ICv2 columnist Steven Bates of Bookery Fantasy saw Dean Mullaney's reaction to his column on Will Eisner's passing (see 'I Think I Can Manage -- Whither Will Eisner?') and feels he was misunderstood:

Being a big Eclipse fan back in the day, I have too much respect for Dean Mullaney to react too strongly to his comments on my Eisner column.  But I do feel compelled to point out that my column was most decidedly NOT bashing Will Eisner, neither the man nor his voluminous body of work.  Quite the opposite.  I was simply lamenting his passing, and pointing out that I felt his legacy would be diminished, not increased, now that he's gone on to the great reward. 

I fear that today's fans don't know Will Eisner, but are more cognizant of guys like Neal Adams, John Byrne, Barry Windsor-Smith, Jim Lee, Todd McFarlane, and Michael Turner--NOT that I think that's a good thing.  I would even venture a guess that few of today's top artists actually consider Will Eisner as an influence. 

Mullaney pulls one quote out of my column which, out of context, admittedly sounds very negative.  I wrote:  '[Will] Eisner's legacy seems doomed to be relegated to retrospectives and museums.'  However, I would remind Mullaney (and ICv2 readers) that I also ended my column with the following statement:

'He had been there at the beginning, worked through the intervening years, and was still drawing at the time of his death, still influencing the direction of the medium. Like a bridge through time, Will Eisner was the embodiment of the comic book industry. Though his graphic storytelling style may never be seen again, his spirit lives on in the art-form he may not have created, but arguably defined.'