#i think he's a great character though

[competitioneddie]

I was never going to publish this but here we are, at the tail end of winter hiatus, still throwing daggers at each other over a ship war that's mostly fueled by a few very annoying very loud individuals that hide behind fictional blorbos to justify bigotry so. Brace yourselves this is long. This is specifically about 9-1-1 and part of the bucktommy fanbase but run with it it applies to every fucking fandom war ever.

One thing I see a lot is how we've twisted the idea of representation. Representation is supposed to give oppresed collectives the chance to normalize seeing people within their communities as fully fledged members of civil societies. It is never said anywhere that these representatives have to be perfect and we cannot accept holding them to impossible standards when the same perfection is not required for hegemonic identities.

Beyoncé and Karla Sofía Gascón are prime examples of how we as societies behave when confronted with the reality that oppressed individuals and collectives are still humans and are allowed to make mistakes and be wrong and imperfect and that still does not justify the hate we send their way. Beyoncé might be rich and turn a blind eye on sexual assault in her inner circle but she is still a black woman. Karla Sofía Gascón has been openly racist and anti vaxxer in the past and engaged in hate speech about the ongoing civil unrest over cultural repression in Spain, but she is still a trans woman. Doing morally bad things doesn't deny that they belong to oppressed collectives or justify in any way the structures that support systemic oppression towards them as non white or non gender conforming individuals, and their individual actions are in no way accurate representation of the communities they belong to.

Can this tie in with fandom ship wars? Yes, yes it can, because as we become more vocal about the lack of diversity representation and demand an end to token characters, we inadvertently push these unrealistic expectations on characters and portrayals alike and while I'm not here to discuss the merits of the cancellation vs death of author debate it's still relevant to remember that actors don't write characters, they only play them. If you're confused by that, that's on you. It's okay to dislike a performer because their values don't resonate with you but they can still be good performers and convincingly portray great characters that are their absolute moral opposites. It is possible to dislike a performer and dislike the character they play or think their performance is lackluster and unfair to an otherwise well written character (especially valid for book adaptations), but none of these scenarios imply in any way that it's okay to blur the lines. If you think a character deserves criticism because the performer ends up being a bigot you're disrespecting the writing and casting team, and if you think a performer deserves criticism because they played a controversial character maybe you should stay away from fiction in case it makes you question your moral standing and you feel attacked by it. Performers =/= characters.

On to the next topic, it is absolutely fine to dislike a queer character beyond their sexuality. It's fine to dislike a person, as a person. Nobody likes a dismissive partner or a nosy coworker or someone who has generally prejudiced worldviews. The tricky thing here is that you all need to ask yourselves why you dislike the character. Is it because they're written as actually morally evil or dislikable people, or is it because you're letting your privilege get the best of you? If you can ask yourself that question and really think about it you're probably fine disliking the character, really.

Acknowledging that some people have core values that are fundamentally incompatible with yours is normal and necessary, people pleasing is never a good strategy. You dislike a person, okay, toodle-oo, run along. Screenwriters know that they need unlikeable people for strong worldbuilding, they're spinning a tale and they need to take us there with them and sometimes that has to happen through awkward situations.

Sexuality is a big part of personal identity but it isn't intrinsically tied to a person's value as a person, because identity isn't reductible to a single trait and that kind of oversimplification leads to the formation and perpetuation of stereotypes that, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, might come out stronger than before. In other words, subjecting queer people to an unattainable ideal of perfection is only fodder for the haters who are going to take each and every one of their personal hang ups and turn them into a way to justify bigotry. If queer representation is bullied into fitting that perfect form, that is the example we're setting for our queer youth, effectively forcing them into comp het and other flavors of compliance to hegemonic hetornormativity.

We are all worthy of dignity, we just don't necessarily have to be likeable to be treated with that dignity is the point, and I'd like to see some grace for female characters regarding this, because apparently the argument that they aren't likeable and no one is shitting on them for being women goes that way and that's acceptable and okay and we're supposed to take in stride the million misogynistic stereotypes and remarks about them that do relate to the fact that they're women. You can dislike them for their core values -ymmv depending on your fandom but you'll find they're generally good people, morally-, but you cannot disrespect them for being women.

