Which writers do you think are the most controversial in the fandom? Why?

AND

Do you think that controversial writers (like say Bendis) have some thing similar about them and their styles that makes a sizeable portion of the fandom reject them? Or do you think that controversial writers just come along at the wrong periods?

<EDIT>

At what point does a writer stop being GOOD and start to become controversial? At what point does he stop being controversial and start being BAD?

I think probably Grant Morrison, Brian Michael Bendis, and Jason Aaron are among the most polarizing X-men writers.

One of the things that I think all of them have in common that has made their works controversial is that they've all presented the X-men in a way that is different enough in either tone or style from the popular perception of what an X-men story is that they can arguably be accused of making a parody of the characters.

On the flip side of that, the thing that I think people like about all of those writers is that their works have been distinct enough from other X-men stories to feel fresh and stand out in their own time.

While I personally think Morrison's New X-Men is one of the more noteworthy X-men runs and Aaron's Wolverine & the X-Men is overall one of my less favorite, I can appreciate both for how they were distinct and, in that way, still admire Aaron's better issues over Morrison's worst issues.

Something else that all of these writers have done is introduce characters that are themselves polarizing. New characters are almost never universally beloved across the board, generally as much because fans want to see characters they already know they like as give new ones a chance. At the same time, creators who stick more to the popular characters can be criticized of not adding anything new to the stories or simply being unoriginal. Bendis did both, giving us new characters in Uncanny X-Men and bringing back popular favorites in All-New X-Men, and has been equally criticized for both. Aaron too, actually.

To me, Bendis' Uncanny' run shares a lot with Morrison's New X-men in that it tries to balance a small cast of popular characters with a notable cast of new characters to deconstruct the themes of the X-men from the ground up, and I think both of them succeed in at least that, even if they each have had some weaker or less original stories among their respective runs.

But whether it be characters, style, or tone, all of these writers are both admired and criticized for how they've made X-men stories different from what people expected, while at the same time being criticized as either overrated or unoriginal. You can't please everyone, I guess.

Grant Morrison, Jason Aaron, and Brian Michael Bendis.

@oldnightcrawler: Great points, though i have to disagree about Aaron especially.

Jason Aaron to me is controversial more because of his tone then even his creations or plot. And i think that that is what creates the world of difference between him and even Bendis and Morrsion. The lightheartedness of his run hurts his more serious plots and developments and arguably makes it impossible to get into characters that aren't just different in design but different in portrayal then we've seen before because the story doesn't take them serious.

Compare that too Bendis who makes a character like Goldballs, who's ability and characterization are more comical in nature.... but he puts this character on the front lines in the same situations as serious characters and plotlines and as such he can be taken more seriously then even characters as dark and potentially scary as Broo, Evan or Idie were under Aaron.
Even Morrison despite introducing a brain in a jar as a side character played it with such seriousness that it was easier to accept while it was going on.

I just think Aaron's quality makes him less controversial then just flat out bad. Though i think i'll add that too the initial question as well...

Yeah, it definitely seems the thing that people who didn't like Aaron's run didn't like the most was the lighthearted tone.

Personally, I didn't see it as particularly any sillier than books like Fallen Angels, Excalibur, or a lot of Generation X, but in that way, the lighthearted tone was actually something that appealed to me. I just thought most of the issues weren't very good.

there were some pretty dark themes in WatX-men; even when generally used for comic-relief, most of what happened to Broo in that book was pretty disturbing. And children who hunt humans for sport, even as black humor that's still pretty creepy.

but, like I say, the thing that makes Aaron's run really stand out is the tone. Lots of writers have had runs that were either equally ridiculous or equally mediocre, mostly they just end up as forgettable; Aaron's run will be remembered as something genuinely unique both by those who could never stand it and those who think of it as their favorite time for the X-men, and it both cases it will be largely because of the distinct tone. It's the way his run was different that makes him polarizing and controversial.

Morrison and Bendis might not be distinct in the same way that Aaron is, each employing their own unique style and tone, but they're polarizing and controversial for the same reason: because they're tried to do something different from what the fans expected.