#character analysis: jonathan

[finzphoenix]

More before and after!! At this point I'm just rambling, I apologize! :""D I'm just so fascinated with it, like....

It's interesting to see how Crane's statement in the first version is delivered with this tone of intellectual detachment, almost diagnostic. His voice is kinda unbothered, reflecting a position of authority and understanding rooted in theory rather than personal experience.

While in the second version, the same statement is transformed by his lived experience. His rough voice and bitter tone indicating a man who has not only encountered but been consumed by the very fears he once clinically described. The words now carry a visceral, personal weight; they are no longer an observation but a confession, a weapon, and a warning. His tone suggests anger, pain, and maybe even a sense of betrayal - he has become what he once analyzed, and the words are now etched in his soul, not just his mind.

It's academic knowledge vs cruel personal experience.

God, I love how much weight this iconic sentence now carries thanks to Arkham Shadow! ;/////;

[thesleepyhollows]

Understanding Arkhamverse scarecrow.

I’ve been wanting to make this post for awhile. I think with the release of Arkham shadow we might finally have all the necessary pieces to understand the life of Jonathan crane, his motivations and his descent into obsession.

This scene gives us a lot to work with.

Let’s start with this. It seems like unlike some versions of crane who see fear as a tool. The true face of control and power. Arkhamverse Crane sees fear as everything. This has been observed all throughout the series. From him discussing how fear drives every human action in Arkham asylum to this line in Arkham knight just before he’s defeated.

Something else I noted in that clip was Jonathan immediately trying to rationalise and analyse his reaction to his toxin using fear.

Now we’re not quite sure what this original chemical of his does. Only that its intention is to trigger the shadow within people. We can assume through both his and Batman’s reactions that it aims to do this through a similar process to the future fear toxin. Bringing out and facing people with their deepest fears. Hoping they may become them.

Though that leaves the same question. Why jump to fear. He’s clearly talented in chemistry. Surly there would be more direct ways to bring out people’s demons rather than only focusing on a single part of the shadow. Well I believe that shows us even before this realisation Jonathan had some experience and issues with fear. It’s also why his greatest fear seemingly is just. Fear itself. The helpless fears given to us from evolutions and experiences long before our time. Inherent fears.

However we also shouldn’t disregard his fixation on the shadow itself. Why does he seemingly want to get people to become their worst selves. As seen in his tapes with Harvey. Why is Jonathan crane like this?

Well I think there may have been a time where he saw someone consumed by fear. Destoryed by it.

This could draw an interesting parallel to the story of Amadeus Arkham whose story started when he watched his own mother be consumed by her mental illness before ending up consumed by it himself. I think this parallel could make a lot of sense given that I’d argue although the joker plays a more personal threat scarecrow is the main villain of the Arkham series.

So allow me to tell you what I believe to be the story of Jonathan Crane in the Arkham series. Assuming that the brief backstory we got in his Arkham asylum character bio isn’t considered canon.

A parent or other caregiver suffered from great anxiety and paranoia that caused them to do great harm. Maybe overtime perhaps in one tragic incident. Jonathan internalised this and began to grow interested in the mind. Maybe it started with good intentions. After all he does claim to be helping people in Arkham shadow. Maybe that was a lie and he’s been twisted for a very long time. Who knows.

He began work at Gotham state university and we know how that ended up.

Though it’s worth noting he clearly was brilliant. So much so that this incident unlike most versions of the character did not get him fired because his classes brought the university so much revenue. Instead he left on his own accord to take over as head of rehabilitation at blackgate. An odd choice given the amount of institutions bidding over him. They were likely offering more, far more than the job he took. Though I think his motivations for this were split. Partly is of course the obvious motivation of easy access to test subjects that couldn’t easily speak out. We can see in the previous game that he was running controlled tests likely of the chemicals we see used in Arkham shadow and his subjects were willing participants.

Now either not enough people were choosing to participate or the effects were becoming so potent it risked drawing unwanted attention to his work.

The second reason connects to my proposed backstory. Maybe he was curious to explore how fear connects and causes crime and violence via the shadow. The chain reaction that begins WITH fear.

