 10-20 years, These guys all fall into that. The bulk of the writers working in the mainstream before had been around for 10 to 15 years and a loft of their best work was behind them. Steve Engelhart had reached his peak before 1980, to my mind. Marv Wolfman reached his in the early 80s. Claremont's best writing was behind him. Gerber was heavily disillusioned and had been poking around Hollywood, though without much satisfaction.However, there were plenty of good and great American writers working in mainstream comics who I would put up as the equal to the bulk of the Brit Pack. It's all a matter of perspective.

John Ostrander and Chuck Dixon got their starts at the smaller independent companies; but, were quickly snatched up by DC and produced some fantastic comics. Keith Giffen and JM DeMatteis were crafting a sublime satire/comedy out of Justice League that rivals some of the best, ever. Mike Grell crafted one of the finest adventure series in Jon Sable, a mixture of the best hardboiled private eyes, James Bond, Mack Bolan, Stewart Granger, Humphrey Bogart, and a bunch of other influences, then turned Green Arrow into an urban crime adventure. You mentioned Miller; but, there was also Chaykin, who achieved more brilliance at First, than DC, though he did outstanding work at DC. Starlin had crafted an epic saga, then took a hand with Batman, doing as much as Miller to revive the character. Simonson had made Thor into something electric, for the first time since Kirby.

The real writing revolution within the American community was coming from the independents, though most ended up at the Big Two. I've mentioned Ostrander and Dixon; but, there was also Tim Truman, a double threat as writer and artist. There was Matt Wagner, whose Mage and Grendel one-two-punch knocked comics readers on their backsides. There were Los Bros hernandez, Dan Clowes, Chris Ware, Peter Bagge, and Wendy Pini. Lynda Barry and Donna Barr are in there swinging. There is Steve Bissette and Rick Veitch, artists who proved great writers. Mike Allred burst upon the scene like a lightning bolt, soon followed by Jeff Smith. Colleen Doran had been crafting a scifi/fantasy epic since her teen years. There was the duo of Mike Baron and Steve Rude. Meanwhile, whenever the mood struck him to put pen to paper and create a story, Archie Goodwin showed them all how it was done. Eisner was still holding master classes in storytelling and character in his graphic novels.

Waid was primarily an editor in the 80s and Busiek a young writer; but, both came into their own in the 90s and were at the top in the new millennium. There was also Busiek's friend Scott McLoud, both on his Zot and in his essays about the mechanics of comics. I would say Busiek is more influential, as Waid seemed more content in bringing back classic elements. Busiek did too; but, he also brought new viewpoints to his stories that Waid didn't, especially in Astro City. He began it with Phil Sheldon, in Marvels; but, he went way beyond in Astro City. Suddenly, we were examining stories from the perspective of gimmick supervillains, everyday people who live in a supernatural environment, the loneliness of being the most powerful heroes, alienated from the rest of the world. he gave us heroes who were failures and whose desperation to be on top made them worse. He had criminal muscle work to go straight. He showed us a super-child who just wants to go to school like other kids. He gave us the perspective of a funny animal character who is brought to life. he showed us what it was like to be the Lois Lane of the Weisinger era, constantly humiliated by the man she loved. He showed us the view from the eyes of a sidekick and traced his assuming the role of his mentor. It took years before Robin was alloweed to do that.

No, I wouldn't say the British were the most influential, though I will say that Moore and Gaiman certainly were and Morrison is being held up to that these days and certainly was ranked highly in the 90s, in America. I would also add that there were strong influences from Canada, too, via Dave Sim, Dean Motter and via the editing of Diana Schutz, who helped creators like Matt Wagner reach their potential. And while we are mentioning Brits, you can't leave out James Robinson, at least up to the turn of the century, not just with Starman; but, also his work on The Golden Age, Legends of the Dark Knight (Blades), The Witches, Grendel Tales, 67 Seconds, Illegal Alien, and, yes, even Firearm. While we are at it, we can't forget Americans Brian K Vaughn and Bryan Augustyn, not to mention writer/artist Mike Mignola, who just needed the training wheels to come off to truly shine, as a writer (after Byrne scripted his earliest Hellboy stories). Again, at the independents, there is Paul Chadwick, whose Concrete is gentle, mature work, in a superhero/monster disguise. There is the anarchic satire of Ben Edlund's Tick, which had influence beyond comics, as did Evan Dorkin and Sarah Dyer, who did both independent comics and work for Hollywood.

I would make the case that the more idiosyncratic, mature work was coming from Americans (and Canadians), while many of the Brits (though not all) were merely bringing their cultural influences to mainstream comics, while enjoying the fruits of the long struggle for creative freedom and profit participation that American creators had worked for. The key element in their success in America was the free hand they were given under publisher Jenette Kahn and executive Dick Giordano, not to mention by their main editor, Karen Berger. They were able to come into a system that others had to go outside of to gain the same freedoms. It was a perfect storm that greatly added to their success.

Ok, I'll give you Rick Veitch.

