#scarecrow analysis

[jonathan-cranes-mistress-of-fear]

Writing Scarecrow as a heartless monster doesn't make sense to me, I know and respect those who do this in the fandom, but it's just not for me.

And I say that because there's multiple times in the canon where he shows himself to still be human under the mask. I'm not saying he's a good person, far from it actually. BUT that doesn't mean he CAN'T DO GOOD for christs sake.

He tortured his favorite students abuser, in which it's heavily hinted to be sexual abuse

He returned to teaching multiple times, even teaching classes IN arkham

He gave up a scheme to make Gotham illiterate all because Robin convinced him that knowledge is important and that HE is important

The little girl he abused in Cycle of Violence drew him a picture and he actually cried over it, and in the end he saved her from an exploding building when he very well could have left her to die.

To me, this is enough proof that he does have a conscious, even if it is small and useless most of the time. When push comes to shove, he CAN do the right thing

Batman villains are meant to be complex humans, confused and mentally ill humans who just need help. BTAS taught us all that as kids, so why did we become cynical adults who can't have a little fun? Let him be human, make mistakes, occasionally do good, and just...exist as a flawed character.

[shyjusticewarrior]

Scarecrow stays being a menace to Jason

Truth & Justice

Gotham War: Red Hood

Robin Lives (elseworld)

[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.

[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.

[helpfandom]

Analysis on YANDERE PLATONIC TAS villains. Pt2

Harley Quinn

Joker

Harley + Joker [Reluctant team-up, they want nothing to do with each other]

Killer Croc

Scarecrow

Penguin

TW: Use of the word 'Mommy', 'Daddy', and Dumb-ifying/Babying.

For the Yandere Archtypes: https://www.tumblr.com/helpfandom/724022554446135296/types-of-yandere?source=share Once, again, yandere_auxillary made it, I just can't find them for some reason.

I set apart Harley and Joker because they would be different depending on if they are together or not, hence why there are two versions of each. One alone, and one together.

Harley: See, her characteristics when alone would be, Impulsive, Delusional, Sadistic, and Clingy. Sadistic and Clingy are supposed as opposing forces, but it's actually not true. Her sadism comes from the fact that she doesn't mind see you get hurt trying to escape, {and even slightly enjoys it}. Her clinginess comes from never having this feeling before as a kid, or even towards a kid, and her being confused, even a little scared of this feeling. She doesn't try to find out more about you, she's delusional after all, she truly thinks that you're just like her. Her delusions are something that you will just have to deal with, as she completely believes that you love her too. To break her delusions would end with Reader being harmed physically, or to end up locked alone in a room, waiting for her to open up the door and let you back out. She's impulsive in that she is quick to kidnap, not even knowing your name at that point, but knows she wants to be your Momma. She doesn't stalk you, she's too impatient for that, but she keeps you in her mind. The next time she sees you, she attempts to kidnap you. She would fight Joker for you. She's not always going to be there for you to be considered her 'kid', nor will she truly take care of you fully. Not enough for a developing child. "Momma's here!~ Come here baby, Mommy got some new jewelry for her baby. Just let Mommy take care of you!"

Joker: Yikes. Good luck. Sadistic, Impulsive, Possessive, some of the worst traits to have. He would be fully willing to push you into acid like he fell into, if it meant having you stick around with him. He would not entertain the idea of you even having other parents. Not even Harley could attempt to take you away from him. He's always been shown to be impulsive, and possessive, with Episode 47, season 1, when Harley teams with Poison Ivy. Imagine that, but much much worse. He would refuse to let anyone get close to you. He would feel nothing but glee when you try to escape, only to be harmed by his hyena's. He found a kid {you} and decided to try to poison you against Batman, quickly kidnapping you and taking you home. Finding your uncaring attitude intriguing and hilarious. He will constantly take you places, only to kill or threaten the people who try to help you, and then take you back home where he tries to get you to help with a plan. He's gritting his teeth together, fed up with you refusing to help him. "Listen here kid. You're going to help me with my next thing, or your other-family says beddy bye."

Harley + Joker: Impulsive is the one thing that the two share from their alone counterparts. (Surprising, considering what they shared, but I'll explain.) Self-Indulgence, is the next characteristic that they have. Despite all that they share, they bounce off of each other with jealousy, causing their Sadism to in fact, go away, because they are busy trying to poison you against the other. Terms like: "Come here suga', Mommy's got you some brand new jewlery, did Daddy get you some jewlery? Well, it's not as shiny as Mommy's is it? or "Doll, did Mommy get you some cheap-o jewlery? Well, good thing that Daddy got some candy for you!" are commonplace and you half-way expect it to be quite honest. They often fight and make-up, before fighting the next day and making-up the next. Wash, Rinse, and Repeat. As much as they hate each other and the way that the other parent raises you, they hate the alternative to leaving, or making the other susceptible for Batman to take you away from their loving grasp. "But who do you really love, sweetie? Mommy, or Daddy? It better be me.

