I am not sure what your point is Paulo, but let me first rephrase mine.

People can look at the 16 different versions of Batman and still see Batman, so why should it be considered a problem to have 16 different versions of Batman?

Chad Carter wrote: Never once suggested anyone reading this Batman and Robin are perverted carrot-hiders, I'm pointing out that Morrison and Quietly have removed a fundamental barricade between what is acceptable and what is not. In a comic book about superheroes done with a traditonal understanding of what is meaningful and poignant about Batman and Robin's father-son relationship, you don't have to wonder about why it is the current creators of the book are working so hard to nullify.

I don't get this.  Specifically with ALL STAR SUPERMAN and BATMAN AND ROBIN, what exactly are Morrison and Quietly trying "so hard to nullify"?  What "barricade" are they breaking down?  What is it, exactly and specifically about this book in particular, has got your panties in such a bunch?

QUOTE: What was wrong with Batman as Bruce Wayne?

Nothing.  Not new under the sun to have other people wear the cowl.  Remember Bane breaking Batman's back?  I'm not saying this is a good idea at all, but somehow attributing to Morrison and Quietly something DC did nearly twenty years ago seems a tad far fetched at best.

QUOTE: What was wrong with non-adultified, non-sexualized art in major-title comics from these companies? When did it become acceptable that Morrison and Quietly can strip the Batman comic of visual/idealogical constructs in order to present a ten year old as a viable crime fighter?

I don't get this at all either.  I don't see Quietly's art as sexualized at all.  I think you can find a ton more artists currently working in comics (Ed Benes anyone?) who sexualized characters that this complaint in a discussion about Quietly and his art falls incredibly flat and, quite frankly, is misinformed and just plain wrong.  As to "non-adultified", that's a complaint that you can level at any of a number of artists currently working in comics.  Open the pages of BATMAN AND ROBIN and you'll see a Robin that doesn't look like an adult, but a kid.  I know you have a problem with kids in mainstream books at all now, but he's depicted as a kid and not an adult or a kid with adult characteristics. 

As far as "Morrison and Quietly can strip the Batman comic of visual/idealogical constructs in order to present a ten year old as a viable crime fighter?" I have no idea what you're talking about.  You're obviously going only off of what you see on the covers solicited by DC and not looking inside the book.  We'll just have to disagree about the page you posted a ways back concerning what you think is the worst art ever on a Batman book.  I've been reading Batman for 35 years.  Trust me, I've seen worse, much worse, than what you posted and don't see at all any "stripping" of "visual/idealogical constructs" whatever the hell that means.

QUOTE: WHY? Did you ask for a ten year old Robin? Did we need an extrapolation on Frank Miller's doomed ALL-STAR BATMAN-version Robin? Another petulant example of creative mishandling? Another prime discourse on why Robin doesn't work on any level in TODAY's comics?

I didn't write a letter and ask for Robin back if that's what you mean, but I have no problem with a ten year old Robin and am quite miffed at the suggestion that it's a bad idea simply because you choose to think that the majority of adult fans reading the book sexualized his relationship with Batman.  I think the character and concept still works.  Does for me.  I don't feel creeped out by it nor do I read any ulterior motive in what Morrison and Quietly are doing with the character or the relationship. 

Cruising around, I did find one example of Eisner "touching" the superhero genre:

________________________

I remember it. There was a Byrne pin up in that issue too.

why should it be considered a problem to have 16 different versions of Batman?

Answering only for myself, I find that inconsistent versions of the character is confusing and frustrating. Bats acted more or less constant in the Silver and Bronze Age stories I'm fond of, despite the different flavor of the several titles he appeared in. The stories were wildly different (ranging from Haney shenanigans to O'Neil social awareness stories), but the title character was usually 'on model'.

Okay, but I don't see the 16 different versions as off model. Even watching back to back, my toddler is fine at identifying 2009 Christian Bale and 1966 Adam West both as Batman. He isn't confused at all.

For those that are confused, it doesn't take much effort to figure them out, just a willingness.

Chad Carter wrote: ...I did find one example of Eisner "touching" the superhero genre...

Here's another (pre-Spirit):

One of the earliest Superman imitators, which National Comics sued out of existence.

Mike Farley wrote: (about Morrison and Quietly's sales) ...They tend to sell better as a team than separately...

That's been my experience with selling the comics at the shop.