Oppressed collectives do not equal perfect people because oppresive dynamics are interesectional and no one individual belongs to a single collective at any given time because identity is complex and multidimensional, and it does not even matter because we still owe each other respect, recognition, full and equal participation rights and above all dignity, and this is not even my own thesis that is a widely recognised Social Justice perspective that we somehow erase when we talk about representation, which factually means making present the absent, recognising each other as worthy of dignity on the basis of existing regardless of the shape of our existence, and that goes back to Idealism, which you'll remember as one of the most influentian western schools of thought, ever, and despite the profound colonialism that operates in academia, the fundamental questions of the experience of being are common to a vast majority of cultural backgrounds outside of the western bubble. We all want and need to be dignified in the act of existing.

We owe each other knowing that we are all human and deserve to be recognised as such. We just don't have to support worldviews that infringe basic human rights or perpetuate domination narratives, and yes we still can treat each other with dignity because a person is also not reduced to their worldview and being human is not something we can evaluate based on moral performance. We're good people and we're bad people but we'd do well to remember that we're people.

That one character you hate might not be a good person, from a moral standpoint, but they are, in all their fictional glory, human, and valuable as representation of the collectives they stand for. We don't have to like them in order to ackowledge that they're -fictional- people. Disliking racist hate speech from a queer individual -again, fictional- doesn't make you homophobic, intersectionality is just one of the ways inequality operates. It does make said individual a racist, though. And you do not have to stand for racist individuals in fear that they'll call you out for being homophobic. You can take the good with the bad. Failing to see bigoted characters for what they were written to be and reducing their identity to their sexuality in an attempt to call out the other part not only fails at dignifying the other part, it also utterly fails at critical thinking. Responding to an articulated reasoning of why certain behaviors are racist with name calling is the manifestation of inability to reason.

That's all.

[technically-human]

Bisexual crisis Crystal edition

[paradox-n-bedrock]

me in big fandoms: oh cool, it's so active and there's so many people to vibe with, this is amaz-

*finds my niche angle that appeals to approximately six people*

me: okay, folks, it's you and me now

[egophiliac]

What do you like about the Diasomnia boys if I may ask?

I always love hearing about the different reasons people enjoy characters.

I mean, c'mon. he has split custody over Sebek okay

also, Lilia in particular has maybe the best timeskip character development of all time

[vngful]

im sorry this made me laugh so f*cking hard i had to share it here too

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

A fierce duel commences!

[casscainmainly]

"My long-held belief that Duke and Luke should not get along" <- could you please elaborate on this? I'm fond of both and I collect your thoughts and analyses like they're rare trading cards so I'm ready to be all 👀🫳🍿

First of all anon this might be my favourite ask ever, I've been dying to write my thoughts on these two so THANK YOU. Secondly my belief that Duke + Luke wouldn't get along actually stemmed from WFA, I was super annoyed with Luke giving Duke the pep talk in ep 76 because they have no relationship!!! Then I started thinking harder and realised they are a really interesting pair. In case anyone hasn't noticed I'm fond of giving Duke relationships where he's annoyed with the other person so 😭 this is very on brand.

The thing about Duke + Luke is they are, on the surface, similar - they are Black members of the Batfam who operate mostly independently, 'separate' from a legacy as Signal/Batwing (though I will deconstruct this later), devoted to their family, have a strong sense of justice, and view crime-fighting as a business. But I believe at their cores they are fundamental opposites - and it's this hidden opposition that makes me think they wouldn't vibe with each other. I'm focusing on We Are Robin Duke and Batwing Luke, though I will also refer to Duke's Signal days + Luke in Detective Comics.

(This is going to be a long post because this is lowkey my Luke + Duke thesis 😭)

Introductions

Duke and Luke were both introduced in the New 52, actually in the same year (2013!). What's really cool about their intros is that you already see how different they are. We first meet Duke in Zero Year, where he's fishing in the subway and then attacked by a gang; we then get the famous scene of him solving crosswords by Bruce's unconscious body. When Bruce tells Duke and his family to leave, Duke refuses, telling him they can't leave Duke's grandma and that all it takes is one riddle to free the city from Riddler's influence.