Killer Croc: He is Clingy, Obsessive, Overprotective, and Self-Indulgent. His fear of being inadequate and being seen as nothing but a monster, [which is why he does crimes. If you see me as a monster, maybe I am a monster. Maybe I'll show you what a monster looks like.] is why he is all of those traits. He fears that the one person who is indifferent to him / nice to him [Reader, or You,] would be eventually changed to fear him by Batman. Killer Croc would be the type to baby you, even dumb-ifying you if that makes sense. His fear of inadequacy makes him put restraints on you, even once we're past the escape phase, putting gloves on you, being Overprotective so much, because he wants to keep his little baby safe. He sees you as a 'baby' because of your indifference to him being a mutant of sorts, and sees that indifference as naivety. He craves your approval and needs you to need him to do everything for you, hence, his baby-ing. Just let him control your every action and love him for it, okay?

Scarecrow: He is Impulsive, Manipulative, Obsessive, and just a bit Sadistic. He's less likely to experiment on such a nice darling who knows that he was a professor or wants to learn more about what he taught, but punishment wise... He's not afraid to use fear gas. He doesn't want to use fear gas on you, more complacent to study his own psychology, and why he's obsessed with you, and he can't study that if the subject is missing his child... He's impulsively manipulative in the way that he's immediately jumping to a plan to manipulate Reader into coming into his grasp. He just wants to put you in a little container and watch everything you do, just to study you like a little pet. Just make sure you don't run away, m'kay?

Penguin: He is very Clingy, Overprotective, and Impulsive. He's been betrayed over and over again by people he thought he could trust, been kicked out of the society he tries and desperately wishes to join, so when he finds a darling who gives no shits, and cares not for what he is, so long as he is a good person? He impulsively falls into a platonic love, wishing to become the parent he wishes he could have, and what kind of parent would he be if he didn't protect his kiddo? He wouldn't let you out at all, fearing the upper-class or BATMAN might get their insufferable claws into you, sinking fear of him into you. Not quite like Killer Croc, because Killer Croc is fearful because he is seen as a monster, Penguin is scared that you'll learn of his crimes and become afraid of him, and that would simply break his heart. As soon as he has an opportunity to take you away from the society, he will kidnap you.

[blueskittlesart]

do u have any navi thoughts from your oot replay

i've been waiting to answer this until I actually beat the game in my current playthrough because navi is another one of those characters that i think of in like a "set" with several other characters who serve relatively the same thematic purpose; in this case that purpose being the "mother" character, and i wanted to have all the characters in that set fresh in my mind. it's notable that while oot shows us very clear and consistent instances of the ways in which the adults of hyrule fail to protect their children, there ARE several adults who DO go out of their way to both oppose ganondorf and protect and nurture the children under their care. All of these characters are adult women, and all of them explicitly help the children out of some sort of parental responsibility or sense of duty towards them. in this group I include link's late mother, impa, nabooru, and navi.

all 4 mother characters, despite being adults or adult-coded, reject the inaction mentality which characterizes other adults in the game. they become either direct supports or shields to their children from the conflict the world has to offer them, and they are always explicitly punished for their interference--link's mother is killed trying to protect her son, impa's village is burned, nabooru is brainwashed. The mother's fatal flaw is that she will protect her child above all else, even in a world in which children cannot truly be protected. however, with the exception of link's mother, these characters manage to persist even in the face of her punishment, and this is where I think navi becomes the exemplary character.

Navi, after a lifetime of being link's only support system, the only adult in his life he could truly, consistently count on, receives her punishment at the hands of ganondorf--in the final battle, she is pushed out. she is unable to reach her child. she cannot protect him. However, BECAUSE link has grown up with her at his side, he is strong enough to take ganondorf down. and when ganon rises again, navi is there to support link, promising not to leave his side, and the intuitive targeting of that battle (a mechanic which navi is inherently tied to!!) makes it a cinch to win. Navi, and the other mothers we meet, are a reminder to the player that the world doesn't HAVE to be the way it is. Their persistence when punished, their insistence that their children ought to be protected, is a reminder that good adults do exist, and that good adults raise good children. link and zelda are able to win in spite of the adults who refused to help them, but also BECAUSE of the adults who DID. It's a reinforcement of the core theme of oot--that childlike idea that the world SHOULD be good and fair and if it isn't, it should be changed until it is. The mothers of oot are examples of what the world COULD be, reminders that it is possible to grow up without losing hope or growing bitter, and they are examples of the next step for the children they've raised to change the word--to continue fighting even in the face of punishment, to refuse inaction, and to foster that same hope and persistence in the generations to come.

[konohagakurekakashi]

Which Disney (animated) character would Kakashi be?

Uhm.

