Anonymous
asked:
Hello Mr. Brevoort, have you read the article on bleedingcool asking why Paul Cornell was not the one responsible for writing the death of Wolverine, aka the natural conclusion to its own story? The article describes most of its run as an editorial mandate. Therefore, it seems like the editors did however they wanted with both the story and the writers. I think this makes you guys look extremely mean and self-interested. Would you defend against this?

Not to drag him into this in any way, but Paul himself doesn’t seem to feel that way.

Paul had his story, that he pitched. It was about Wolverine losing his healing factor. And that’s the story he’s telling. At a certain point this led to the realization that what he’d set up made another story possible, the story that will be Death of Wolverine. We went to Paul first with this concept, he knocked around a few ideas, but weren’t able to land on anything that everybody was happy with. So Paul is ending his run as originally planned, and then Charles Soule will come in and do the next story—same as always happens on every book ever.

The problem with any number of recent articles about stuff coming up is that they are written to assume antagonism on the part of the participants, and also to be as provocative and sensationalistic as possible, as a way of generating buzz and eyeballs and hits. “Creator and Editors agree to part ways rather than going in incompatible direction” doesn’t make for great copy if you’re trying to grab and keep readers—but “Creator screwed over” always does.

This is why, with rare exception, we don’t talk about rumor stuff here.