Editorial Control vs. Editorial Interference
Pete Woods, who works on the Legion of Super-Heroes family of titles, had this to say on Facebook:
It's funny. Before DCNu I heard a lot of people complaining that DC continuity was all over the place and no one had a plan. I've read some of the reactions to what Mr. Leifeld has said about editorial and most of his complaints involve DC having a plan. Now people complain about DC being too restrictive...
There is a plan. I've seen the edges of it. Keep in mind there are 52 books that editorial is trying to make "agree". Compromises are constantly being made, but this thing does have a shape. Considering what they're trying to pull off I think editorial needs to be cut some slack.
I was working in the next room at WildStorm when the Image founders had their conference call to remove Rob from Image. I won't say anything about what transpired other than to say Rob is a passionate individual and his reaction over the past day or so is consistent with the kind of guy he is. At least from my very limited exposure to hm.
Micromanaged is just another way to say that there is a plan. Have I had more editorial involvement in my books? Oh hell yeah. A lot more. I can totally understand how people would call that micromanaging. It's a change, but a change consistent with what DC is trying to do.
there are 52 books all with writers and artists who feel strongly about what they want to do with characters. What one does affects another's plan. Each one of these people feel that the work they are doing is very important. Sometimes one vision overrides another and changes need to be made. This happens week to week. Editorial is trying to strike a balance between the big picture and the needs of 52 different books in a cohesive universe. I can't imagine the kind of stress they're under.
I find that the lack of professionalism and poor communication is 90% the fault of the creator, not the editor.
we're a bunch of self important babies.
I hate continuity. Despise it. You want to talk about interfering with a creator's vision? There's nothing worse than continuity. I do recognize that a majority of our audience likes continuity. In the end they're the boss.
My question is: How much of this is right, and how much is wrongheaded? There's certainly a difference between editorial oversight and control, versus editorial meddling, and the fact that the company seems to change its mind AFTER a plan is nominally in place and after people have already started working. The stories I've been hearing from around the business don't reflect an atmosphere where Woods's 90/10 split is anything resembling realistic.
This isn't to say that Liefeld is inherently right about everything he's been saying the last few days--there are, indeed, a great number of times that he's been flat-out wrong or crossed a line. But it seems as though a lot of people are discounting what he says simply because Rob is the source of the information, and that's a bad idea.