Kakashi is his own unique brand of Disney princess:-

1. Orphan / Tragic backstory ✅

2. Princess hair ✅

3. Constantly swoons due to chakra exhaustion ✅

4. Talks to animals ✅

Crack no Jutsu aside, if I absolutely had to choose an existing, Disney character which he might or might not resemble, I suppose I would have to pick Jiminy Cricket. He was tasked by a higher being to look after a kid and to be his 'conscience' in a world he knew absolutely nothing about. He's quirky, practical, level-headed and knowledgeable. He also receives a gold star in the delivery of all of his quips and wisecracks (in my books). Despite said higher power giving him this job however, he feels severely unqualified and unworthy for the position and doesn't at first know how to deal with his charge's uncooperative nature, becoming easily agitated with the kid not listening to his advice (sound familiar yet?). Character growth happens however, they survive a few perils and eventually Jiminy becomes invested to the point where he genuinely wanted his charge to achieve his goal of becoming 'a real boy', vowing to do whatever he could to help make that happen - much like Kakashi vowed to do with Naruto, since he genuinely believed that Naruto would end up being the one to break the cycle of hatred and usher in a new era of peace once Hokage.

[jerseymuppet]

My Chemical Romance - Lyrical Parallels

[sarahshoots1st]

The most tragically ironic thing about Ironwood's fall is that Salem likely had very little to do with it, at least originally.

His panic-induced breakdown is triggered by Cinder leaving the Black Queen on his desk - but Cinder was still a rogue agent at this point. She hadn't rejoined with Salem's forces after her near-death at the hands of Raven in V5. Her plan was to throw Ironwood into a panic, because she knew he would immediately respond by sending Winter to guard the Winter Maiden - and in so doing, leader Cinder right to her.

Cinder is acting completely on her own here - nothing she does is at Salem's orders. The only reason Salem is able to jump into this scene is because Watts' bag - which Ironwood recovered after he defeated the rogue scientist - had a Seer in it, so he could stay in contact with Salem while he was in Atlas. When the Seer bursts open and Salem appears, she is quick to push on Ironwood's fears - but we're never given a reason to believe she specifically planned for this interaction to happen. She's extremely good at improvising on the spot, but that's because she's had thousands of years to learn how to play off of people's fears. The alternative is to believe that she intended for Watts to be captured just so she could get a Seer in his office, which just seems too convoluted to be true. Especially considering that Cinder's actions proved how easy it would have been to sneak the handbag into the office without having to lose one of her top agents in the process.

In his state of panic, Ironwood ultimately out-thinks himself. He assumes his enemies are more coordinated and prepared than they actually are. He convinces himself that by protecting Mantle, he was playing right into Salem's hands - opening himself up to sleeper agents, tiring his forces thin trying to defend the citizens of Mantle, etc. But Salem never had any plans to capitalize on this. Her only plan was to send Watts and Tyrian to cause panic and fear in preparation for her arrival. If Ironwood had been more sound of mind at this point, he would have realized that going through with the evacuation made the most sense tactically. Concentrating his population in one area would have meant less ground for his forces to defend during the impending Siege of Atlas.

There were no sleeper agents hiding in the populace of Mantel - but it didn't matter. Ironwood saw threats everywhere he looked, and he let his fears blind him from reality. He tried out-think Salem, plan for every possible scheme she might devise, and in so doing did her work for her. She didn't have to concoct elaborate plans - all she had to do was apply some pressure, and let humanity destroy itself. Just like she always has.

In the end, the Tin Man was unable to find a heart - just like the Cowardly Lion was unable to find his courage.

[justa-gothamite-girl]

Can someone PLEASE attack my professor of dimensions and safety models????

I can't stand that man, really. And he wants us to do, what? A fucking thesis! Man, I'm in my second year, give me a break.

Also, he gave me the most challenging city to do the project. It will take me at least 50 pages to do the analysis

[jonathan-cranes-mistress-of-fear]

Jonathan Crane learning not to care about what others say about his appearance is totally logical and a good take

BUT, consider: Jonathan Crane never growing enough of his own self esteem and therefore, always second guessing what people on the streets think when he walks past. Always cringing when a woman laughs under her breath as her boyfriend makes a daddy long legs joke. Always ugly. Never handsome. Lesser than. A geeky bookworm. Insignificant. Never good enough. Literal trash.

[shyjusticewarrior]

Tim and Jason have both overpowered fear toxin through sheer force of will

[miirshroom]

Renowned Tarnished and the Shardbearers they Champion

Why does the guidance of grace point towards the greatrunes, but also Millicent, Castle Sol, and Castle Morne? A process of elimination with the shardbearers philosophies and the renowned Tarnished of Elden Ring:

Firstly - ignore the Empyreans (and Rennala) for now. If Ranni is any example - the endings that align with their philosophies would have been something truly something unique. 

Secondly - assume that the endings are exactly as shown. The fractured and broken version of Marika is never repaired. The Elden Ring may be fixed, but she herself never is - in the four standard endings we become Lord to a dead god.

Mohg - Dung Eater - Mending Rune of the Fell Curse

Mohg revels in being an Omen. The Fell Curse aims to create a world where everyone lives a cursed existence. No notes. By which I mean, yes there is nuance to Mohg and I have many notes, but no I don't think it is needed context for this connection.

