I don't read Batman generally, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the arc. But I do care what happens to Batman and Bruce Wayne as characters and their place in the DC universe. When Steve Rogers died, a replacement Cap made sense because a Captain America is needed because of what the costume represents. The person who filled the suit just needed to be someone who could try and live up to memory of Steve Rogers and be the best symbol he could be based on what he thought of Steve. But with Batman its not that the superhero community needs a Batman in the same way they do a Superman or Marvel needs a Cap; its that Batman as a character, as a presence in the DCU needs to be Bruce because of the kind of person Bruce is and what his personality is to the identity of Batman (remember, Bruce is often considered the secret/fake personality/identity).
Gotham needs Batman, in the minds of most of the relevant characters, and that's enough. As far a the kind of person Bruce is being integral to Batman, well, yes and no. Bruce happens to have three adopted sons uniquely qualified to fill many of the integral qualities of Batman--both in terms of personality, attitude, and skillset. That said, certainly, a Dick, Tim, or Jason Batman will be unique to a Bruce Wayne Batman... but that's the point. This would be a fruitless exercise if they were to become Bruce clones.
Aside from that, Morrison put the X-Men in leather pants, turned Beast into a cat, gave Xavier a sewer gestating twin sister that he tried to kill in the womb, created Xorneto, created 'secondary mutations', outed the school, and changed cerebro to cerebra - so I don't hold out much hope for anything good coming out of anything he does.
How any of that made New X-Men any less "good' is beyond me. New X-Men was stellar. Adding new ideas is what keeps these books alive.
Saint I definitely know the intent of the term. What inspired my sig was seeing people, not just on this site but all over the internet and even in the real world sling that term around incorrectly on the regular. Whether cause of insecurity or ignorance.
The most recent example of what could properly be categorized as a genuine graphic novel is Azzarello's Joker. But that's the first in quite a while cause the last one I remember before that was Lost Girls by Alan Moore. I see regular comic book readers all the time reffer to TPB's as Graphic Novels.
Which is fair, because most comics that make it to TPB format are long-form stories, simply broken into installments for monthly publication. In such cases, the collected version might constitute a graphic novel. Ed Brubaker's Captain America omnibus qualifies, for example. Geoff Johns' Green Lantern work, also. These examples seem as qualified for the graphic novel label as Joker, which--while created in for the graphic novel format--is more of a short story.
I suppose one could argue that a graphic novel must be a standalone work, but I don't subscribe to that.
. But they were still serialized and episodic when originally released.
Sure, but I don't believe that creates a relevant distinction. The serialized format seems seems hardly different from the chapter format as seen in novels or sometimes graphic novels, except in the method of release. Like I said, I view it strictly as a mater of format. Watchmen published as a mini-series was a mini-series. Watchmen published as a collected edition is a graphic novel. Or, consider it this way: "Bender's Game" might be four Futurama episodes jammed together, but when they sell it on DVD they still call it a movie.
