The new comics list said that the originally scheduled release was in May.

Is Serenity a three or four issue series?

There has not been enough discussion of Batman #644. And by "discussion," I mean "ranting and raving," and by "enough" I mean "any."

(Well, there's some in LJ-land, but seriously not enough.)

People! Friends of mine! Speak!

I ranted. And then, like a sensible person, I linked DC Clocktower to Sarah T's post on the subject, because she said things without the mouth froth.

Only... I didn't really have mouth froth like I should have, because I'd realized that was where they were going with it early on, and had just hoped I'd be wrong. It's silly, pointless, and did I mention offensive?

I don't know. I'm really feeling more and more, between recent events and recent comments by artists and creators, like they really don't want my dollar. As a female, I feel like a disposable consumer these days. Which I totally didn't when I started getting back into comics two or three years ago.

I'll probably start cutting back my purchases, both because the content isn't grabbing me, and I need to cut all corners I can in terms of finances, but I'm irritated that I'm in a position where that doesn't feel like I'm really going to be losing out on that much.

As a female, I feel like a disposable consumer these days.

As a critical reader with a brain, who respects continuity of character*, I feel like a disposable consumer.

*(And while Willingham is by FAR the worst offender in the "Characterization? What Characterization?" debacle of self-aggrandizing wankery, he is, unfortunately, by no means the *only* DC writer who has decided that continuity of character doesn't mean a damn.)

Can you whitefont what happened in the issue?

Batman #644 was the conclusion of the 4-issue "War Crimes" crossover (2 issues each of Batman and .... 'Tec, I think), which dealt with the question "Did Steph have to die from her Black Mask-inflicted injuries, and if not, then whodunnit?"

We find out that Leslie (and here I'm including nonsense text so that the spoiler space doesn't give away whodunnit just by the shortness of her name) did it. No, really.

I don't have enough incoherent rage in me to convey how totally totally fucked that is. I'm not sure I've ever seen another character in any fictional medium act MORE out of character.

But she's ... she's ... she's gooder than good, isn't she? Definitely more uncomplicatedly good than Bats, right?

Can it be a mislead?

Uh, no. The person mentioned confesses.

It's insane.

But true.

It sure doesn't seem like a mislead.

This is the explanation, as stated by the character: Leslie withheld treatment that would have saved Steph because she (Leslie) had finally had enough of the caped crusader bullshit and so she wanted to make a point to Bruce.

Okay. How many ways is that 100% out of character?

1. She's a DOCTOR -- do the words "Hippocratic oath" mean nothing?

2. Clearly DC Editorial has chosen to forget all of NML, when Leslie risked her own fucking LIFE rather than allow Zsasz to be killed -- so, DC Editorial is saying that she'd protect a serial killer but allow a teenage girl to die?

3. Leslie would NEVER kill someone to make the point that the caped crusader lifestyle is dangerous. NEVER.