By contrast, we first meet Luke in the spotlight as he's wrestling for MMA in Batwing #19. He's been wrestling to get Batman's attention, refusing all job offers from his dad to do so (and thus creating some juicy father-son tension). In Batwing #20, we see he has two degrees from MIT, lives in a fancy apartment, and is really tech-oriented; his cover story for Batwing is that he's travelling the world.

Already, there are a couple things that already firmly separate them:

Class: Duke is from the Narrows whereas Luke is rich

Connection to Batman: Duke stumbled across Batman and gained his attention quite organically, whereas Luke was actively begging for Batman to notice him

Agency: Duke's actions were motivated by the extreme circumstances of Zero Year and a desire to help rooted in his material environment, whereas Luke's is a more internal, abstract wish to help (pointing to their class differences again)

Gotham: Duke refuses to leave his city, whereas Luke immediately packs up and travels the world

Intelligence: Both of them are fiercely intelligent, but in different ways - Duke loves puzzles and riddles whereas Luke is more inclined towards engineering and technology

And these differences only grow as they get older!!

Maturity

Duke is 16 (in my head, canonically it's vague but he's between Damian and Tim so 14-17) and Luke is 23. This age gap is honestly not that big, but I think it would feel big to both of them. And what's worse is that Duke is quite mature, but Luke is said to be immature:

Batwing #23

I don't think Luke is actually immature, but it's a recurring theme that other characters perceive him as unwilling to grow up; and I genuinely do think Batwing, for him, is kind of an adventure at first. Now compare this to Duke, whose circumstances disallowed him being childish. He had to grow up because his parents weren't around anymore, and he became quite jaded as a result. Even after he's mellowed out in his Signal days, I still don't think he could tolerate working with someone who comes off as light-hearted as Luke does. Duke would be annoyed by how he perceives Luke doesn't take things seriously, and Luke in turn would be annoyed when Duke inevitably criticises him for it.

Arc

Following on from above, their arcs are actually in total opposite directions. We first meet Duke alone and disillusioned with everything, putting his whole being into finding his parents. Then, through We Are Robin and Robin War, he begins to understand what Robin means as a symbol and finds community, leading to his brighter personality in Signal comics. Luke, however, begins very light-hearted (as seen above), with a huge respect for Batman and the Bat symbol. Once his family starts being torn apart, though, he becomes increasingly aggressive, more isolated, and in a much darker place. Compare a narration box from the last issues of both:

Batwing #34 / We Are Robin #12

These encapsulate their journeys: Duke learns that he doesn't have to act alone, whereas Luke struggles with accepting all that has happened since he put on his suit. Being a vigilante improves Duke's life, whereas it essentially ruins Luke's. This is why I don't think that WFA ep made sense!!! They have nothing in common in terms of the vigilante experience, and I think they would frustrate each other because they have such different conceptions of what the vigilante life is!!!!!!!

Batman and Robin

Okay so I said that Luke + Duke aren't legacies; even though Batwing is one, Luke doesn't actually talk to David Zavimbe, and his Batwing is not spiritually connected to David's really. But Luke and Duke both do take inspiration from other Batfam members - Batman and Robin, respectively.

Batwing #25 / Batman (2011) #45

Luke is the rare Batfam member whose motivations don't spring from tragedy - he's inspired one night when Batman saves him and he jumps in to help. Luke's love for Batman is wrapped up in Bruce himself, as a person rather than a symbol; he genuinely thinks Batman is awesome and wants to help people under his name.

Duke is the exact opposite - Robin is not a person for him but a symbol, and a symbol that can be spread to many people. It's also intimately tied with Duke's relationship to Gotham, because Batman is "on the gargoyle" and Robin is "on the street". Importantly, Duke says to Darryl that "I know you work for him, but you're us". Working for a singular person is in opposition to this 'us' that Duke believes in.

