#todd is Too understanding and he's perceptive enough to see everyone's motivations but that makes it worse because now he's too

[good--merits-accumulated]

going through some old left-for-dead projects and just found this one where I was like. INTENT on dissecting jeff's brain on the operating table (i.e. google docs) but only from todd's weird skewed pov

[professor voice] it's about brothers as eternal combatants and it's about being so convinced of your own goodness you excuse your shitty actions. it's also about comparing yourself to a dog because you feel less fully formed than your brother. lol.

[stxleslyds]

LET’S TALK ABOUT BATMAN AND ROBIN #20 (2011).

And the issues that followed that story (Batman and Robin vol.2 #34-37)

DC and the fandom really let Bruce get away with what he did to Jason in that issue. DC because they had Jason go back to Bruce a few issues later to finish their story and the fandom because this moment in comics isn’t talked about enough which has led people to believe that the the concept of “batfamily” as it is in fandom belongs in canon.

This type of moments in stories should make a bigger impact on comic relationships and fandom’s perception of said relationships. From where I am standing Bruce’s actions in that issue are right on the edge of unforgivable and they could have used them as a key moment for Jason to finally move on from all Bat related bullshit without thinking that he had to stay and finish the job (of getting Damian back).

Making Jason move on so easily from that situation really makes it look like if Batman is physically, emotionally, or mentally abusive to his children then it’s not that much of a big deal, it’s just a subplot to a bigger story.

And that is something that happens repeatedly in current comics and it’s disgusting.

Anyway, now that I am done with my rambling, I will start talking about the issues that I mentioned.

Batman and Robin (2011) #20 – Written by Peter Tomasi.

For a little context, this issue is set after Damian’s death and Bruce is looking for ways to resurrect him.

And in this particular issue of this run, Batman recruits Jason Todd between the events of RHatO vol. 1 #18 and #19, that’s why in the cover of the issue the name of the run is changed to ‘Batman and Red Hood’.

A bit more context is that in issue #18 Jason finally recovers from the injuries that he got when the trap that Joker had put on his helmet detonated, and Jason was also having an existential crisis after the Joker convinced him that he was always present in Jason’s life and that he shaped the man that Jason had become (If you want to read more about that and the times' Joker has played with Jason’s mind, I have this post in which I talk all about that).

Good, now I can finally talk about this hellish issue.

Bruce asks for Jason’s help because he wants to take down some marksmen and women that are based in Ethiopia that might or might not have been the same people who took on the job of looking for Damian when his mother had put a bounty on his head.

One would imagine that Bruce calling Jason for this job means that he would let Jason kill some people, bounty-hunters that are money-driven enough to kill children seem to be the kind of people Jason would have in his black list, but Jason is smart and he knows that Batman won’t let him kill so he asks why is Bruce asking him of all people to join him on this mission, Batman replies with “Because I am seeing red”.

If you, like me, don’t understand why Batman would ask the Red Hood to stop him from killing some very shady people then don’t worry, Batman was lying, he didn’t ask Jason to go with him to beat some bounty-hunters, he has ulterior motives.

I will give it to Tomasi, he wrote Jason as the smart cookie that he is because Jason doesn’t stop picking up on the weird technicalities of the mission, and I will go as far as to say that Jason never truly believed that Bruce was being honest about the true nature of their mission. Smart Chonky, I miss you and love you.

Once they get to Ethiopia Bruce starts setting the rules of engagement (don’t shoot to kill, only hands, knees, and elbows), and off they go. Bruce even makes a comment about how it “feels like old times” and Jason is all happy and warm that Bruce invited him to beat some baddies and he also brings up the fact that Bruce stayed by his side while he was recovering from his injuries, very lovely stuff that will soon mean nothing (and that should have meant nothing because Bruce and his lies had resulted in Joker knowing all of their secret identities and messing with all of them in horrible ways, but the Bat can get away with that too).

Here is part of Bruce’s speech about trust and his lies, “You don’t ever need to thank me, Red Hood, for a family always looks out for each other” to which Jason says, “Yeah but a family also needs to earn each other’s trust” and Bruce continues his speech with, “comes a time when having to keep earning someone’s trust stops and you hope the people you’ve put your faith in will always have your back no matter what”.

