Dazzler, by Claremont, Byrne, and Austin, was very cool to me.  Good name, good design, and it made sense that there should be a solo mutant comic spinning out from the popular X-MEN comic!  The first few issues of her solo book looked promising, with a great first issue cover painted by Bob Larkin and interiors by John Romita Jr.

In the Forum (and elsewhere), I have learned that the creation of Dazzler was a big deal to the editor-in-chief and there were big plans for her.  Why then make the creative team for most of its run (I'll try to say this as nice as possible) an unproven writer and a not hot artist.

Looking back, I find myself increasingly perplexed by decisions made by editors in my youth.  Usually, when a series took a turn for the worse (I see now), it was when a new editor took over.

The original run of SHE-HULK, MS. MARVEL, and SPIDER-WOMAN (I loved the Gruenwald/Infantino issues, but I know they weren't big stars at the time) also seemed to be given up on at a certain point.  Was it a superheroine thing?  (WONDER WOMAN over at DC also had the same problem for decades up to the Perez era.)  Did the big artists at the time not want to draw beautiful women every month?!?  (JB's run on SHE-HULK excepted.)

The best thing about Dazzler is that she wasn't a copy of a male hero, as Marvel's previous female-led superhero books were. Dazzler did get 42 issues in her original run, which is pretty good. I tried to read it a couple times but got bored with it rather fast.

I can't think of another character with such a pop-culture theme that had a solo series.

(If a movie happens I wonder if I will get money as one of her “creators”? That would almost make that ordeal worth it.)

......

Second, was there someone at Marvel and DC, whose job it was to keep track of who created whom? I would think the legal department would be involved in this.