Luke, though not exactly an employee, literally wanted to work for Batman, Inc. Batwing is in many ways a 'job', an alternative to the corporate life Lucius wanted for him. Duke would, I think, take huge problems with Luke's philosophy as a whole. Separated from Gotham, attached to Batman as a person rather than as a symbol, Duke just literally wouldn't understand where Luke is coming from. And Luke, too, doesn't seem to respect Robin as a mantle (this is after someone mistakes him for Batman in Batwing #34):

I think Luke views Robin as firmly a kids' role, a sidekick for Batman; that would annoy the STUFFING out of Duke. I actually could write a whole post in itself about this incident and Luke being mistaken for Batman but that's for another day. The point is they are attached to the Batman and Robin legacies which in themselves are already vastly different, but Duke is kind of anti-Batman and Luke is a little anti-Robin, so they would not mix.

Family

One thing they do have in common is a deep love for family. But even then, their familial relationships are extremely different: Duke has a wonderful relationship with his parents, bolstered by the fact he lost them for a while, whereas Luke has a contentious relationship with his. Duke in some ways idealises his mom and dad, while Luke is sharply aware of his parents' shortcomings.

Batwing #20

Now this wouldn't be an issue normally, but Duke canonically has, like, a problem with judging other people's families. It's a really consistent (and somewhat hilarious) trait of his:

We Are Robin #5 / We Are Robin #5 / Gotham Nights #8

The Dre comment ("you're a mob kid?") is particularly telling. Because Duke has such a good relationship with his parents, and because he's shaped so much by them, I think he sees children as reflections of their parents/families. It's hard for him to see someone completely divorced from their family - you even see this a bit in Batman & The Outsiders, where although Duke understood Cass' disagreements with Shiva, I don't think he really got the nuances of what that felt like for Cass.

Luke's relationship with his father is complex and contentious. They love each other, but Lucius' desires for Luke just don't match what Luke wants, and Luke can't tell him about Batwing either so it's a constant back-and-forth. This secrecy is another thing Duke wouldn't get - I've made posts before about Duke and honesty, and it's a huge value of his. It's significant that as soon as his mom is healed she finds out about Signal; dishonesty is not really a factor in Duke's life, whereas it is Luke's central conflict. Luke's entire thing with his dad and his alter ego is something Duke has never had to deal with, and I think Duke would just be like 'tell him?? and make up??' and Luke would sigh so loud and hard.

Personality and Authority

But all of that aside, I just think their personalities wouldn't mix! Duke is a jaded teenager whose overt honesty and resistance to authority often give off a bad first impression (see his first encounters with Black Lightning, We Are Robin, Damian, even the Bruce train scene...). People do warm up to Duke quick, and once you love him you adore him, but there's a hurdle to becoming close to him that you have to leap first.

Luke, on the other hand, is affable and immediately likable. He's popular in school (as Russell mentions in #25), has experienced college social life, and is open and friendly. I think in an initial meeting Luke would find Duke off-putting and rude, while Duke would find Luke shallow and annoying. Luke is an extremely confident person, as shown in both Batwing and Detective Comics (particularly the latter). I think Duke would take this confidence as him being stuck-up, especially because Luke is rich.

Their class differences also separate their reactions to authority. Luke doesn't take authority at face value - he disobeys Bruce basically as much as Duke does. However, given his upbringing he isn't that anti-authority. Compare Luke and Duke's attitudes to cops:

Batwing #25 / We Are Robin #2

The Luke narration box is after the cops shoot him and accidentally make him kill his best friend 😭😭😭 like if that had happened to Duke his inner voice would NOT say that. This is another example of how their different upbringings and personalities cause them to have DRASTICALLY different outlooks on things. Batwing also sides with Batwoman when she kills Clayface in Detective Comics, something I think Duke would not do (he would've sided with Cass) so their ideologies often put them on opposite sides.

