#meandering comic | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

yellowocaballero · 2 years ago

Note

Would you write anything with/about Spider-man 2099? 👀

This ask made me scroll back in my blog and go, "Wait did I actually write the entire manifesto on why Miguel is a communist icon because I thought I had refrained from that."

I'm 95% sure that I did, in fact, refrain from explaining why there are only two good superhero media (The Incredible Hulk 1977 and Spider-man 2099) because they are the only two truly socialist superhero media. I must have mentioned that I fucking loved Spider-man 2099 somewhere. Because I fucking do. Miguel is THE character of all time. I love Spider-Man, I love characters who are COMPLETE DICKS, I love guys who just kinda wanna go home and sleep.

I absolutely would write something for him, I fucking love that guy. I haven't had a really solid idea yet, one that would make a story that would get off the ground, but if the stars align then hell yeah. Miguel is the perfect superhero because he never once tries to stop anybody from robbing a bank, committing a crime, disturbing the peace, etc. He will only ever do anything helpful if it fucks over Cyberpunk Dystopia Evil Corp, because he hates them, or if his brother nags him to do something about systematic oppression. Over the course of all of Spider-Man 2099 he stops ONE mugging. Because a cop was mugging a woman. So he could beat up the cop. Character of ALL TIME.

....this isn't a story idea but I was absolutely joking about hypothetically:

imagining one of those tepid-ass mcu spider-man fanfic where there's a class field trip to stark industies or something and peter's outed as Tony Stark's Baby Son Boy, of which there are literally 500 and every one is exactly the same I don't read mcu peter fanfic anyway

tropey fic where peter's doing that tropey hijinky runs away from crowd of friends to hide in a broom closet and preserve his secret identity

except he just opens the door to an abandoned wet lab to see miguel electrocuting a rat or something

peter is fucking convinced dr ohara is a mad scientist stealing starktech genetic secrets. tony doesn't listen because he thinks peters feelings are just hurt after miguel called him the saltine cracker of nepotism. miguel is, of course, stealing starktech time travel technology. meanwhile a guy in a black spider suit is firebombing the NYPD

miguel assumes that the richer and more important you are, the more evil you are. faced with involuntary time travel, he is operating under his standard MO of finding the most evil corporation in the tristate area and looking them up on glassdoor. working under this assumption, miguel assumes itll be too much work to go ahead and kill tony stark in the name of the proletariat but he does slowly sabotage their entire genetics division.

MJ threatens to break up with Peter if he tries to stop the NYPD from being firebombed

#I've been saving my communist superhero manifesto for a psychological emergency #“oh mcu spider-man says acab” no mcu spider-man is a tool of the state #miguel beats up cops.#my asks #my writing #miguel fanfic game weak as hell :(#i probably wouldn't write that story idea because i can taste that it would be boring to write #however miguel does absolutely advance genetics by 20 years but inserts a virus into every genome he makes #I do unironically think a time travelling Miguel would just fucking get a job with Oscorp #and do dubiously ethical science as he meanders his way home kind of #green goblins fighting spidey in the break room? none of his business. miguel says in his lane.#mutated animal person destroying town square and challenges miguel to a fight?#he hits da bricks. not 2day he has to be thirty minutes late to a meeting as a power move #this is bolstered by the canon information that when miguel time travels in the comics #he absolutely takes a job at a dubiously ethical company becomes bugfuck rich and goes on american ninja warrior #KING

128 notes · View notes

roobylavender · 1 year ago

Note

im fairly new to batcomics so forgive me for this dumb ask/being uninformed, but do you ever have like. doubt in your reading for bruce as a character, or feel bleak about it (?) im aware you dont really like the reading of him as an abuser, but from what ive seen he most often does emotional neglect/distance and parentification of a child, which /are still/ abuse, and this happens very consistently. from what i can tell there is more evidence of him being a bad parent than otherwise. people often say hes incapable of having a child without messing them up beyond repair, and from what ive seen that rings true😭 i also know you said u dont like alot of his modern portrays, but these types of abuse also occur in older comics as well from what i can tell. i myself often have doubt (perhaps this is because i havent read everything yet and im still informing myself on his character)-that maybe this /is/ just his character, bc of HOW consistent the pattern is. idk if im really asking a specific question. im more so wondering what your thoughts are, like on parentificafion of his kids and emotional neglect/distance, would this be different if DC portrayed him more empathetically/based on your reading, and/or is he just fundamentally unable to parent someone without abusing them like some ppl say. i understand i may have just opened a whole can of worms lol but im so curious