Batman, everyone, master detective and master manipulator.

As Batman is talking manipulating Jason he beats every bounty hunter almost effortlessly because he had brought some bat-gadgets that were going to make the fight really easy. And as the fight is over in what looks like a minute Batman and Red Hood get on the Batmobile ready to leave Ethiopia… or not.

Jason is very aware that Batman didn’t need him for that so-called mission so he starts to ask more and more firmly about the real reason as to why Batman brought him to this place.

Batman brought Jason back to Ethiopia, but most importantly back to the Magdala Valley because he wants to see if Jason going back to the place where he died will make him remember how he was resurrected.

Yep, talk about having messed-up parents. Bruce is positively the worst at this moment, but it gets worse.

Jason is rightfully pissed off, he says, “You lied to me, this wasn’t about taking down those mercenaries. You wanted to bring me here, to the worst place in the world and here I was starting to believe all your crap about trust and faith...”

To which Bruce says, “I thought bringing you here could jog your memory, maybe retrieve a detail buried deep in your subconscious that could help piece together how you came back to life so I…”

And my man Jason really continues his thought process only to later tell him how much of a piece of shit he truly is (I love this Chonky, go Jason show this man that he ain’t shit).

“…could apply it to getting Damian back. Yeah, I get it. Did it ever occur to you I might like keeping whatever the hell happened to me buried deep? If you cared about me, you wouldn’t want me to dredge up the one thing I’ve been trying to forget. I don’t want to remember the most horrific day of my life all right? You may like wallowing in your tragedies, Bruce, but I’m done looking back!”

Jason, bravo, tell him exactly how you feel! Any sort of good human being would surely accept that they crossed a massive line and that they should ask for forgiveness next, right?... Right?

No. And that’s because Bruce is a horrible human being, I am sorry but it had to be said, this man has zero empathy for Jason and he proves it when he says the following.

“If you cared about me and what I’ve lost, you’d want to dredge this up! Don’t you see, there is a chance you can help me erase one of the worst days of MY life, Jason! You can give me the greatest gift of all and help me figure out how to bring my son back”

Fuck Bruce Wayne. This man has no right whatsoever to talk this way to Jason, no matter how you see this situation, the whole thing is fucked up. Bruce puts his needs above Jason’s feelings and he diminishes Jason’s position as his son because Bruce only refers to Damian as his son. This whole thing is incredibly nasty.

Here we should have had the point of no return for Jason and Bruce’s relationship, although if you are like me, you might think that the point of no return happened way back in Batman (1940) #650 when Bruce decided that saving the Joker by throwing a batarang at Jason’s neck (how did he know that Jason would survive that, I have no idea, maybe Bruce can see the future) was a better option compared to Jason finally killing the clown. Because that’s the thing, Jason was going to kill the clown but Bruce didn’t let him because he didn’t want more blood in Jason’s hands, I laugh until this day about how stupid Bruce’s thinking was there.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Jason should have said bye-bye to Batman and all related Batman crap from this moment on. It would have been perfect but DC can’t help themselves and Lobdell’s self-insert-Jason really wants to be part of this amazing family so, no luck for Jason or us.

If you have read my latest post about Joker getting under Jason’s skin or read issue #18 of RHatO you know the context of what Jason says next.

“Yeah, and how about me? How about the gift of not knowing that the Joker manipulated my entire life, huh? The clown tainted everything, the good, the bad, hell my life’s even been tainted by you!”

Yup, Jason was going through it, and he had talked about these feelings with Bruce previously in issue #17 of RHatO, he had asked Bruce if he thought that Joker had created him and Bruce said, “No Jason, He didn’t make you, I never did either. You made you” and Jason was extremely thankful for that. And now, here we are, these feelings are being brought up again but in a very different situation.

Them arguing becomes a physical fight and after Jason asks Bruce “why are you making me stand in the exact same spot he beat me to death?” He replies this “Because I want to watch Damian grow up damn it! Damian earned that right! And I want to give it to him!”