FINALLY, and least importantly, Luke is not a reader. This is a recurring thing and it's so funny:

Batwing #21

That's Tam telling Luke to "read a book". I think this exact interaction would happen with Duke taking the place of Tam, where he'd just be super annoyed that Luke doesn't enjoy literature. Honestly I think Duke might remind Luke of Tam in a lot of ways, since Duke is Bruce's golden child just like Tam is Lucius'. And that would annoy Luke, like he can't escape annoying younger siblings even as Batwing?? Bruce liking Duke more than Luke, even when Duke doesn't even care for Bruce's approval, would send Luke's blood pressure through the ROOF.

Conclusion

Um anyway I'm so so sorry this was so long but that's why I think Luke and Duke wouldn't get along!! It's mostly that they have such different outlooks on literally everything and their personalities clash. Anyway, if anyone bothered to read til the end here's your reward!! A little edit of what SHOULD have happened in WFA ep 76:

[kacievvbbbb]

You do get the sense that the fallout of Roger's death and the Roger pirates disbanding not so much traumatized Buggy and Shanks indifferent ways but instead generated such drastically different reactions to the trauma.

While the trauma of everything seemed to push Shanks into the future, always constantly waiting for something, putting plans on hold and then later in place, for this great moment, this great coming that he sees on the Horizon. For Buggy it rooted him firmly in the past keeping him trapped in this grief masquerading as anger.

While Roger's death forced Shanks to grow up fast, it kind of arrested Buggy's development keeping him stuck in those same feelings, rooted int that same place.

You get the sense that Buggy's whole east blue schtick is just one long overdue rebellious phase one big fuck you to Roger and his ideals. He's rebelling against Roger's principles. One of their rules was don't steal from innocent people and Buggy was keeping a whole town in poverty. If Roger and Luffy's pirating styles are diametrically opposed to someone like Blackbeard, who might be the most literal pirate in the entire series, then buggy is the parody of that Blackbeard piratism. He is playing up cruelty, being the most piratey pirate possible, hell he's literally a clown on a stage. It's all a show! It's his own special way of trying to "get back at Roger" of trying to discard everything Roger taught him for this overacted, over exaggerated clownish cruelty. Mentally he never left that execution square. He is still 15, alone and scared.

Hell he literally never left either, while I'm pretty sure Shanks' booked it out of the east blue as fast as he could, Buggy never lef, might have never left, if not for Luffy. It's part of why Luffy bothers him so much, he's just like Roger everything that Buggy is trying hard to forget and here comes this kid, whose never even met the Captain but is wearing his hat, shoving it right back in his face.

It makes sense that he never leaves the east blue till Luffy literally forces him out of it (fucking with Luffy gets him captured and imprisoned) and it makes sense that it's Luffy that literally breaks him out of prison, literally sets him free, and on the path to greatness that maybe he was always meant to achieve (even if he trips his way into it). This boy that is tragically so much like his old captain but so beautifully unabashedly himself, is what Buggy needs to start letting go off the past, to start trying to move forward.

Maybe that's why Buggy, at what could arguably be described as his lowest moment, gets the strength to free himself from his own self imprisonment, realizing that even back then he was locking himself away and pinning his own dreams on Shanks. And, maybe for the first time ever, Buggy really own his dream. He declares to his tormentors and his crew and the entire world that; actually He wants to find the one piece, him, as captain of his own crew, this crew, not just a part of someone else's. That's his dream and he's willing to turn the world upside down to do it.

[4ce-of-2pades]

When is Echo going to give up on Narcissus and go to Camp Half Blood and make some actual friends?

[Echo finds Leo at CHB]

Leo: Do I know you?

Echo: [statement] I know you.

Leo: Really? Did I fight you or something?

Echo: Or something.

Leo: Why do you keep repeating me? It’s kind of… wait!

Leo: [facepalm] Echo! Dang, I’m sorry! I didn’t mean to forget!

Echo: [annoyed] Mean to forget.

Leo: But isn’t people forgetting you part of the curse?

Echo: [shrugs, resigned] Part of the curse.

Leo: Girl, we have got to get you some text-to-speech tech.

Echo: Text-to-speech tech?