Morgott - Goldmask - Mending Rune of Perfect Order

Morgott is also called the veiled monarch, to hide that he is an Omen. Goldmask is hiding a frankly emaciated and undead looking face behind a brilliant mask of gold. Also notably, Goldmask is not aligned with the hunters of those who live in death. His goals and Fia's are not in opposition. Both Morgott and Goldmask see that there is an inherent problem with the Golden Order - but continue trying to prop it up by any means necessary rather than allowing for change to a new kind of Order. Marika is Radagon and we just killed them - god is dead, but let's put on a good face and pretend that all is well.

Godrick - Fia - Mending Rune of Death

This one is most easily understood through methods - they are both about reanimating corpses to restore a gruesome version of the Golden Lineage. Godrick grafts body parts onto himself with corpsewax. The yellow in the wings of Fortissax the lichdragon demonstrate that there is little difference between corpsewax, amber, and "gold". In all endings the rune of Destined Death is returned to the Elden Ring - but it's Fia's end that introduces the new centipede looking rune of Death. Those who live in death are exalted in the upcoming age.

Rykard - Sir Gideon Ofnir - Age of Fracture

They also actually have a lot in common, but it's subtle: Neither wants to restore the Elden Ring. Both are associated with orders of knights, both are only interested in prolonging combat. They've positioned themselves as arbiters of god's will - Gideon through claiming to know Marika's intent and Rykard through declaring himself a god wanting to devour and replace Marika. 

Radahn - Hoarah Loux - Relics of the Age of the Erdtree

It can't really be said that we meet "Radahn" in the game - his mind has long since been rotted away by Malenia. Similarly, when we first encounter Godfrey, his eyes have lost grace. He only regains the light of grace after the defeat of Morgott - who had been striving to prop up the failing Golden Order. Morgott is the face of the Golden Order as it is, and Godfrey the face of what it was at the height of its power. Also Radahn was said to idolize Godfrey, and they both have that lion theme. 

So, given that understanding of how we can unwittingly choose to side with various demi-gods through the renowned Tarnished, I think that the guidance of Grace has something to do with ideals. To fight any given shardbearer requires stepping into their domain - to consider the world from their point of view. Ideals are infectious - the act of engaging with them may be subtly influencing the perspective of the player Tarnished and impacting the ending that they choose to lock in.

This purpose would explain the presence of the 3 outlier guidance of grace: Millicent and Castle Sol are both important to understanding Malenia and Miquella's perspectives. Completing Irena's quest at Castle Morne is the mandatory first step in understanding the perspective that culminates in the Frenzied Flame. Which is also important to Miquella's - it is afterall his needle that can stop the frenzy flame ending. And for Melina, going through with the Frenzy Flame reveals a side of her that otherwise would not have been seen.

[exaflux]

How good is BTAA Scarecrow at therapy really? (An Analysis) (Part 2)

[Part 1]

Alt title: What the hell is JoyCure anyway?

Now onto the long overdue second part of this analysis series looking at the most ethical psychologist the world has ever laid eyes on. We simply must rate his performance!

I apologeese for the delay on this. Been in my drafts for over a month blegh.

This is a very long analysis compared to the first part, word of warning.

This part contains- more breaking down of psychology approaches some in less detail if covered in the first bit, Harvey almost falling off a skyscraper, and in the conclusion some talks on JoyCure and a talk on how Jon views "trust" (if you're into character analysis)

Disclaimer- I am not a trained psychologist or therapist or anything of the like, I just like psychology as a topic. This writing is purely for fun.

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 still Jonathan.

Delightfully surprised by all the people who enjoyed the first part by the way! The likes and reblogs are much appreciated~

Session two-

The following all takes place in S2, Episode 7 unless otherwise stated

This session starts out with Harvey and Two-Face talking amongst themselves, focusing on a strange noise they can mutually hear in the background. In his confusion, Harvey asks Jonathan if he's still there, to which he responds: "Yes. I'm right here, Harvey. You can leave your blindfold on until I tell you to remove it, please" (10:37). Immediately responding to the questions of a worried client would help with setting their nerves at ease while minimising the amount of time they'd experience distress, with the added bonus of some trust building. Also Jonathan is so polite here! What a nice man.

That sound that Harvey's hearing, by the way, is explained by Jon as such: "That's Harmony, Two-Face. You've never known a moment of it in your entire tortured existence" (10:55). Reminder that wording matters as it can influence client outlook, especially in a therapy setting. Describing a client's experiences as a "tortured existence" is quite negative and is not an example of a good therapy practice.

A bit further on Jonathan starts advertising his goods explaining why Harvey is hearing weird stuff, claiming "the JoyCure has brought peace at last to your long inner conflict. You simply must trust me. Remember, we talked about trust when you agreed to put that blindfold on for me?" (11:24). This sets the scene as a trust exercise. Not too bad. "You said to cooperate. We cooperated" "Yes, Harvey, cooperation, that's exactly what today's lesson is all about [...] I want you to cooperate with you" (11:36) Never mind. Please do not gaslight your clients then claim you were talking about something completely different when they catch wind of it. 🚩❌ The memory is actually quite suggestible. You can influence a person's memories by both wording used in a question and how you word it. As a psychologist Jon should know this.