We then see the events that happen in Arkham shadow and we find out alongside Jonathan that he’s been inhaling his own chemicals during testing. Smart move there buddy. This sends him into a psychotic spiral and forces him to confront and become his greatest fear. His shadow. Fear itself. We can see that this truly set in given how messed up he looks the following day. Not to mention his actions becoming erratic. No longer thinking to hide his crimes until after he severely injures Harvey and huffing his own chemicals right in court.

Afterwards? We’re not sure. Of course he goes on to become the scarecrow then the events play out as we see throughout the rest of the Arkham games. He gets mauled by killer croc during the events of asylum and his previously smug and joyfully sadistic personality get destroyed alongside his face. The experience clearly changed him quite drastically as a person. Although clearly it didn’t shake his core ideals and beliefs about the all consuming nature of fear.

How pitifully ironic that this idea became true in the end. As he’s injected with his own toxins his mind collapsing and giving way to permanent insanity and terror. Fear really was everything Jonathan had left in the end.

[tiredandoptimistic]

What I really enjoy about Luke and Maryse's interactions in City of Ashes is that they clearly grew up separate from each other. Both of them are in their late thirties, but they hold this image in their heads of who the other was when they were teenagers, when they were enthralled by Valentine's hateful rhetoric.

From how he describes them to Clary, it's clear that Luke looks down on the Lightwoods. He says that they were Valentine's closest lieutenants and the most dedicated to his doctrine, and yet he ignores the fact that he was Valentine's second-in-command for most of the Circle's existence. He knows that he had doubts at the time and then grew into a kind and accepting adult, but Robert and Maryse appeared dedicated to Valentine from the outside and have been separate from Luke ever since, so to him they must still be as cruel as they ever were. He sees himself as superior because he got out first, but forgets that he stuck around until Valentine literally told him to kill himself, while Robert and Maryse surrendered to the Clave voluntarily.

Then there's Maryse, who's still bitter over Luke's betrayal. Not because he turned against Valentine, but because he and Jocelyn set a trap that ended with every member of the Circle (other than the Lightwoods, Hodge, and Michael) being killed by the combined forces of the Clave and the Downworlders. Of course Maryse is being pretty hypocritical here, since she was fully in on the plan to murder a bunch of unarmed diplomats, but she does have a point that Luke and Jocelyn did nothing to protect their former friends. Their plan saved lives in the long run, but it resulted in far more bloodshed that night than Valentine's simple massacre.

After Valentine's supposed death, Jocelyn, Luke, Robert, and Maryse all went into a sort of retirement in New York City. For Luke and Jocelyn it was their mundane employment and for Maryse and Robert is was their place as Institute heads, but both couples spent fifteen years raising their kids and learning to be better people. By the time we see them in TMI, all four former circle members had come to terms with how atrocious Valentine had been and dedicated themselves to doing better with their adult lives, but since it happened in relative isolation, they all still remember each other as they were at age twenty. To Maryse, Luke is still the man who left his friends to die, and to Luke, Maryse is still the woman who stuck by a murderer until the end.

I just think it's very interesting that there are so few survivors of the Circle left in 2007, and barely any of them communicate with each other at all. Amatis was left alone in Idris, Hodge felt so abandoned by the Clave that he went back to Valentine, Robert and Maryse trapped themselves in a loveless marriage rather than give up the illusion of stability they'd built for their kids, Luke and Jocelyn denied their past until it came to find them, and Michael was killed with his family in a scheme that would never have worked if a single person came to check up on him in the ten years Valentine inhabited his life. They could have found a community through this common experience, but instead they saw each other as monsters for the things they all did.

[nineinchclawz]

Rereading Battle Tendency and I'm shocked by how little the fandom discusses the family dynamics. Speedwagon and Erina have different parenting styles, and that has a huge impact on shaping who Joseph is. Joseph was raised to be a little shithead!

Open to read more! 👇

From the very beginning of BT, it's established that Joseph's attitude is VERY different from Jonathan's. We're shown a flashback of Joseph's childhood.

