Why should British characters be any different?
There was a time that we said their finite, linear nature was what made them special. Obviously a young man's (or a Kurgan's) conceit, but there was something to it.
I'd happily (not) read CyberLiefield & GregLandClone-37's
Age of Strontium summer crossover event of 2050 if I thought it came with the approval and remuneration of the Wagner & Ezquerra estates. And in the highly unlikely event I was alive to (not) see it.
It's not actually about the mortality of creators or creations, it's about the
control of creators over their creations: the right to say "nope", or just "pay me". Why do Tolkien's grandkids get creative oversight and a quarter-billion from Amazon, while John Smith's characters - characters and settings that
only Smith could ever have created - rumble on in a grim half-life?
The only sane answer is "it's a totally different business in a very different time". Well yeah, but does that make it right? And purely selfishly, does it make for good stories? Or incentive to create new ones?
No-one is saying Pat's utterances aren't one-sided, abrasive or contradictory*, or that he's frequently egged-on by self-interested or ignorant parties, or even that he's made a decent living that younger creators can hardly dream of from the existing system, if not quite the solid gold house and the rocket car**. But improved creator rights benefit us all (caveats apply), and he's a highly visible and vocal source of pressure in that.direction.
Plus, he wrote Nemesis, Sláine and Defoe, so, y'know.
*Traits that infuse his writing and editorial style.
** Simpsons reference that alludes to the risks of this position.