Directly following on from Jon's previous statement, Two-Face says he doesn't get what Jon means, so he goes on to clarify "We have oh so many ways we wage war within ourselves every day. You're just an unusually extreme case" (12:01). This is a very interesting thing for Jon to say given his tendency to negatively describe his clients' situation, and at a blush I almost said this was within acceptable therapy practices. Almost. See, here he establishes that everyone suffers from inner conflict, and Harvey's situation is just a step above that. It's notable enough to comment on, being "unusually extreme" but it's still very much kept within the realm of normal behaviour. Imo the language use here ("extreme") doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation but is an observation, but your mileage may vary. This sounds good, right? But then you have to ask- why is Two-Face needing to ask about this to begin with? This session has been set up as a trust exercise already, and these have to be discussed and agreed to beforehand. It's ethically necessary. This tells me that Jonathan has completely neglected to explain the how and whys with Harvey before all this stuff was set up for the session. He broke ethics.

"I am going to take off your blindfold now, and then I'd like you to tell me how irrational you believe your fear of high places to be" (12:42). Always good practice to give clear and easy to follow instructions to clients if you're doing an exercise with them. After Harvey removes the blindfold, finding himself standing outside of a skyscraper window, Jon wants to know his thoughts- "Tell me how do you feel?" (13:18). Again therapy stuff. Therapists ask questions on how their clients feel about certain experiences, and in identifying a feeling clients can then work towards learning why they feel that way.

We find out that Harvey finds himself unbothered by how high up he is, and later that this is due to the drug he took, JoyCure. Immediately after being asked whether he'd like to look at the view alongside Harvey, Jon responds "Thank you, I'll stay here inside where it's safe" (13:40). As if it isn't obvious enough already, standing outside a skyscraper window isn't exactly safe. Therapists, don't ask your clients to do this either. Jon throughout most of this segment doesn't sound too bothered by his own breaching of ethics, in fact he sounds like a kid who just got told they'll be getting $50 worth of Robux after class for peak gaming. Maybe it's because he's still a therapist and considers all this as progress in his client? Who knows. Either way, Jon slowly gets Harvey to do increasingly more and more dangerous things on the ledge outside the window: "In fact, you might even dance a jig on that narrow ledge if I asked you to" (14:30), "[...] you would walk to the end of that flagpole if I asked you to, I bet" (15:07). Again, this is dangerous. At the very least he's just suggesting this. It's not like he's telling Harvey (who's still relying on others to make decisions for him at this point) to walk that flagpole, right? "Yes, I want you to show me you can walk it like a tightrope [...] Walk to the very end" (15:22). Ah.❌ At the very least he's celebratory of his client's achievements, exclaiming "Congratulations Harvey!" (15:56) when that flagpole does get walked like a tightrope. Nice.

"Now this next part is very dangerous. When you're ready, turn around and come back" (16:06)- Once again, wording matters in therapy settings. Stating that the next part of the exercise is dangerous would definitely not help with putting client's worries at ease.

Neither Harvey Two-Face nor Two-Face Two-face can make heads or tails cough cough of what they've been told to do. "What do you mean when we're ready?" "Simply discuss it amongst yourselves. When you mutually decide you want to come in, turn either to your left or alternately turn to your right and come back" (16:15). Jon again making his instructions clear to his client. Two-Face becomes uneased at this response however and wants Jon to tell him what to do, with Jon declining to (16:39). This is still within the realm of normal therapy practices as Jon can't do this exercise for Harvey.

Also, at this point it'd be good to mention that despite me characterising this whole thing as a "trust exercise" up 'til now, that isn't strictly the only thing it is. This whole scene is actually an example of exposure therapy. This form of therapy is performed normally on people to help treat phobias and various anxiety conditions, OCD and PTSD. As the name suggests, this is done through presenting the client with whatever thing is a trigger to them in feeling anxiety and over time through exposure they'll (in theory) feel less anxiety over the trigger. One caveat though- you're still supposed to talk about this with a client beforehand, understand how comfortable they feel with doing the exercise and be completely willing to stop the exercise if the client no longer wants to do it. It's apparent already that Jon hasn't done this. There's multiple types of exposure therapy, this one is called gradual exposure, or systematic desensitisation. With this version of the therapy a client is supposed to make a tier list of what things give them least to most anxiety called an (exposure hierarchy), then they work their way up at their own pace. Jon here seems to be calling the shots though much more than his clients on how much they "face their fears" as it were, especially given Harvey can't make any decisions for himself.