When I first watched jjba, this scene surprised me. Joseph acts so aloof!! But now that I'm rereading it, I think Speedwagon told Joseph not to get involved beforehand. Or, as one of my followers on Bluesky mentioned, Joseph may have been acting like a brat in order to draw the robbers' attention away from Speedwagon.

Joseph snaps when the clothes Erina had given him get ruined. Joseph tells Speedwagon he'd do anything to protect them, as they're the only family he has.

From here on, Speedwagon is shown enabling Joseph's behavior. He's aware of Joseph's temper and bratty habits. But never once do we see Speedwagon scold or reprimand Joseph in any meaningful way, even when he's being reckless.

Speedwagon consistently responds in two ways. Giving Joseph a sideways glance or raising his voice...

"JoJo!" "JoJo..." "🥺" "😨"

In contrast to this... Erina is shown PHYSICALLY reprimanding Joseph when he steps out of line after he jokes about the implications of Speedwagon and Jonathan's relationship / Speedwagon and Erina's relationship (varies by translation)

However, Erina ALSO enables Joseph's behavior. But instead of Speedwagon's method of letting Joseph do whatever he wants, Erina guides Joseph on how to beat up a racist in public with STYLE. Joseph's sense of justice makes him wild & careless, so she teaches him how to stay in control while still doing the right thing.

Erina's background of an upper-class childhood, nursing career / teaching career, and her experience living as a woman in the 19th century shaped how she raised Joseph. Joseph inherited Erina's social intelligence, class, and kindness.

Speedwagon lived the majority of his life in the slums of London and was involved in organized crime. Speedwagon was also an oil tycoon. He's mastered the art of bartering. Joseph "inherited" Speedwagon's rebellious nature, street intelligence, and loyalty.

Joseph has a strong sense of justice, something ALL Joestars inherited from Jonathan.

But that sense of justice is what ultimately killed Jonathan and George. Erina and Speedwagon knew that Joseph was destined to get into trouble.

I believe that Erina and Speedwagon raised Joseph in such a way that he could survive the worst. And he did. Joseph is the only Joestar in the entire series that is shown to live into old age. He survived all that because of Erina and Speedwagon's love for him.

[underratedgrapeju1ce]

this episode is so agonizingly human. this is like one of the only times jon actually expresses his feelings openly, and even though they argue, martin still treats him like a person. this doesnt feel like martin "talking at" jon, or vice versa. it doesn't feel like elias gaslighting him or basira and melanie invalidating his feelings. it feels like a couple having an argument, albeit a very intense one.

its so. gut-wrenchingly mundane, in the midst of so much supernatural insanity. its one of my favorite episodes

[shyjusticewarrior]

Scarecrow stays being a menace to Jason

Truth & Justice

Gotham War: Red Hood

Robin Lives (elseworld)

[cult-of-the-eye]

Jonathan Sims vs Samama Khalid: A Comparison of Horror Protagonists

I want to talk about the differences between these two and for me, the most interesting one was the idea of agency. At first, it seems as though Jon had chosen to work at the Institute, chosen to take the job as the Head Archivist, chosen to record himself speaking the statements. Obviously we later find out that he lacked agency his entire life but we start off believing that he is in complete control of his actions. Sam, on the other hand, is suggested to have been driven by his past experiences, something outside of his control. He's taken this job because he needs it, who would willingly work a night shift with their ex? And most importantly, he's being recording without knowing. What does that mean for the rest of tmagp? It's not a long shot to suggest that tmagp will be an antithesis of tma, i'm guessing it will follow along in a sort of mirror image. Equal and opposite etc etc. So as Jon slowly loses his agency, which is the main focus of the tragedy, Sam could gain agency, gain knowledge, gain power within this universe but inversely, use it for all the wrong reasons. Jon's corruption arc was rife with moral questioning and what he could possibly do to avert his ending but maybe Sam's tragedy will be complete knowledge of what will happen and the inevitability of tragedy, coupled with an innate need to catalyse it.

[gamma-ghoul]

I have a question, and perhaps the Stranger Things fandom can help me with this.