you are totally fine! canon is quite overwhelming in both volume and scope, and conversations about bruce being an abuser definitely dominate at present (not wrongfully btw), so i don't blame people for ascribing to them early on. i will say at least from what i have read (and i will admit here that my pre-bronze age reading is not nearly as consistent as my post-bronze age reading so i have kept less track of specific writers and runs there) that i think the aspects that largely define present interpretations of bruce as an abuser tend to take from canon post-crisis onward. so that's probably why in a sense it looks like bruce has "always" been an abuser, bc realistically speaking if you're a new dc reader it makes most sense to start with the aftermath of the crisis and go from there. most conversations about "canon" tend to be about post-crisis canon (ie what has taken place on new earth/prime earth) and usually when you're looking up batman reading lists they will start with year one rather than with anything in pre-crisis. the crisis was nearly forty years ago after all! it covers a lot of territory and unless you're a really dedicated comic reader with a lot of time on your hands i don't think most people have the time or energy to go further back (to no fault of their own obv)

all that being said. pre-crisis canon is obv not monolithic in nature and there are definitely blogs out there who have dedicated themselves to compiling individual issues or moments they would personally interpret as evocative of abusive behaviors on bruce's behalf. i don't think that's inherently wrong to do per se and to each their own reading but my primary divide with that practice is that it's often performed within a vacuum. to me the most important thing when it comes to being a comics reader (or any kind of reader really) is taking into account real life context and genre conventions. how do the politics or culture of the time shape the way a given narrative is written and with what tone it's written? all of that is crucial to incorporate into an analysis. i'm going to use a pretty famous example of why. world's finest comics #153 (1965) is the origin of a pretty famous panel you may be familiar with:

on its face this looks pretty bad (and it'll actually factor into when i discuss parentification later) but contextually this issue imagined an alternate reality wherein superman was responsible for the death of bruce's parents and subsequently became the face of bruce's relentless revenge and pursuit of criminal activity. obv that's not a bruce who actually exists in reality and this was merely written for the sake of exaggeration and entertainment but it can also give rise to some interesting questions about what the writer here was specifically trying to satirize and why. primarily it's obv trying to poke some fun at the idea of bruce's crusade to begin with (which i am sure most people would agree was quite cartoonish in the early decades of dc despite the more layered portrayal and analysis it was afforded in later decades). but what's also pertinent here is the sort of "natural" exaggeration of bruce's dynamic with dick. in even as far back as the original bob kane comics, bruce and dick had a dynamic where dick was comedically portrayed as the more morally responsible one of the two. it wasn't much reason for concern back then bc the stakes weren't nearly as high and dick's tendency to question some of bruce's decisions (eg his tendency to always let selina go or to allow some villains to die horrifically) was almost always played off with a laugh. but the foundation was still there and you can recognize it in these panels despite that foundation obv being taken to an extreme. all of which is to say: the portrayal of bruce as an abuser largely depends on what a writer is willing to exaggerate, and why, and how. this issue was obv a one-off with no relevance to actual canon but it was nonetheless a peek into what that dynamic between bruce and dick could look like given a writer willing to pursue a darker tone and to explore the potential extremes of what was on its face merely a gag

the novelty of cape comics is that they are a place to explore anything and everything. extremes are possible bc no writer/artist and no editorial staff are ever on a book forever. what creatives want to explore with what they're given can hugely vary esp if a particular editorial staff is liberal enough to allow that exploration. and i think it's fair to say that a lot of writers are interested by the idea of that what if the above issue explored. not out of malice per se but certainly out of a growing curiosity as to how far disbelief with respect to the internal reality of cape comics can actually be suspended. the big question for batman in the 80s was whether having a kid sidekick constituted child abuse. this was primarily explored via the starlin run that ended in a death in the family. and obv following that we got the triple whammie of year three, a lonely place of dying, and knightfall. these arcs to me were what really cemented the foray into parentification in batman comics. the fledgling idea of it had always existed in a sense. dick was the more morally upright character of the two known for chiding some of bruce's decisions. he was the leader of the original teen titans, who historically demanded more respect and support of their mentors (i do not think it all inconsequential that dick and roy were developed so closely). and increasingly as we moved from the bronze age into the modern age we saw a dick who simultaneously desired to be independent of bruce and to be recognized by him. so the components to take that fledgling idea to its natural extreme were all there. editorial merely had to create the right circumstances to mesh those components together, and those circumstances were the buildup to and execution of the death of jason todd

