Alternative title: The Day My Batman Died
Alt. Title 2: The Ugly Side of DC
The question is, why I don't like the modern Bat-books? (trust me, there's a very dark reason, but more on that later... like, much later.)
It all boils down to the editorial handling of the comics. It's very easy to see how the comic industry has evolved and roles have changed at the DC offices with the passing of the years.
Editors have come and gone. That's simply natural. However, I have serious issues about one certain moment among one of those editorial changes.
Before telling you all about that, just keep in mind that from the Silver Age and throughout the Bronze Age, there were 4 editorial changes in the Bat-books. None of them problematic or confrontational. Having said that, let's take a look at the "clashing eras":
The Modern Metamorphosis:
The Crisis happens in 1986 and DC needs to reboot every one of their comics. The previous creative team is removed, but not without taking one final bow with great special issues both in Batman and Detective. After that happens, DC places Denny O'Neil in the editorial office.
Denny was a writer turned editor and not by chance, one of the most defining Bat writers around. Having learned from his working experience with editor Schwartz in the Bronze Age and his own tenure as Daredevil editor, O'Neil became a co-plotter and a very "hands-on" editor in the Bat-books. His working methods were just what they needed and month by month, year by year, he and the teams he worked with elevated Batman from the brink of cancellation into the most profitable DC intellectual property.
No other editor has so much Bat-defining moments as O'Neil. You name it: Year One, A Death in the Family, Lonely Place of Dying, Knightfall and No Man's Land, just among the most notable ones.
He hired some of the best talent for the Bat: Jim Aparo, Chuck Dixon, Norm Breyfogle, Doug Moench, Alan Grant, Graham Nolan, Greg Rucka, Kelley Jones, Devin Grayson. Gosh!
Before he came along, Batman and Detective were the only 2 Bat-books around. When he was finished there were 8 more books including Nightwing, Robin and Catwoman for a total of 10 books under his department.
Surely, I don't need to say it out loud, but this is my favorite Bat-era. So you'd understand I'm obviously going to be resentful when their time is over. Yes, but I'm more spiteful because of how things happened.
The Millennium Mayhem:
The 2000s come along and the powers that be at DC decide that O'Neil's time is over. After 15 years, it's quite understandable. However, this change marked something different.
Every previous editorial changes in the Bat-books were done in mutual agreement with the involved parties. One editor and their team leave, say goodbye and thanks to their readers while the new team arrives and the change is announced. DC used to keep readers informed about these sort of changes and when the new team started their run, things were noticeably different. This is not what happened in 2001.
The change back then was a systematical takeover of the largest editorial department at DC. The company took advantage of Denny's deteriorating health to sneak a new editor without much prior consultation. The change at the DC offices was baffling, but to the readers, it was as if nothing had happened. The comics remained the same for a short time, but the change had already begun.
Bob Schreck was appointed as the new editor and most of Denny's creative team was either replaced or removed by force. Schreck had no prior experience with DC or Batman, but he was "good a making comics that made money". So, DC decided to give this man total control of their already profitable product. This was nothing but a decision made out of sheer greed.
Within his first year, Schreck made enemies of every single person that had worked with Denny and created an enviroment so toxic, that forced everyone to leave. People with more experience, more familiarity with the characters and the books they were selling... gone. And of course, they were replaced by Schreck's buddies, like Brubaker.
Don't take my word. Here's what Greg Rucka had to say about those moments in an interview:
"One of the things that happened over the course of the run was that we had a transition. Denny had gotten quite ill, and Bob Schreck was brought in as the new group editor. That transition was not smooth, and that transition was not pleasant, and that transition was not courteous, and a lot of people got really wounded. A lot of people were treated very badly. Ten years, fifteen years later, I can look back on it and see all the things I should've seen at the time and I didn't.
There is a sequence in my Detective Comics run where you can't find consecutive issues by the same artist. That's intentional. That was done on purpose. I feel very strongly that was done with malice aforethought. There was a changing of the guard, and those of us who had been there before were either shown the door in those words, or made to feel so unwelcome that we were reaching for the door as soon as we could. There was a long story that Denny and I had broken and plotted that incorporated Sasha Bordeaux and carried on through. I am not particularly proud of the last half of that run, because the last half of that run was paid for in blood, and that's never a good feeling."
- Greg Rucka
(Here's the interview for those of you who are curious: comicsalliance.com/paid-for-in-blood-greg-rucka-reflects-on-his-batman-work-part-two-interview )
Paid for in Blood...
But Rucka is not the only one to speak of these 'weird' moments. Joe Illidge, one of Denny's most trusted editors was very vocal about the mistreat he endured in those days.
Among the claims made by Illidge, he says that Schreck had no respect for anybody who had worked with O'Neil and willingly sabotaged them with the HR department. Illidge, who was an experienced editor with no prior issues with any other creator in the company, suddenly was the worst at his job. Illidge was forced to take another job in a different area, not long before he quit DC.
Among other examples, he lists the following:
- Brian Stelfreeze walked away from a Batman related project beause of the Schreck's team handling of the business.
- Greg Land left Nightwing shortly after Schreck took over and DC just wouldn't place him anywhere else, so he goes to work for another publisher.
- Catwoman is cancelled shortly prior to the series getting to 100 issues because Brubaker wants to start his own run from scratch. A seven year series suddenly dropped and the creative team laid off, so that they can reboot the character.
- Devin Grayson, who was still working in Nightwing, was not involved in the big crossover events among the Bat-books as she used to be with the previous editorial office.
- Schreck tried to give the DCAU-based "Gotham Adventures" to Brubaker, but (un)fortunately, DC decided to cancel it first.
And those just among the most notable examples. The point is, DC's sudden change in business philosophy affected the creators, the people involved in making the mythos what it was.
There's actually a claim that says Schreck was brought along because "Frank Miller wouldn't touch Batman again so long as O'Neil was still in charge of the character". And guess what... Bob Schreck made possible the groundbreaking amazement that is known as "The Dark Knight Strikes Again". See what happens when you act upon greed?!?!?!
When they brought these outsiders to take control, the Bat-books... Gotham didn't feel like home anymore. And ever since, no editor has lasted for more than 5 years, at best. Editors are now nameless figures, only there to find "the next big thing" and give free reign to the Morrisons, Snyders and Kings of the modern times. To keep the sales up.
They don't really care about honoring a legacy. There is not a real effort about developing a consistent mythos and build a world with established and well defined characters. They spit on the years of legacy that put them where they are.
"So Talia was Batman's closest thing to a serious relationship? Let's just make her f**ing insane and rapey haha! And let's give him a son in the process. That'll show 'em!"
"So Jason was killed in what was a groundbreaking development for comics? Let's just bring him back and erase all those 'mistakes', haha"
"So the Joker has had enough exposure and doesn't really needs any more? Let's just make him the main antagonist of this whole 5 year run, haha!"
"So Batman couldn't keep a relationship straight because of his defining traits? Let's just make him propose to Catwoman and consider marriage as a serious option haha!"
I'm fond of watching the mythos develop and grow under a guiding light that is familiar and knows what are the kind of stories that can be told about this or that character. And that's not happening in this era, when every new writer comes along with their own crazy ideas and they're allowed to do whatever they want with the character.
I don't stand for that and I won't stand for something that started as a violent takeover. And that is the day when My Batman died.
(By the way, here's the whole interview with Joe Illidge, but beware, there are also racial and gender implications mixed in the deal that I avoided because that's another can of worms not worth getting into right now:
comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/rage/97107146752160.htm )
And that's how I met your mother...
I really don't expect any replies to this, but if you feel like upvoting, I won't complain.