But, I've been wondering about this for a while: why does Joyce seem to not care that much about money, unlike Jonathan? One of Jonathan's core traits is that he constantly worries about money, even when they move to California and the family is much better off, at least they are in my opinion. I understand that the first season was meant to show that Joyce is willing to do anything to find Will so money is not even within her scope. However, in season 3, she all but ditches her job to figure out what the hell is going on with the magnets. Meanwhile, Jonathan is getting into a fight with Nancy over an internship.

I like the dynamic personally, as it shows how Jonathan is more tied to his social class compared to Joyce. I mean Joyce has played a role in the parentification of Jonathan Byers.

While Joyce loves her children deeply, she does make some questionable choices when it comes to Jonathan. I mean Jonathan's plight highlights the traumatic impact that can be caused by poverty. And you can sort of infer that Joyce probably didn't experience that growing up.

But it is jarring as viewers to see Joyce give not a single fuck about their financial situation while Jonathan is worried about mortgages. It makes Joyce look way more irresponsible as a parent, or Jonathan is clinging onto an identity that is no longer accurate to their current circumstances.

[perplexedjokist]

slight character analysis, at least how I see Jonathan Crane / The Scarecrow

scarecrow is impatient and impulsive, unlike most villains he doesn't do crime for fame or money, he finds his work genuinely fascinating and completing.

his main motivation is the euphoria it brings, he's a freak and craves it. without that feeling he feels empty, which isn't a bad thing but it's boring. and makes him more irritable.

he won't threaten to hurt your family or loved ones, that's too much work and he doesn't care about them. he wants you to be scared, and if you're one of those people who "aren't afraid to die" he gets irritated.

sure you might not be afraid to die but you don't really wanna get hurt, you don't want to be slowly, continuously in agonizing pain and fear while someone laughs at you, do you?

very easily ticked off if you don't respond the way he wants, not scared immediately? no phobias to use as an advantage? fine, blades and needles. that didn't work? well, you certainly weren't going to make it out alive in the first place.

[leslie057]

rating things owned by nancy elizabeth wheeler

because she’s got a lot of little things. mostly they are very cute and strange little things.

starting off strong we have the prettiest tissue box in the world. 9/10, i think if i were sick it would make me feel better to have such a nice tissue box.

i’m fairly certain this is her diary beside it because her diary looks pink in the upside down version of her bedroom. so this is probably it? 11/10, i want to read it so bad. and very sweet pic with mom—7.5/10.

next up these pinstripe pants !! 10/10 i love them so much. oh and the index finger ring is there obviously, 8/10, such a consistent piece of her character.

a ribbon for being the bestest girl ever in the world. 10/10. also the card of cardinals: 6/10, probably just a christmas card or something rather than a symbol of her love for birds. but i still like it.

mr rabbit gets 11/10 for the name alone. and why does he look dead. i love him. he’s me.

descent from xanadu: QUITE LITERALLY 0/10. at first i was SO excited to cheer her on for reading a sex and drugs book at school but as it turns out? bizarre and gross. seems to go heavy on nonconsensual stuff. i snagged a free pdf and command f’d for whore and bitch. lots of results obviously (one use of c*ck crazy bitch…lovely). it seems men in this book say a lot of sexist stuff that the women pretend to hate but love which i can’t imagine is great for a teenage girl to consume. also just not sexy at all.

literally so bad, and this is not the worst of it.

sooo bad. the author was what 70 (??) writing that his female character got clinically DIAGNOSED with being a slut for every guy she comes in contact with. i know options for sexy literature were probably limited at this time but…please go check out something else. i wanna bonk her on the head with this book (paperback) and hug her. you don’t need to read this to be cool and sexually aware. moving on.

on the other side of that, the blondie calendar gives us a sense of the GOOD media she’s consuming!! a 10/10 no questions asked. we don't really get to see many of her hobbies or interests outside of investigation so this is a much appreciated detail.

of course like all good things in life the blondie calendar does get replaced. its replacement is what i will call Weird Antinaturalist Art Piece #1 seen in her room in s4. i give it a 4/10 because idk what’s going on really.

and here is a very crunchy screencap of Weird Antinaturalist Art Piece #2 from s4 which i will give a 5/10. note the boyfriend typical photography above it, for sure a 10/10.

