All right. Something seems to be afoot.
You will note in the this news story from China that there have lately been calls for a speedy and complete restitution of the complex / traditional (FANTI) characters. Of course, that won't happen (at least not right away), but if you read between the lines, it does seem that there will be a retrenchment of the simplified (JIANTI) characters.
In the coming weeks, during the leadup to the promulgation of the new list of revised characters, we will see many more articles like this one from today's Economist, "Not as easy as it looks."
For an excellent account of this most contentious issue, I strongly recommend an article entitled "The Chinese Character — no simple matter" from the China Heritage Quarterly of The Australian National University, 17 (March, 2009). Note particularly the link to chinaSmack near the end for netizens' reactions.
This is an argument — Simplified vs. Complicated / Traditional — that will never end. Simplification is a process that has been going on since the very birth of the script. Conversely, the opposite trend of complexification has also been going on since the early stages of the script. Witness our discussion of the extremely rare 馬馬馬 vs. 騁 in this recent post.
For those Chinese language reformers who advocate alphabetization (e.g., Lu Xun, Ni Haishu, Lü Shuxiang, Zhou Youguang, Yin Binyong, Apollo Wu, John DeFrancis, and countless others), whether as part of a digraphia or by itself, simplification is a stopgap measure. Many of these scholars feel that simplification actually exacerbates the problems posed by the traditional forms of the characters. And then there is Jacob von Bisterfeld, whose call for romanization was — quite amazingly — published yesterday in the Shanghai Daily as "In praise of learning alphabets, not grueling study of characters."
(A tip of the hat to Norman Leung, Daniel Maas, and Geoff Wade.)