In fact, to make things even worse again, Jon increasingly makes the exercise more anxiety-inducing than it needs to be. He presents Harvey with more and more decisions ("Come on, Harvey. Turn right or turn left. Then once you've turned, do you lead with your left foot or your right?" (16:53)) then plays dumb about knowing that Harvey can't currently make decisions on his own, "Ah, but you're without your coin. I'd forgotten." (17:11). Of course he's BSing about forgetting, especially when you notice how he suggested walking the flagpole earlier ("you would [...] if I asked you to, I bet" (15:07)) which makes one wonder if he was wanting to see to what extent that Harvey would actually do what he was told. Hmm... Either way though, he's being a twat and deliberately causing distress. ❌❌❌

This part is the juiciest bit of the session- Harvey tells Jon that he's afraid, and Jon talks about the drugs, JoyCure, he put Harvey on. Unfortunately, the details on JoyCure will be left for the conclusion as it is too juicy. But, about Harvey being afraid, Jon has this to say- "Your real fear isn't high places. The fear your feeling right now? That's the fear that defines you, Harvey. The fear of having to make a decision [...] No coin. No counsel. Just the two of you." (17:34). To recap everything that has went on so far, Jon tried to make out all this was a trust exercise (and according to Two-Face, he was just told to co-operate) and then it turned out that all this was actually an attempt at gradual exposure. But now we find it actually isn't, because the fear that that therapy would have treated isn't actually a fear anymore due to JoyCure. Instead, Harvey has been dunked directly into his real fear, making a decision, which is closer to a different type of exposure therapy: flooding. Flooding (unlike gradual exposure) is basically the theraputic equivalent to throwing you in the deep end of whatever you're made anxious by. It's a valid therapy technique, but is only used in particular circumstances and again with the consent of the client first. Do we think that Jon got permission from Harvey to do this type of therapy? Probably not.

If it's all too much info to understand, here's a simplified diagram:

At this point the session devolves more and more into being a train-wreck. There's hardly any actual therapy going on.

As a rundown:

Harvey wants off the flagpole. Jon's immediate response is to faux panic about Harvey slipping before mocking him with a fun fact, "Did you know a baby's first instinct is a fear of falling?" (18:02). ❌

Two-Face threatens Jon with a "I'll kill you!" and Jon barks back "You said "I"! That's a breakthrough! One of you is taking charge!(18:10). A breakthrough is another word for a milestone in therapy. But really him calling it a "breakthrough" I don't think should be taken at face value for... Obvious reasons here. ❌❌

And finally, right before the session ends, our world renowned psychologist says "Come on now. You simply need to agree upon a strategy before it's too late" (18:24). Which I mean, he's making light of the situation and how easy it sounds (in theory) for Harvey to have both his halves work together. Definitely not an empathatic approach like you'd want from a therapist.❌❌❌

In conclusion:

Just as with his first second? session with Harvey, Jonathan demonstrates good skills as a therapist, but misuses those skills repeatedly. Again, he ignores ethics and purposefully causes distress to his clients, being even worse about it than the first session somehow. At least in the first session you could argue that he made some attempt to follow standard therapy room procedure up until a point. Here though? Definitely not.

In fact just to overview everything that happens in the session, because it's a bit much to process all at once:

Harvey goes to do this exercise blindfolded, not being told what's happening until he's already outside the window. Jon goes on this whole "trust me" spiel and Two-Face points out they were told to co-operate.

Jon talks about his drug JoyCure and how it's stopped Harvey's conflicted feelings. He then tells Harvey to remove the blindfold and report how he's feeling.

He then suggests/outright tells Harvey to do increasingly dangerous stunts. You could argue this is gradual exposure therapy, but done in the worst way possible.

After he gets Harvey to walk the flagpole, Jon tells Harvey he can come back whenever he's ready. During this he's very vocal and clear on what Harvey should do. Harvey can't make a decision, Jon knows this.

Harvey shits the bed because it turns out the real fear he has is over making a decision for himself. Jon knew this the whole time, and knew that JoyCure wouldn't help with that. Suddenly the method of therapy used has shifted to become flooding therapy.

Jon absolutely refuses to assist Harvey during any of this when it comes to overcoming his fears. The session only ends because Jon's secretary calls him.

So what can we get from this beyond our wonderful analysis subject being absolutely atrocious as a therapist? Well two major things stand out.

Firstly, that Jon knew from the beginning how everything would play out. He knew how JoyCure would affect Harvey and to what extent it would. He knew that "the fear that defines" Harvey was decision making, and he most likely figured this out this from as early on as the first session if one remembers how that went. Everything from beginning to end was elaborately set up in the session to make Harvey face his defining fear head on. This plays out very similarly to the first session- Jon steered everything in the direction he wanted it to go in just to make Harvey acknowledge his fears.

Thing is though, this premise has some... Interesting implications if one looks at what Jon talks about at the start of the session. Now granted I did try saying that Jon was speedrunning therapy last part of this analysis series. That idea still stands imo shitposty as it is. But to add to it though, to focus on how Jon apparently "talked about trust" before the session began. Two-Face responded that they were told to co-operate though rather than trust, and unless it's a situation where Harvey Two-Face misinterpreted something that was said, chances are he was just told to go along with it not that he has a choice. Trust was also mentioned first session too, where Jon explains that establishing a bond of trust would be the best way for him to help Harvey, and that translates to him removing Harvey's coin. Hell, Jon even tells Harvey "I think we're gonna make excellent progress if you just put your trust in me" as early as their first meeting (S2, E4, 33:04).