there is also Weird Antinaturalist Art Piece #3 which gets an 8/10 because i like the composition and the piano player. where did she get this and why. interior decoration is her passion.

the sleeping bag and crochet pillow setup. 7/10. would take a cat nap here.

pluto!! 15/10, the best mickey mouse character i would say. i hope her cousin is taking good care of him.

bulletin board 10/10. i love how obvious it is that she has had this up for forever. probably a nice constant in her life.

and my favorite pic up there is this precious one. look at herrr. 5000/10.

her floral weekender bag. 6/10, i like it, but not as much as i like the speedwalk and the toss into the backseat. she was SO ready for her lab takedown road trip.

trapper keeper is a 9/10 because they probably put anything and everything on trapper keepers back in the day and yet still she chose this lovely understated hot air balloon. elegant.

tom cruise poster is 1000000/10 actually. she is so loyal to that man. actually though not a great pic of him all things considered so maybe i give it a 999999/10. (i love it so much because i know for a fact that jonathan byers works proactively to never acknowledge this poster, because he is more mature than that.) (he is not more mature than that, in fact he is a little pouty about mr cruise.)

KITTY FIGURINE. 10/10. i thought it was just in s4 but i found it on her other nightstand in s1. very very adorable. i imagine it is now one of the first things she sees in the morning (well that and her blue telephone: 8/10) which is bizarre and cute. the mixtape drawer gets a 10/10 for reasons that i don’t think i need to get into.

white fingerless gloves! 10/10. so chic for monster hunting.

black fingerless gloves from s4. hmmm 3/10, they're cool i guess but they don’t feel very nancy and the white ones are so much better. especially because you may get the splatter effect of monster blood on them in a battle scenario, which would be badass.

piggybank (with her name on the side). 2/10 unfortunately i don’t like him. he looks at me like i took out his whole pig village and i just need some quarters. also did she paint this herself? in that case, 3/10 for customization lol.

pastel underwear drawer: 10/10. her committment to the hollistic aesthetic and color palette of her room is impressive here. it was a good idea to use this drawer as a deterrence against her little brother and a money hiding place but clearly he has no manners and is a THIEF.

STRIPED SOCKS. 10/10. i realize it's hard to see because she's moving so fast (slow down he is not going anywhere) but they are indeed stripey even though i would have guessed solid white. and wow what good sleeping socks. stripes are just cozier. hope she got lots of sleep in those.

[exaflux]

How good is BTAA Scarecrow at therapy really? (An analysis) (Part 1)

So I naively thought that this'd be a laugh. Take the unethical psychiatrist, analyse his techniques, highlight what he's doing in real world contexts and give him a rating. After hours of working on this though I unintentionally managed to construct a theory on how BTAA Jon might approach therapy. Oop.

This part contains- a breakdown of some psychological approaches in therapy settings, character analysis/theory of Jon (in the conclusion), Jon being awful

Disclaimer- I am not a trained psychologist or therapist or anything of the like. I did study the topic under a teacher who was a trained psychologist though, and I still very much like psychology, so that basically makes me an expert in this field. This is a joke. Do not take my word as gospel. This post was written for fun and will probably have a mistake somewhere.

Harvey and Two-face will be referred to seperately in this analysis, but if referring to both Harvey will be used as default. Jonathan is Jonathan.

A-Level psychology don't fail me now 🙏

Session one/"two"-

The following all takes place in S2, Episode 5

The first section of our analysis takes place on March 4th and the time is 2:02pm, surprising no one as Two-Face is present. Jonathan begins the session by setting up a recording and going through standard legal procedure, following the “Code of Medical Ethics” (0:15) of Gotham. He also makes note that the first tape was destroyed, again probably for legal reasons. Good start.

Being that it was Harvey that destroyed the last tape machine due to a mishap of it not being the first session and Harvey refusing to perceive the number one, Jon asks him to elaborate- “tell me more about that” (0:56). Asking for more info on something a client has said often shows interest, which helps with relationship building, and on the mental health professional’s end would help build an understanding of the client. It has been established at this point that the session is for “introductory psychoanalytic examinations” (0:24), so that latter point is especially important. Killing two birds with one stone, very efficient. Whether Jon actually shows interest towards Harvey’s fascination for the number two though is a completely different matter. 

