Again, I want to give it the benefit of the doubt, since I haven't read it.
However, so far, it just doesn't pass the "gut test" for me, the feeling I have, based on almost 40 years of being a Batman fan, as to what works for Batman and what doesn't.
First off, I worry that DC is now decreeing that the loner Batman-the guy who supposedly began his career in "Batman Year One"-is going to be replaced, yet again, with "Superfriend Batman."
Second, the idea of the last quarter century of Bat-continuity being basically due to a "mind fuck" is just a little too "spider-clone" for me.
Third, and most importantly, it seems an overly complicated--almost "past his prime John Byrne" way--of explaining why Batman goes from being a loner (at the beginning of his career) to team player back to loner when the "old" explanation worked pretty well. In real life, most of us have been in groups, or had friends, that we stopped getting along with. Were we all "mind wiped"? Of course not.
And, perhaps, more importantly, the old explanation fit quite well with the central conceit of Batman: that he is the way he is because of his parents' murder.
Batman watched his parents die in front him, scarring him for life and leaving him an orphan. There are case studies of orphans that show they are often plagued by inabilities to form close relationships.
As an orphan and victim of a violent crime, it would be hardly surprising that Batman would leery of others, a loner and prone to pushing people away.
Meltzer seems intent to replace that basic, powerful, bit of real psychology and pathos with retcons and convoluted theories.
And that bothers me.