So what might this all mean? Just going off of the two sessions observed so far, Jon's method of doing therapy is to seek out what main fear makes a person tick, then try and get the person to acknowledge and/or face it head on whether they'd like to or not. His idea of "trust" is just having a person be unable to (or at the very least, not likely to) resist. As for his intentions about all this... That's honestly up for discussion. But! I'm hard pressed saying that none of it is him actually wanting people to overcome their fears. Not downplaying how terrible he is mind, but it'd be perplexing that a psychologist who would be only focused on traumatising clients (who can also uncover what a client is frightened by so rapidly too!) would still choose to try and get the client to recognise that fear in themselves rather than just, ya know, not telling the client their deepest fears and scaring the heebie jeebies out of them. He even goes as far as to set up a session on a skyscraper to make an elaborate point about Harvey's defining fear. He tells Harvey beforehand what he needs to do in the session, and it isn't just doing everything he says: "I want you to cooperate with you". If Jon talks about "trusting him" it's bad news. He asks whether Skids trusts him during the infamous Stabberscotch scene too, again a moment where the person he's asking to trust him is forced to co-operate (S2, E4, 5:06), reinstating the point. That said, given Jon's belief that "fear sets limits on courage" (S2, E4, 4:15), I don't reckon that him wanting to see people overcome fear is out of any streak of benevolence as much as him just wanting to see how far that person's fear goes. The possibility they might be able to overcome the fear might be the real enticing thing for him.

Second major thing that stands out, that this JoyCure thing he put Harvey on. It stops Harvey from feeling his fear of heights but not his fear of making decisions. As for why, I wager it's because JoyCure is a drug that causes feelings of euphoria and dulls basic fear caused by instinct, but it doesn't help at all with fears you actively think about.

If you're really confused right now by what I mean I don't blame you, but it'll make sense.

At the beginning of the session, Jon uses the co-operation talk to segway into rambling about conflict. According to him, everyone feels conflict, and Harvey is just a step up from that. Conflict is caused by fear, and "When what we know is false coincides with what we fear is true, that’s a conflict and there are casualties." (12:13). Harvey is on the drug, and he seems hunky-dory, not arguing with himself, but then again he doesn't have to: Jon is giving him instructions rather than making him do anything on his own. His fear of heights seemingly vanished, he doesn't feel even slightly nervous being asked to dance or walk a flagpole so high up. But, again, he's being told to do this. In fact, remember I mentioned earlier that Jon gave a fun fact, "Did you know a baby's first instinct is a fear of falling"? That's the thing, Jon is saying here (whether intentionally or not) that a fear of heights is hardwired into us from birth. Harvey's fear of it isn't unusual at all, but JoyCure prevents him from feeling that instinct anyway. And to elaborate further, "When what we know is false coincides with what we fear is true, that’s a conflict", but Harvey is scared of heights, scared he might fall off because the height will harm him, and he's on a skyscraper so it's true. There is no inner conflict in knowing his feelings are unfounded, because they are.

So overall, if I'm right with this idea anyway self-preservation while on JoyCure goes functionally out the window. You'd normally get nervous putting your hand near a hot stove tops for example, knowing you'd get burnt, but if you took JoyCure you wouldn't feel any nerves at all about it. To again quote Jon, "Fear is a furnace which must be fed. What I have done is empty your mental coal tinder" (14:22) talking about how the drug works, that whatever "tinder" is there (in this case instinctive fear) is emptied. So, I suppose, consciously fearing is the equivalent of adding tinder again? I mean, Harvey starts feeling fear because he consciously has to make a decision, he has to think about it actively and worry actively, rather than just have the fear be reflexive like it would be dealing with something dangerous. I imagine because of this the drug also wouldn't work as a treatment for anxiety disorders. Very Sadge 💔

FINAL SCORE FOR THE SESSION:

🎊 1/10 🎊

How the hell Jon got worse than first session I have no idea but here we are. The extent of his therapy here is using psychological theory to prove a point to his clients that they're terrified of making decisions on their own. Elaborate and impressive! He probably spent more time planning how this session was gonna go than actually doing what's expected of him as a therapist.

This man does not care about ethics, client's feelings or whether his sessions might kill a man.

In fact he knows his sessions might kill someone. He plans them out after all:

"When what we know is false coincides with what we fear is true, that’s a conflict and there are casualties"

[catspittle]

I am Normal about my own Scarecrow and hate canon Scarecrow [this is only partially a lie].