In addition, throughout all this Jon also gives terse responses, “I see.” (00:49) (1:11), to Harvey’s statements to indicate he’s listening and doesn’t try to weigh in. One-sided conversation such as these allow the client to speak as much as they need to, the sessions are for them after all.  

So overall, Jonathan is being very professional so far. 

At 1:21 of the episode is when Jon finally decides to give his thoughts (after Harvey has finished talking) stating that "The best way for [him] to help [Harvey] is to establish a bond of trust between [them]” (1:26), something that Harvey agrees to. Truthfully, another thing that is important between client and mental health professional, so his approach isn’t wrong.

Upon Harvey agreeing to this, Jon promptly demands that he be given the coin, something Harvey doesn't want to do. At being told that he isn’t comfortable with that, Jon points out that "it's not up to [Harvey]" (1:46) and takes the coin anyway through it's infallible decision-making prowess and the full knowledge that Harvey relies on the coin for all his decision making. He successfully gets the coin, Harvey is unhappy, and trust is established. But not really because Jonathan didn’t respect Harvey’s personal feelings nor wishes. Which is a breach of ethics. Horrible decision really. Jon places the coin on the table, presumably in a place where both he and Harvey can see it, and he declares aloud that it's on the table. In any other context this might have actually been a good way to maintain trust while seperating an item of emotional importance from a client, but such actions should only be taken with the consent of said client. 🚨 JONATHAN IS BEING UNETHICAL HERE. 🚨

Afterwards Jonathan reopens the session, “We meet again for the very first time” (2:06) as though everything said and done previously never happened. He goes on to ask the pair to reintroduce themselves. He notably sounds more casual here and upon hearing that Two-Face is older asks “Harvey was here first, wasn’t he?” (2:21) in a tone that doesn’t sound genuinely surprised. The question was most likely asked as a method to fish for confirmation or another elaboration.  

He then moves on after Two-Face is done speaking, very obviously not caring about the reasoning given for Two-Face's origins, to say that he heard “a horror story” (2:58) referring to the courtroom incident. Despite Two-Face's response being a positive one, claiming “That day set me free, like it was in the beginning” (3:11), Jon instead believes that the incident “found [Two-Face] in [his] hiding place” (3:17) and that he was hiding because he was, and still is, “afraid of what [he] would do without Harvey” (3:27). Jon weighing in should have ideally been avoided here. Therapy is normally approached with a mentality akin to teaching a man to fish, where the point is to teach a client how to identify and analyse their own feelings.

Instead of stating why a client thinks/feels as they do, a mental health professional will tactically ask questions in an effort to get a client to reflect. Jon asks some of these questions- “Do you ever wonder what if that acid had taken more than half of your face that terrible day? [...] What if when the acid had done its business, there wasn’t enough of Harvey left to do the serious work?” (3:30) which, in a way, counts. There is still criticism to be had here though as wording can passively influence how a client thinks. Describing the day that Harvey went through his incident as being “terrible”? Probably made Harvey view a day considers favourably as something more negative. Likewise, stating that Harvey could have somehow been lost that day from the acid in all certainty no doubt might have instilled some sense of unease in Two-Face. You should avoid making clients uncomfortable. Bad therapy moment.❌And then Jon follows these questions to Harvey up with another explanation, "You won't let it [cross your mind] because it frightens you [...] the thought of being alone." (3:50).❌❌

“Let’s try something. Bear with me” (3:58) Jon says next, reaching for the acid he inexplicably keeps in his draw. Upon being asked what he’s going to be doing with it by one (two?) Two-Face, Jon retorts with his own question, “What are you afraid I’m going to do with it, hmm?” (4:18) before pissing around with the acid and wanting Harvey to “Tell [him] about the fear” (4:29). This is an example of Jonathan being unethical again. Remember gaining the consent of clients of a therapeutic activity you want to do together is of utmost importance. Likewise, then Jon clarifies that he thinks that Harvey is scared of the “other” (5:05) attribute he acquired that day that wasn’t just the acid damage. Believing that tapping into this fear would cause emotional distress, he proceeds to dunk Harvey’s coin into the acid, destroying it. 🚨JONATHAN IS BEING UNETHICAL AGAIN, DO NOT DELIBERATELY CAUSE MENTAL DISTRESS TO CLIENTS OR DESTROY THEIR PROPERTY. 🚨 According to Jonathan himself he considers his actions “aggressive intervention” (5:30), but Jonathan’s judgement for considering this necessary can be called into question. 

