Then DC announced that, rather than printing the last couple of wrapping-up-various-story-arc issues Blackman and Williams had on the title (one of which was already finished), Marc Andreyko will be taking over as quickly as publishing-house possible. (http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/60583393172/williams-and-blackman-off-batwoman-early-have-we-seen) Andreyko seems like he could be a great fit for the character, mind you (http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/60652072927/five-reasons-that-marc-andreyko-is-a-good-choice-for), but it's still a rather kick-the-teeth kind of way of making the transition.
Meanwhile, Dan DiDio (DC Comics' head honcho) is adamant that DC really respects and appreciates and wants the best for the character, even if he can't remember her first name correctly (http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/60572473029/dan-didio-discusses-dcs-commitment-to-kathy-kane-at).
On the other hand, when asked on Twitter if eliminating things like getting married "hampered organic character development and progress," DiDio's response was, "Given the longevity of our character we can't progress in real time, its the same with all our series". (http://dcwomenkickingass.tumblr.com/post/60567476735/will-this-be-the-worst-pr-week-for-dc-comics-ever)
Nobody, of course, is asking for change "in real time" — in ten years, nobody expects (or, most likely, wants) that Batman or Lois Lane will be a decade older. But DiDio's response seems to argue against any kind of development or progress — that the characters need to stay more or less locked into what they are, with just the scenarios (and the costumes) rotating around to give a semblance of change. One can argue that's one of the problems with comic books in general, but this seems to go beyond that and into an eternally static "so why should we care?" kind of a concept — any changes being strictly commercial and stunt-driven, with a careful eye to maximizing return on investment. Again, that's nothing new in comics, but it's a baldly uncreative answer from the guy in charge of DC editorial. Especially when they just rebooted their entire universe to allow for more change and development and "realistic" characters.
As for Batwoman, DiDio's summary was "Eisner or not, we need the books to be exciting, entertaining, and part of a shared universe." All of which seems like a fairly bullshit answer to me, as nobody, not even DiDio, had questioned whether Batwoman was exciting or entertaining (if sales were an issue, it's not been raised by anyone). If the problem is that Batwoman has not been tied closely enough to the DCnU in general, or the Bat titles more specifically, that's almost legit — but that's something editorial should be guiding along from the get-go, not suddenly putting screeching brakes to plot elements that have been building for some time.
Nice piece!!!
The week as described by the folks who run http://www.hasdcdonesomethingstupidtoday.com/
I hadn't heard that about Jim Lee and the "Harley Quinngate." A few years back I got into a debate with him on twitter about the 52 reboot. His final argument was something like, "you'll read it because you have no choice, if you want to read DC." Such a response did not filll me with hope!
Sadly, that appears to be the case. There's plenty of TPBs of older material, fortunately (still being unironically pushed vigorously by DC), and there are some edge case books that have been mostly unaffected (the Batman Beyond titles, for example), but those are dwindling, too.
My hope is that the current regime will move (or be moved) out of the way before the damage becomes irreparable.