Psycamorean - users can review a comic's storyline, writing, without it being an issue of "race or politics." I didn't spend $34 to criticize John Ridley's writing based on his "race or politics," but to see a story about the New Batman. $34 later, we still aren't getting that story yet. It is not reasonable to me as a reader, and it has nothing to do with action vs. non-action part of story, but moving the Batman story forward.

Reminder: The Batman's origin was revealed in just two pages in Detective Comics #33 (November 1939). By that point, readers had 60 cents invested in six prior issues. There is a considerable difference between 60 cents and 34 dollars.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but there are reviews that are clearly what they are due to race and politics.

As for what you said, I think you shouldn't compare comics from the 30s and 40s to comics today. Technically, the New 52 origin of Batman didn't come till issue 21 of the New 52 with Zero Year, and that in itself was several issues. This Next Batman series is supposed to be his origin. He's got 12 issues to get into the mantle. These chapters are half an issue each. We've only had one issue proper of this origin story.

The original Next Batman series, like all Future State books, focused on the future of the DCU. This series, like all Infinite Frontier titles, is focusing on how we get there.

An origin that lasts more than one issue isn't anything new or preposterous for modern superhero comics.

That was a great argument $32 ago. Among those $32, DC gave us 20+ pages of "Akham Knights" (eyeroll), but can't give us 2 pages of an origin. I simply question Ridley's writing capabilities and DC highway robbery of sincere readers. IMO it has been counterproductive. But we all have different opinions, which is why we are here to express our opinions, different as each of us are. I am not giving another $ to Ridley/DC, until they figure it out.

I think the issue you're having is solely on DC editorial/sales, and the way they chose to market and sell their product. Not on John Ridley or his writing capability, since his writing is fine, he's just not writing the part you want him to write.

Batman is not a metahuman character, like many of DC's other sci-fi based characters. His origin and motivation to drive him to do this IS his "superpower." Not a side issue, but core. Same with Black Lightning and most other non-metahuman heroes. In 1977, I knew origin of Black Lightning in issue 1 (30 cents). Imagine paying $34 and still not knowing the origin. Writing "scenes" very different from writing organized "stories" for new costumed heroes. Need discipline, structure, organization.

I don't think we're going to reach an agreement here. You've got a very reductionist idea of how comics should be, clearly, and I don't subscribe to that. I hope you like whatever Batman comic you read next.

CW's The Batwoman with Ryan Wilder- I know her origin in episode 1. Quirky, but I know why she wants to wear the Batwoman suit. I understand her motivation and compulsion for justice. Now maybe DC thinks CW writers are better than John Ridley, but I seriously doubt that, as most of the stories are all over the map. But despite all of my concerns about their random writing, at least I understand why. They have basic level of story-telling organization. How many CW viewers would pay $34 for that?

I don't know what you want from me? Origins don't have to be told right out of the gate. The original Batman didn't do that. It seems like your problem is the pricing, which has nothing to do with John Ridley or the rest of the creative team. I don't think there is such a rigid standard of storytelling, and while I agree that $34 is a lot to spend on a story you don't enjoy, if you *do* enjoy the story, then I guess you can decide whether you enjoy it enough to spend $34 on it.

Political ideologue who constantly hangs on race is a hack, go figure

So I had not read much of Ridley's work, & was basing my comments just on Batman series. But this week I looked at his writing for Wildstrom's "American Way"... and I said... "oh." I knew about his writing on " The Other History of the DC Universe," but I hadn't gotten around to reading it. I know the history on Black Lightning was really wrong with Superman, so I was not that interested. But "American Way" is an eye-opener. He knows how to write a "story" alright, but he has a very rigid "POV"

I haven't read American Way but based on his Batman and The Other History of the DCU, I can guess what the subject of the book was there, too. :)

It also explains a lot about plot, pacing, etc., that I couldn't understand before, but do now. Clearly, DC Comics wants "name" writer, but he is obviously being coached to "channel" his writing in ways that DC mainstream will accept with its branding. Imagine hiring Sid Vicious or Marilyn Manson to be high school concert band teacher. Great "PR" to get "attention," but then what? DC wants brand more relevant, but needs restraint. Dragging out story allows more review, while also more $$ for DC.

Completely different level of energy from writer John Ridley when he believes in and feels freedom to drive storyline in direction to tell his story. At this point, Batman is just a job. We'll see if that changes.

@silence: Unfortunately in today's world your type of thinking is pretty rare. But I'm glad to see that there are still people who refuse to eat up the bullshit that companies throw their way.

The interaction between batwing and the cops is typical of Ridleys racial skew in his writing. Batwings entire face is covered there's no indication hes black yet the cops are instantly brusque and suspicious of him even as the real criminal is present. Ridley masks this with the idea that it's because "capes" are under suspicion in Gotham but it's not very believable.