Finally, after everything is said and done and Harvey has in fact been reduced to “a puddle of quivering terror” (5:10) like Jon predicted, Jon is again back to asking Harvey questions about his feelings and acting like a good mental health professional. He even reassures Harvey that he understands! Creating an environment of understanding and lack of judgement is important in any therapy setting. And, further playing his role as a psychiatrist, Jonathan in all his understanding of Harvey’s inability to make decisions anymore prescribes him with meds of his own creation. He explains what the medication does positively, in fluffy terms rather than anything technical, and gets Harvey to take it. While Jonathan is allowed to prescribe medication like this being a psychiatrist rather than just a psychologist, the fact that he starts tooting his own horn about how good the meds are, neglecting to talk about the potential side effects, and then makes Harvey take them anyway is, again, unethical. Informed consent should always be taken from clients before prescribing and a therapy session is an inappropriate setting to advertise your products.

In conclusion:

Jonathan takes more Ls in this session of therapy than he has moments doing his job in the proper way, and his approaches to psychological methods indicate that he takes those Ls not from any amount of ignorance on his part but from a blatant disregard for the well-being of his clients. He plays nice and uses correct therapy techniques consistently only up until he establishes a "bond of trust" by removing Harvey's coin, despite Harvey's feelings. After, Jon can be observed descending more and more into ignoring basic therapy practices; providing his own viewpoints on events, outright stating why Harvey feels as he does, refusing to explain what he's planning to do, eventually getting to the point where he's talking more than the clients during the session. All this happens until Jon permanently rids Harvey of the coin for good, leading to an emotional breakdown in the clients and a subsequent administration of drugs.

If I didn't know any better I'd say that during these events, Jonathan goes from setting up the session like any mental health professional would to gradually steering the session into the direction he wants it to go. Even moreso if one regards how he brings up the court room incident of his own volition completely unprompted (2:50) which then leads that into bringing up the topic of fears. Which eventually leads to dropping the coin into acid... Now this idea is insidious enough as it is, right? I'm sure this Dr Jonathan Crane is a well meaning psychiatrist, I mean he's following Gotham's Code of Medical Ethics! So here's also a slightly different perspective to all this:

Jon is speedrunning therapy.

I mean think about it- not even two minutes into the session and Jon basically forces Harvey into "trusting" him. This is only the second time that they've had a session together mind and trust is a thing that often takes months or even years to form between a mental health professional and a client. The chosen method of building trust was to remove a valued item from Harvey and one that he relies on, again something that takes multiple sessions to build up to and- as had been stated- is a valid trust building technique. After taking the coin Jon still leaves it in a place where Harvey knows where it is, just like you'd expect in a therapy setting. Jon even asks the pair to introduce themselves before deliberately steering things into talking about the court room incident which is the nexus point for why Harvey relies on the coin as far as he's concerned. Even him outright telling Two-Face what his fears are could be interpreted as him not wanting to spend months doing the standard therapy approaches that aren't even a guarantee for any progress.

In fact, Jon doesn't even attempt to destroy the coin either until the following happens in order: he tells Two-Face he thinks the court room incident found him and he was hiding out of fear of what he'd do without Harvey, he then asks Two-Face if he's ever thought about what he'd do if Harvey was unable to do much of anything anymore, then outright tells Two-Face he's afraid of being alone before then saying "Let's try something" (3:54) as though he's about to demonstrate his point, forcing Two-Face to acknowledge it.