i really do not think it can be underestimated in any sense what an enormous impact that event has had on the entire bat mythos at large. beyond utterly shattering the readers' suspension of disbelief wrt sidekicks' place in cape comics what a death in the family did was create an unavoidable void. this was not an event that could merely be skimmed over and moved on from. the aftermath and the consequences had to be dissected to their fullest extent otherwise batman editorial risked falling into the exact same problem the crisis was written to avoid: circular and aimless continuity. everything had to have concrete, forward moving direction and the consequences had to matter long term for there to be meaningful character development. so when you created the circumstances for a child dying bc batman had him gallivanting around as a masked vigilante, he had to retreat into his shell and utterly fall apart from the guilt of it all while everyone else fought like hell to keep him standing. it was pretty riveting and compelling. knightfall is probably one of my favorite arcs ever despite how utterly boring it is bc the introspection into bruce and his breakdown following jason's death was superb. but the circumstances it created for everyone else in bruce's vicinity to act like his emotional crutch while he took the next decade to recover obv had significant long-lasting consequences. dick had to be relegated to acting as the go-to family man rather than ever again pursuing his own dreams as he had in the 80s and early 90s. when jason came back he had to deal with all of bruce's grief and guilt being projected onto him while his own concerns went unheard. tim had to spend his teenage years deluding himself into believing he was the only one who could hold gotham together while bruce was falling apart. cass had to expend an enormous effort trying to prove herself to bruce bc all of the built up circumstances from the last decade drove him to insane paranoia about having sidekicks at all. and damian had to deal with whatever bruce had become by the time all of that was over

all of this to say: do i think bruce was always meant to become an abuser? not really. but did editorial avail themselves of and relentlessly pursue narrative circumstances that allowed that path to be realistically taken? absolutely. it's ultimately a debate of whether or not you agree they should have taken that direction long term. and i know it may look like i would probably be a hard no on that but personally i find myself more in the middle between these two imaginary camps. bc i'm not unsatisfied with what knightfall explored. i found it hugely interesting to explore the natural conclusion of bruce taking all burdens upon his shoulders and making himself highly vulnerable to collapse bc he refused to open up to anyone out of a fear of burdening them in turn. but knightfall was also followed by contagion and legacy and no man's land and murderer and fugitive. it was bruce taking one hit after another until he was utterly ripped to the core and had to start over from scratch and ig that's what i fundamentally disagree with. i don't think they needed to have gone any further than where knightfall took him and to me the end of knightfall should have signaled that bruce was ready to turn a new leaf where he could healthily balance his emotional commitments without letting them be guided by fear. publishing comics takes a long time so i think people often forget that despite there being a decade worth of comics between the events i immediately listed above what actually transpired in real time in the pages was two years or less. if we want to go all of the way back to a death in the family and account for that as well it becomes four years. four years isn't at all a long time nor is it unsalvageable. but by the time knightfall was over i truly think editorial was so obsessed with its own ideas on exploring bruce's collapse that it failed to see little else in the way of that. everything became about how people responded to him rather than about how bruce responded to the world. ironically by being the main character of his books he became the maker of his own demise. bc everything and everyone had to relate to him and his problems first before they could ever have any of their own. that is why keeping him in a perpetual state of emotional collapse has been so profitable. it is the easiest way to tell a story without ever having to make an effort on anyone else in it

note: one clarification i forgot to make earlier is that everything i wrote above is specifically with respect to bruce’s emotional abuse. i personally think there is zero justification for bruce’s physical abuse and that it can’t actually be extrapolated from anything about him as a character at the core, so whenever writers resort to it in the pages i dismiss it completely

#outbox #i know this meanders a lot but i hope it answers your question somewhat 😭#ironically i feel like my views have changed a lot since i first started reading comics and like even in the middle of writing this #it gave me a lot to think about and the concessions i'm willing to make. so thank you for stimulating the brain worms!