[Expanding on that post I reblogged earlier, for fun and also because I have quite literally nothing else to do today. As I briefly touched upon, there is a part of this version of Jonathan that does genuinely want to be vulnerable, or at least be safe enough in his identity and the people he surrounds himself with to allow himself to let his guard down a little and be vulnerable. He's tired of fighting, as evidenced by his attempting to retire after a 30, 40 year-long career. People change; his mindset hasn't, he still hates nearly everyone in existence, but he's smart enough to realize that if something doesn't work, you either try a different approach or give up. And he's not fond of change. Still, it's like pulling teeth that haven't yet rotted simply to be cruel. He will never be completely vulnerable, at least not willingly, and forcing him to be open will only hurt either you or him. Probably both. Also probably you more than him given his capacity for extreme violence and the fact he has 0 qualms with violence.

And I've also said that my interpretation doesn't view himself as human, let alone a living thing. He views the ability to let people in as a pervasive weakness that humans have; not him of course, never him. Maybe it's the autism, maybe it's the borderline paranoid schizophrenia, maybe it's the DID I understate. Hard to say. Speaking of, the paranoia is a core trait of his. You could argue that it's justified for the most part; he's spent nearly his entire life being viewed as nothing but a toy, a mere plaything [usually sexual] for people much stronger and with much higher social standing. The kind of guy that goes "wtf do you mean you go to group therapy and don't have to lie about every personal aspect of yourself to avoid being blackmailed by people that want you to hurt, want you to feel what they feel". Because, you know, that's normal....jk it absolutely is normal, I am the same exact way.]

[bangsinc]

Unneeded rant/analysis about how much I love the Scarecrow from BTAS/TNBA:

Okay so, I’m like, really new to tumblr but I fucking love the scarecrow. Not only does he have the best design out of any other rendition of Scarecrow, like EVER, but his character is just perfect.

Now, every character from BTAS save for like.. one or two are incredibly interesting, and as much as I could equivilently explain how much I adore THEM I think the scarecrow definitely stands out the most. And this is not only because of his constant battle between self and villian persona but also because he serves as a great look into the scarecrow years to come. He WAS the blueprint, even if he wasn’t the first rendition.

Scarecrow first debuts in the ‘Nothing to Fear’ episode. It was the third produced one but the tenth to be aired. In it, we are shown scarecrows ‘debut’, where he’s a skinny scrawny ass man. He sports a red top with a muppet looking head, that’s like, the best I can do for him honestly. Now, I’m BTAS scarecrows number one Pookie, but this man looked ROUGH. It was clear that he was inspired by the comic versions of scarecrow, but even the creator himself fucking hated the design so much that he literally destroyed all traces of it. Imagine being such a god damn hater of your characters design you fr destory all the known concepts for it.

OKOK, design aside, this episode was INTERESTING, because it totally went against the formula that was set for villians! Typically villians have a tragic backstory which drives them to revenge, and while yes, Jonathan Crane does have tragic backstories that I do think work better in other Batman medias, I think it’s interesting to show Jonathan BEING the bully. HE was the one that tourmented others, and he enjoyed it! He enjoyed it so much that he tortured others as a professor and pretty much got away with it until he was fired. He’s literally the same thing that would drive a villian to crime and it’s SO GOOD! Or at least I think it is.

I think that making the Scarecrow a bully is fitting, however the idea that he was bullied and uses fear to control and never feel bullied again is interesting.. but rather overused. I really wish that he had more backstory, but that one episode is pretty much all we get. This same episode shows us what the scarecrow is pretty much like, although I do think this changes pretty drastically. As the episodes progress scarecrow slowly develops to be more complex, but we don’t have that yet, and as far as we know he’s a cold, calculating villian that thinks he’s far too good to be working with his henchmen (he fuckin hates them). He relys on brains rather than brawn, which made it interesting that he didn’t even partner up with riddler in BTAS *cough*.

Okay okay, just to go back to his design, I think it might have been intentional to give scarecrow a big, bulking coat because we all known damn well he’s scrawny. I’d imagine he does this to look more intimidating, since scarecrow in his villian costume.. doesn’t. Which was also a big issue. For a man obsessing over fear, he sure wasn’t scary himself, and he seemed to get scared easily.

As shown in the episode ‘lock-up’, Jonathan can get intinadated easily and even frightened, which I think is interesting as many other renditions of scarecrow are TOO scared to play into territory like that. He’s practically begging Batman to let him go so he doesn’t need to be punished by the system that’s supposed to help him. He seemed terrified to even speak up against it knowing he could be punished as a result. This also plays into the fact that the comics seem to make Jonathan Crane and Scarecrow two different people. Jonathan Crane is a rather humble man who loves his job and, yes, can get scared. Scarecrow is like this demon in the back of his head almost that keeps beckoning him to ruin his life for the one thing that interests him more than anything. This is espically edvident in the BTAS comics when they make scarecrows villian mask an entity of its own, screaming it’s name.

So, I’d imagine that what goes on IN those comics are a byproduct of his insanity and fear gas. He seems to be constantly hallucinating snakes and spiders, and even seems to be seeing those trying to help him get a job again as ‘demons’. He is constantly fighting for that control over his life, to do what he loves and hurt others or do what’s safe but not what he enjoys. He wants his old life back but will never get it.

Okay my hands actually got tired but I’m making a part two I PROMISE!!!!