And I said America has better cartoonists.... As far as I know the British never had much of a tradition or comic BOOK cartoonists 'till somewhat recently.

(France probably does better in that department than the US does, though. )

The rest of 'em...

John Ostrander - Great writer, explored new thematic and psychological territory for mainstream books and wrote anti-heroes better than anyone. A completely traditional storyteller though - Like Warren Ellis would repeatedly write superhero stories that were completely unique in narrative approach and pacing... Ostrander's stuff was structured more-or-less like everyone else's. (Note: Although I've never read his Spectre stuff.)

Chuck Dixon - A good, extremely solid writer, and a great VISUAL writer. Dixon and Roger Stern are probably the two most consistent pros in comics. Didn't break any new thematic and formal storytelling ground, and Dixon himself never considered himself great.

Mike Grell - Eh... Yeah, I find his work after Warlord more-or-less unreadable. This could just be me! It definitely was structurally different from traditional superhero books. Even so, I never got the sense of constant re-invention or thematic depth that I did from the Brits.

Chaykin - I read the first dozen issues of American Flagg kinda recently and it was stone brilliant in both storytelling and theme.

....

Was he ever that good again? I haven't read that much Chaykin, but I'd charitably describe the rest of his stuff as "Kinda spotty."

Starlin - BATMAN? Seriously? I'd also put that in the "damn near unreadable" category. A recent fan vote for the best Batman writers has Starlin at 17th. Ahead of Bob Haney, which is a travesty of Hindenburgian proportions. I can see an argument for Dreadstar, but he was the very worst pro in comics ever at "show don't tell" as we see in works like "Dreadstar: Here's another 50 pages of Exposition."

Simonson - His art was SO MUCH WORSE in the '80s than in the '70s. I can't deal. I'm prepared to take it on faith that his Thor is great and I'm tripping over my own prejudices, but Simonsob really didn't DO too much of note in the '90s or the '00s, did he? Am I completely missing something? He had maybe three great, significant long form comic projects, while all the British dudes except Gaiman had a good half-dozen... And Sandman counts for a half dozen.

Tim Truman - I'm not sure I've read anything he's written but did not draw. I like what I've read of his stuff a lot but it tends to hit the same macho pulp cliches over and over, and never hit the psychological depth of Ennis at his best - who, admittedly, was just as bad about telling the same sort of story repeatedly.

Archie Goodwin - Ummm.. what did he write in the '80s and '90s? I can think of one Batman story.

Matt Wagner - Ok, this is weird. Whenever he does traditional corporate IP superheroes he's one of my favorite writers. I could not get into Grendel or Mage. I'm definitely gonna need some help defining him as a Gaiman level genius.

Mike Baron - I basically love everything I've read of his - Nexus, Badger, Flash. But, again, he seemed like a fairly traditional not-groundbreaking storyteller.

Busiek is a genius in his independent work, AutumnLands is a stone classic, but his superhero stuff (Except Trinity! and ((totally wrong-headed in execution as it was)) Marvels) is pretty paint by numbers. And there was a lot of superhero work.

Waid might actually be a little under-rated, in that his best known work isn't his best. (Ruse is his best work.)

Everyone else was either a cartoonist or an artist. (I think.) America wins at both of those.

Note: Gerber is my single favorite scripter and remained great for his entire life.

BASICALLY what I am seeing here is (A) Some great cartoonists, and (B) a bunch of dudes who were less interested in the formal aspects of storytelling, less prone to David Bowie style re-invention, and less thematically daring than the six British writers I listed. Or they didn't have the same volume of significant work. And (C) Rick Veitch.

I don't think American comic writers were bad in the '80s! But the British guys were better.

No, you seem like the perfect Trinity reader. It was a Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman story that didn't actually have any of them in it for, like, 40 straight issues. It was glorious.

I love Astro City but even if that isn't quite tickling your fancy I'd still STRONGLY recommend AutumnLands.

And... y'know, I don't actually agree on "Brits being better outside the superhero mainstream."

Milligan absolutely was. I can't believe they let him write Batman.

Moore... Eh, I mean, is From Hell BETTER than Swamp Thing? Swamp Thing is way more readable and less 78 page autopsy sequences. And, like, Neonomicon was way outside the mainstream and sooooooooooo bad.

Ellis: Transmet and Crecy are my favorite Ellis books, but a lot of his not-superhero stuff is fairly forgettable and boring. What was Orbiter about again? Lazarus Churchyard? Ignition City?

Morrison: Again, creator owned works seems both better and worse (Happy? Kill Your Boyfriend? Noooo thank you!) with the superhero stuff being a more consistent middle ground.

Ennis: Punisher Max was his all time best work, IMO, with the firmly-set-in-the-DC-Universe Hitman being second. Never got into his war stuff, so I can see some varying mileage.

Gaiman: Yeah, for sure. Sandman and Mister Punch were better than 1602 and... that one Riddler story he wrote that one time.

Or maybe they just all did a bunch of work for Avatar and that drags their non-superhero average really, really, really far down.