"I think we had a breakthrough" (5:36) indeed. Breakthroughs are when a client successfully identifies something about themselves, like where a thought or feeling or bad habit stems from. A client having a breakthrough is the point where therapy can progress. And, hey, Harvey probably did make a breakthrough from losing his coin, though it was forced. This breakthrough led to being given a special drug. Which is something to be explored in a later part.

Of course though none of this really matters. Therapy is about treating a person as a person and "teaching a man to fish". Apparently Jonathan doesn't care about fishing.

FINAL SCORE FOR THE SESSION:

🎊 3/10 🎊

Jon is definitely not lacking in skills when it comes to psychology or therapy techniques, in fact he seemed decent enough for the first chunk before the session metaphorically drove off a cliff through his driving- intentionally no less. He simply lacks regard for the feelings of his clients and is a walking ethics breach. Likewise he took deliberate control of the session, and whether the end result was intentional or not this is definitely not something to do in a therapy setting. His approach to "therapy" may lead to breakthroughs, making his clients recognise the things he identifies, but it's not in the true spirit of therapy. It's doubtful that a client under him would ever learn the techniques they need to overcome whatever things they might struggle with.

...And this isn't even getting into how much enjoyment he seems to get from making his clients uncomfortable.

[thesleepyhollows]

The batman adventures has one of my favourite Jonathan scenes.

Maybe im just soft but the pure ecstasy and joy when he revels in his victory saddens me. His obsession, his need to be a source of terror. Yes it’s sadistic and evil but its not fun to see someone whos completely lost themselves like Jon has. People are not born evil. He must’ve been good at one point. Innocent at least.

At least to my knowledge whilst not canon the batman adventures comics have the same lore and characters as BTAS. We only ever see a younger Jon being cruel and obsessed with fear out of interest and sadism but I doubt that’s the whole story.

He was talking to his henchmen during the scene where he monologues. I doubt he would give the full truth and would probably try to seem more scary by painting himself the way he did.

I do believe part of it was honest. But what I want to know is the part before that. What started his fixation.

I wouldn’t be shocked if he had been bullied like many of his usual interpretations and or had a rough home life. He clearly has fairly fragile self esteem given how much he overreacted to being mildly insulted whilst getting fired. Not to mention kids who do show traits of sadism do usually have things like that going on behind the scenes.

And so we return to the comic.

Theyre all finally scared of me.

Yes you could read that surface level. But the possible deeper meanings especially with his mostly unknown past just. Depress me.

When some animals are terrified. They try to make themselves look scary in response. After all.

No matter his past. Jon has become the scarecrow. He has become so fixated on fear its all that matters to him. Its consumed him completely.

But people dont fear crane like he wants. They fear his persona. Hes become so lost in the scarecrow that he and everyone else forgets that he is just a man, and when his mask. His defence is removed. He is still what he always was. Just a weak, selfish human. That nobody fears.

[thesomebody]

I think that some people have not experienced anxiety at all in their life. With how they bring up Jonathan’s line of how Nancy would sacrifice her schooling at Emerson to be with him in California. Jonathan is just doom spiraling and thinking of all the possible negative possibilities. Not that Nancy would actually do it. But at the possibility that she could do it. It happens.

Jonathan was in a pit of anxiety and feels a little useless in his life while also having anxiety because of the horrors he has seen in these last three seasons and even before that.

[nineinchclawz]

Sometimes I wish Jonawagon was more popular but then I remember how Jotakak is treated.

I don’t think I could psychologically or emotionally handle an entire fandom woobifying Speedwagon and daddy-domifying Jonathan.

[twilight-zoned-out]

"Seven years ago we all went through the flames; and the happiness of some of us since then is, we think, well worth the pain we endured."

Although Dracula was published in 1897, some think that it takes place in 1893 because of the way the days and dates used line up. If that's the case, Jonathan Harker's epilogue, seven years later, would have been added around 1900. A new era bubbling with new change and new conventions. The story ends with Jonathan looking ahead to a new century filled with the unknown and being able to look on the past, despite its darkness, "without despair."

[shyjusticewarrior]

We don't talk enough about how- because of Bruce's actions- Jason was almost killed by the man who killed his childhood best friend.