Jim Balent: that's right. He ran Broadsword. I figure after 5 years on Catwoman with his cheesecake art making that book a success, he decided he'd rather pocket the cash himself by relying upon boobs to sell glossy paper.
That's my problem with simply making characters smarter or more prepared for their tribulations: the idea that, by virtue of exhibiting intelligence and resourcefulness, you make either the writing or the character better--or you somehow "save" them.
If that's not his or her character, and that's not the writing, then you're not really saving the book so much as you're just turning it into a completely different, more marketable piece of writing.
If the principle idea of a book or character is flawed and less than marketable for it's purposes, then it stands to reason that you go back to the drawing board. Not turn it into another Batman.
Tarot, by comparison, wasn't as marketable from a mainstream perspective by shear virtue of being a more niche book, but it was still marketable for it's purposes. Supposing her character were to get the same treatment that I believe Simone is going to give to Red Sonja: regardless of how mainstream she'd become, she'd be operating completely outside of her parameters. It wouldn't make any sense.
Just trying to understand what you're saying here...
1. Character is flawed
2. Go back to the drawing board, writer
3. Don't apply a commercially successful formula which you've applied many times before, writer, because that doesn't match the character's premise
I think what you mean is, come up with something original which incorporates the essence of the original premise.
