What makes a Dull or Bad Character? Is it the Character or is it the Writer?

So I listened to a podcast called Comic Geek Speak. In episode 701, they interviewed Gerry Conway. The one thing that I've thought was interesting was that Gerry didn't like Gwen Stacy. He didn't like writing her and thought she was as dull as dishwater. He felt the character was nothing more than the girl of Stan Lee's dreams and not his. My question is and this is with all due respect to Mr. Conway, but why couldn't he make the character interesting? Couldn't he have written her that made the character more exciting to read?

I always hear different writers talk about how hard it is to write Superman because he's so powerful and there is no problem he can't solve and he's always taking the moral high ground and that's boring. I remember listening to Kurt Busiek speaking during a spotlight panel at the San Diego Comic Con and he mentioned something about how if Superman is so powerful that he could punch a hole in a mountain, then don't write a problem for him where he merely needs to punch a hole into the side of a mountain. He mentioned how you can do a lot of different types of stories with Superman that delves into his humanity or his emotions that could be just as powerful as a super punch. Basically, he said to give Superman a problem that requires him to use his brain, his heart and his humanity and not just his fists and powers.

So my question is simply this: Are characters trapped in a certain mold where the writer is trapped and has no real say as to how to write the character or is it the writer's responsibility to make us care about the characters they are writing? On a side note, if the writer were to make a otherwise dull character more interesting, do you think the reader would be upset and say "that's not how that character should be"? I know for myself and I see merit both ways. I've seen characters written in a way that wasn't true to the character and I was mad about it and sometimes I've seen a character being written different than I had before and I enjoyed it.

So. What are your thoughts?

All characters have the potential to be interesting, it mostly depends on the writer. The only time a writer is really restricted is when a character has been popular for a long time, like Superman, Batman, and Spider-man, and has a devoted fan base. It's much harder to spin a character when they have fit inside the confines of their own mythos.

I do think to an extent that it's up to the writer to make us care about the characters we are reading. I think it's also the writer's responsibility to come up with ways to make us care about characters. Do I think that certain characters are probably easier to write than others? Sure. I also think what makes certain characters more appealing to us is very subjective so what one person likes about a character another person might not like.

I'll take Hal Jordan for example. I've always like the character. I liked his sense of honor and duty to the Green Lantern Corps since I started reading his books roughly 30 years ago. His saying "Once a Lantern, always a Lantern", was cool to me. I know that Hal wasn't universally loved and people thought that when he turned to Parallax he became more interesting but to me, it changed everything that I originally loved about the character and I would assume others felt that way too.

Aquaman is an interesting character to bring up. Can't a good writer make him interesting to read? I mean, he's Kind of Atlantis? He can communicate with all sea creatures. Isn't there a way to make stories where that is cool and interesting? I listened to Midtown Comics first podcast episode where they had on Brian Azzarello and he talked a bit about Aquaman and Brian thought the character was cool for two reasons. One, because he rode on sea horses and the other was that he could talk to the sea animals. He said when he was younger, he used to jump into a pool and pretend he was Aquaman. Aquaman has abilities that I don't think have ever really been explored. He's got to be very strong and durable if he can survive the depths of the sea. He must have great vision being able to see in the darkness from being underwater. I don't think people have utilized Aquaman to his fullest potential and could possibly be a great character with the right writer.

Booster Gold is a great example of how a character who to me just felt like one half of a comedy duo suddenly became interesting without really losing the essence of who he is and I give credit to the writers of that book who have done a fantastic job on that book. Catman was another good example of how a good writer was able to build up the characterization and make him cool.

I think a good writer should have the ability to write a character in a way that will make them interesting and have us wanting to read more although at the same time, I think what people are interested in reading is very subjective.

"You guys raise some good points. Good writing is the key, but not every character can be understood by everyone, even writers.

As for Booster Gold, I hear you. Dan created him, and he was gold, pun intended. Then, with JLI and the like, he became the resident a-hole of the DCU along with a few others, like Guy Gardner. Then Geoff and Dan brought him back to his roots by giving the character something more."

There are just some characters that have nothing to bring to the table. Now, that might be the fault of the creator in not giving the character enough of a back-story, or fleshing out the potential of the character. Again, this probably all boils down to bad writing, but if there's nothing there to write, then what can a writer do?