Karen Berger, as Executive Editor of Vertigo Comics and Senior VP of DC Comics used to report in directly to Publisher and President Paul Levitz. After the reorganisation that saw Levitz step down, she instead reported to the DC Editor In Chief, Bob Harras, an effective demotion, and one of a thousand cuts that Vertigo has suffered since.
Now Karen is to step down herself, with Shelly Bond announced as Executive Editor of Vertigo Comics (though no VP title, senior or otherwise, as yet). But instead of reporting into Bob Harras, I understand she will now report to Hank Kanalz, who was overseeing DC Direct and Business Development. Now, as part of his duties for Integrated Publishing, he now oversees Vertigo and Shelly will report in to him.
Kanalz has worked for Warner Bros' theme parks, was General Manager at Wildstorm and has written and edited comics such as writing an issue of Flash and editing World Of Warcraft. But what he will always be best known for is being the
co-creator dialoguer of Youngblood…
What can I say, I enjoy the juxtaposition.
ADDENDUM: I never knew Hank Kanalz being listed as the co-creator of Youngblood would cause such a fuss, but it did on Twitter from Erik Larsen and Rob Liefeld.
Because here's the thing, in the original Malibu proposal for Youngblood written by Hank Kanalz, both he and Rob are listed as the co-copyright owners of Youngblood.
Liefeld insists that he is the only listed creator of Youngblood in publication, and has been for twenty years and to suggest otherwise is libellous. And certainly issue 1 of Youngblood from Image lists Rob Liefeld as the creator and Kanalz as "dialog" (hence the amended headline). And I have no doubt a deal was done. But I doubt either Liefeld or Larsen would have a problem if I'd credited Bill Finger as a co-creator of Batman, even though he'll never officially be credited as such. Though I know Robert Kirkman has a problem when I credit Tony Moore as co-creator of The Walking Dead, as his published credit was never as co-creator, only as artist. Doing so isn't stating that Moore has a legal claim on the comic, and neither is it with Kanalz, which is where I suspect much of the concern is gravitating towards.
That was never the point of this article, it was simply to make a fun juxtaposition. Which it still does I suppose. Hmm.