20 notes · View notes

thedevotionaltour · 6 months ago

Note

your posting about brat pack has got me so curious

ohhhh my feelings on bratpack are both So Complex and Extremely Easy. i'm gonna put this under the cut bc it accidentally got long. and then this got long too IM SORRY. this got so damn rambly. anyways. what i deem important i'll keep up here

summary of feelings: underground gritty take on superhero sidekick story contains both well done genuine critiques of the genre and its fans but i think has some contempt in there, too (but then again, who can blame a guy). offers interesting ideas. has some piss poor writing in there where occasionally trying to satirize something just makes it into exactly what it's trying to critique if not handled well. READ THE REVISED TPB INSTEAD OF THE SINGLE ISSUES AS THE REVISIONS MAKE THE STORY MORE IMPACTFUL and reminds us that capitalism is the upholder of evils. and lets itself breathe here and there a bit more and allows for more depth. though if you want to read both for comparison, i wouldn't advise against that-- rereading it in the tpb form as opposed to when i just read it as single issues helped me with some of the meh feelings i had about it.

it is also a comic i will absolutely say right now is NOT one i would recommend to everyone. at all. i'd say if you are not a fan of american underground comix, this may not be to your taste. but if you're willing, or enjoy edgier comics even with no underground experience, and enjoy comics that satirize the cape genre, it's worth giving it a go. and please keep in mind that not only is richard veitch's career from an undergound background, it is also the 90s. so it's good to keep that in mind, too.

also, important to note content warnings on the comic itself include homophobia, sexual abuse, racism, and misogyny. alongside other things, but i think those are the most important to be upfront on. this isn't a here and there thing with it-- they are major points through the whole story and will be carrying it along.

final important statement: i am so sad for all these children and wish the heroes would die.

and here is a link to the comic!

i think a good background context for this is to my understanding, it's was partially written as a response to the jason todd vote to kill hotline and how people acted about it afterwards. well, inspiration at least, not quite sure on the response part at all. im trying to vaguely remember things right now. the comic as a whole is satirical poking and prodding about it. for some further context, jason todd had only died two years ago when this began publication.

the comic is a very gritty, edgy superhero style story, talking about all the dark parts and the "you know, this wouldn't be all the fun in real life, now would it?" stuff. so these kids are going through the fucking ringer of abuse, life as child soldiers who are both idolized and despised by the public, and are seen as icons as opposed to people. and that it's adults who are putting children through this. you get the awesome reminder of it is not as easy to survive being blown up as dc and marvel may have you think just because you're the hero!

as mentioned before, it's a story that is a satirical and critical deconstruction of the superhero genre, sidekick and young hero groups in particular. author richard veitch's career started in underground comix and it shows through and through. i think it has a lot to offer in how it handles its critiques, how it points out the hypocrisy in the fan culture. it also has a lot of blunders with it too. sometimes when trying to satirize misogyny and homophobia within the fan culture and stories, it just winds up as actually misogynist and homophobic writing.

a lot of where my more negative feelings on it definitely lie in the realm of sometimes the line between crit/satire and then just contempt for the genre and its fans feel occasionally blurred. i think a lot of this comes from some parts of the writing i find really mishandled. a lot of my critical feelings also come from the aforementioned homophobia-- i have. many feelings on the character the mink. i think it is absolutely possible to write a gay sexual child abuser. i think it is very much possible to write a character like him, stereotypical flamboyancy and all. but i also think the caricature gets pushed too hard sometimes, and it leaves a very nasty taste in my mouth. i know exactly that this character and his sidekick are meant to be an exaggerated portrayal of the homophobic beliefs and gay interpretations surrounding batman and robin. knowing that fact and what it's meant to be does not make that better and mean it is done well. i think it could have been handled a lot better. maybe if i returned and reread after sitting with this comic for a while, my opinions would change. as of right now though, they remain... less than pleasant.

i am willing to hear someone out if they wanted to say, "eiffel, i think your feelings are truly more discomfort as opposed to veitch having handled this story point poorly, and here's why the writing with the mink is not actually as bad as it feels". but i will also say i dont think every second of it was bad. again, i think there are some interesting approaches here and there with it, and as a function overall in the group of heroes, none of them are any better than him. but it's. hooh. oh boy. oh boy. it's a lot. get ready for every stereotype about the flamboyant gay molester you could imagine.

mink is also not the only caricature here-- all of the heroes are meant to be some caricature taken to the extreme with the heroes they're meant to mock.