Leo: Come on, I think Chiron’s got a smartphone.

Echo: Smartphone?

Leo: [laughs, starts to lead her away] Now who’s asking all the questions?

Echo: [firmly] Questions.

[bennetsbonnet]

Not to be too dramatic about my feelings towards a character from the nineteenth century but I've lately realised that Mr Darcy's character arc is very comforting to my inner child. Specifically, to the teenager who once stood up to men who wronged me, to men who should've listened to me when I told them how damaging their behaviour was, to men who should've changed their ways... but unfortunately didn't and, instead of realising how damaging they were, instead lashed out at me for pointing out how awful their conduct was.

I love the way that Mr Darcy never seriously directs the anger he undoubtedly feels at receiving such harsh criticism from Elizabeth towards her, just because she happened to be the person to finally point out how awfully he behaved. Apart from the letter he wrote which was a little bitter (though I think you can cut him some slack for it because it was hastily written when he was still reeling from her rebuke) after that moment, he takes his frustration out on himself; he earnestly listens to her criticism and reforms his behaviour all while expecting nothing in return because being a better person is the right thing to do.

Forget the beautiful estate, his wealth and his looks, it's that ability to admit his faults and mistakes and to eventually change his ways.. that is what I find so compelling about Mr Darcy as a character.

[myimaginationplain]

bill x ford x stan love triangle real....

[itadooori]

yea i rewatched the s1 finale. did a lil doodle about it

[egophiliac]

OMG EGO HAVE YOU SEEN THE BOOK 7 CATER CARD YET

80s britpunk Cater is such an incredible direction to take. his Sid Vicious jacket! his little british police cap! I wouldn't have anticipated that going full-on Sex Pistols would be his alternate self but it is SO fitting actually. 😭

(also th-the crown symbol?! the gavel?! is housewarden Cater real because I will TRANSCEND --)

[cookiesnpaste]

it feels like ages since ive drawn him like this

[foxstens]

i love neil because while you're in his head his words and actions seem somewhat reasonable

but then from jean's pov he's just insane

[casscainmainly]

as much as it's fun to play around w the kids' different relationships to bruce in fanfic, I pretty much agree with your assessment as far as canon goes. im sure at some point there'll be variations because there's so much that goes under the umbrella of canon but yeah, so far your graph makes sense. (also despite the fact that I love 'batfam' fics, fandom has a habit of taking "found family" literally and applying familial labels to every relationship, even though like you said, duke and steph's relationships to bruce are more friendship and mentor/mentee-esque)

Yeah I don't mind people messing around with the dynamics, especially in AUs, but I just have my own preferred takes. Bruce being Duke's dad is just a pet peeve because I think a lot of people believe that's their canon dynamic, when that erases Duke's real dad and also a lot of his personality. But I've read great Duke fics with Bruce as a father figure too, so it's all about the execution.

HEAVY agree on the 'applying familial labels' to everything. I think the main problem (and this is in canon too) is trying to tie everyone to Bruce. That's why we have the belief that Bruce is Steph, Babs, and Duke's dad, because that's the easiest way to be 'in' the Batfam. But this is so much less interesting than having a character's relationship to the Batfam be inherently messy and non-nuclear-familyfied.

Like, my ideal Duke dynamic is him being the brother of Cass and Damian, but not being Bruce's son or Tim's brother. Just like Cass is Babs' daughter and Dick's sister, but Dick and Babs are together, and Babs is also somewhat Tim's older sister, but she's not Jason's or Damian's sister; Damian sees Steph as a sister figure, Dick is kind of a father/brother/everything figure, but Bruce is also his dad; etc etc. I don't think these are incompatible, and when people try to narrow down the Batfam into 'mom' 'dad' 'children', it loses a lot of what makes the Batfam interesting. (Even I'm simplifying the relationships a lot here).

Honestly it's not a problem if people prefer different familial dynamics to the ones I like. It's only the insistence that they have to be a certain type of family that rubs me the wrong way, because then we get things like 'TimSteph and DickBabs are incest', which is just a complete misreading of what the Batfam is.