THAT BEING SAID I REALIZED I HAVENT ELABORATED ON LIKE. THE BASICS OF THE HEROES AND STUFF AND WHO THEY'RE PARODYING. It's obvious when reading but since I don't know if you'll read it, I'll say it here. Midnight Mink and Chippy are Batman and Robin, Moon Mistress and Luna are Wonder Woman and Wonder Girl, King Rad and Wild Boy are Green Arrow and Speedy, and Judge Jury is a combo of Captain America and Judge Dredd (and one more character?) while Kid Vicious is meant to be Bucky. The last one I couldn't figure out until TvTropes told me bc despite loving heroes my knowledge on many of them is highly limited to a few of them.

anyways, this is also where i really try to remember that veitch's background lies in underground comix, which are the most edgiest and pushing your boundaries comics you can come by. and it's also the 90s. oh god it's the 90s. it's the 90s in the way it's 2008 when the comic kick-ass was published. but i also think i can recognize when it's just me having to sit through some discomfort and when some stuff just becomes distasteful. i think he handles the other characters better, though. or maybe i just choke them down easier. again, i'm willing to hear someone out if they'll talk me through it in a convincing way.

however, my enjoyment of it comes from that i do enjoy a good darker hero story. i do! i will always prefer a hopeful for humanity and that's why it's worth is superhero comic, but that's mostly for actual hero comics in the genre that are not critiques or satires. when a comic lets it be known this is entirely its purpose, then it's better than guy who just hates hero wrote a superhero comic, for some reason. knowing veitch has a background in heroes is what makes some parts of this a bit easier to take in good faith, but like. i wouldn't be surprised if there was absolutely some contempt and bitterness interwoven into it, too.

i think the sidekicks are a really interesting cast, and i like them. my favorites are chippy (cody) and luna. my heart goes out to them sooooo much. everyone talks about how much they want mink to die for sexually abusing chippy but no one talks about how moon mistress was... also sexually abusing luna. 100%. not the same way as mink with chippy, clearly, but luna was absolutely 100% sexually exploited too. so i think moon mistress should die badly too.

with the revised tpb of brat pack, i think it's good how it shows what the actual driving force behind all the insane abuse these children go through; it's capitalism. the heroes sold their imagery to companies for money, and so they have to uphold it to continue their funding. their greed and selfishness is what causes harm.

it also goes into how vigilantes are highly conservative reactionary as a concept politically speaking. politics and superheroes are a long as fuck conversation with a lot to talk about, and im just not totally qualified for it, nor am i gonna go into it here. but it's less exploring the reactionary side of heroes as wooooaaaaah edgy looook at this guys the heroes are actually ~baaaad guuuys~ as too many people in non critical comics like to pull (and then do a piss poor job at it bc they dont understand what actually makes vigilantism bad as a real life thing. bc they arent trying to point out the actual bad politics of superheroes-- they just wanna see a good guy be a bad guy without further thought. but instead of just doing that, they want to think they're being oh so smart about it. so it sucks bad most of the time.), and i think it's honestly a more sincere approach that actually understands what it wants to say about that. because it understands capitalism as a system that upholds abhorrent abuses. and for all the shit i think it does wrong, i will say that veitch understands the phrase "abuse of power comes as no surprise" in this story.

anyways this is getting... really long! apologies! and it's super duper rambly for which i also apologize!! my feelings on brat pack are mixed, but i've come around to this comic way more the longer i've sat with it. it's not perfect, no comic is, but it is. definitely for a certain crowd. and i do, ultimately, consider myself part of that crowd, even if im certainly not envisioned in it most of the time. i'm also sorry if you were looking for way more stuff on the story as opposed to my feelings-- i feel like i can't give a lot on the story, especially bc i sometimes feel unsure how to explain without also spoiling too much and also i just cant remember a lot of what happened outside of some pretty key plot points. i've only read it twice, and it was like, twice in two days! like, in april.

overall brat pack does some things right, i think it does a lot of things wrong, but what makes it a comic i find worth reading is that it does offer some interesting ideas and approaches, and i think it has some neat characters. i think it falls in the realm of "mediocre story with insane potential will stay with you even more than a really fantastically written story you love". for me, at least. again, i don't think this comic. but there's a lot it could do better. and what it does do right (and honestly even what it does wrong) highly compels me.

... and i can't help but enjoy an edgy superhero satire.

#ty for sending this in kimi this disaster of a post was honestly fun to type up!! i am Extremely sorry on how rambly it got.#a lot of this doesnt have a point this is honest to god me giving a very meandering speech on my vague ideas and feelings on this story😭#but hopefully you can get somethin' out of this if you end up reading this all!#and if you wind up reading the comic i hope you get something out of that too!#asks #back issues box

2 notes · View notes