This conversation only gets worse and Bruce’s most horrible side comes to light, like, I understand that Bruce wants Damian to be alive and all that but he is saying all the wrong stuff to Jason. I feel like as the reader I am being told that Bruce values Damian more than he ever did Jason because he is willing to put Jason through his own personal hell for Damian but refuses to see the reasons as to why Jason doesn’t want to do it. Bruce is being incredibly selfish and he is not caring enough about Jason to notice that he is hurting him. He even doesn’t notice after Jason says, “I was ready to stand by your side and you’ve thrown it all away!”

It is incredibly sad but it's also a bit of a look into what Bruce will do to Dick in Nightwing vol. 3 #30. It has the exact same vibe in both issues, Bruce going completely berserk on his children and telling them that he “trained them to be better”.

This issue ends with Jason punching Bruce several times and Bruce taunting Jason by telling him that he might as well continue because he is “still standing”. The levels of manipulation that Bruce had going on here weren’t as high as the ones in Nightwing #30 but he sure was a little bitch every step of the way.

Jason, being smart, doesn’t take the bait and tells Bruce that he is leaving and he is taking the car.

Wouldn’t this have been an amazing moment for Jason to finally rid himself of all Batman-related events and bullshit? How did DC miss this amazing opportunity to make Jason Todd/Red Hood a character that can stand on his own and with his own rules?

The potential that was wasted when they made Jason go back to Bruce and help him get Damian back in issues 33 to 37 of this same run is immeasurable. And just like Joker being able to get under Jason’s skin, him going back to Bruce and the “family” for plot purposes harmed Jason’s characterization greatly.

Batman and Robin (2011) #34-37 – Written by Peter Tomasi.

Whatever kind of respect I held for Tomasi because of the way he wrote Jason in #20 is now gone. Issues 34 to 37 have Jason fighting alongside Batman and him being all buddy-buddy with him.

Now, let me make something clear, Bruce wanting to bring Damian back to life/from Apokolips is absolutely fine with me, a father fighting for his son’s life can always make a good story, the thing is that at this point in time not only the events of Batman and Robin #20 have happened but so have the events of Nightwing #30.

So, Bruce going through all of this for one of his kids (that keeps being brought up as if he were his only son) after he emotionally manipulated Jason and Dick makes this story very bitter.

But I understand what DC is doing, you know? Here is how they manage to make this story as bitter-sweet as possible. In issue 34 of this run, Dick shows up in his Spyral get-up and offers his help in getting Damian back, because the kid meant a lot to him but Bruce can’t have Dick helping him out along with Barbara and Tim because Bruce has everyone convinced that Dick is dead. So, DC was like “here is this big brain idea, let’s have Jason, Barbara, and Tim helping Bruce get Damian back”. And that’s exactly what they did.

They dragged Jason back to Batman-related crap after he was manipulated, insulted, and punched by the man that is supposed to be his father. And this issue is also happening after Jason had such an immense existential crisis that he decided to have his memory wiped so he could cleanse himself on any doubt that the Joker had manipulated his free will.

How on earth are we supposed to believe that Jason is dumb enough to go back to Batman after all that? Does DC and its writers read their own material? Do they check if the characters that they are planning on using have contradicting narratives?

It’s so messy, the opportunity that DC, Tynion, Tomasi, and Lobdell got to make Jason his own man and his own character was completely wasted, just for a Batman event!

And it isn’t like Jason’s participation in getting Damian back was crucial, it really wasn’t, if I am planning on taking a team of heroes to Apokolips for a rescue mission, Jason, Barbara and Tim wouldn’t be my first options. Jason was put in that book only so they could have someone making snarky comments and for Jason to be like “Bruce we are family, we will always have each other’s backs” I mean, who is Jason supposed to be, Dom Toretto?

Here are some of the moments that seemed the most out of touch for Jason in these issues.

Batman and Robin #34

In issue 34 Bruce gives a long speech about him not wanting to hide things anymore from them (like he did during the events of Death of the Family) and that he wants a new start because they “have been broken long enough” so from that moment forward “good or bad, the truth rules”.

The audacity of this man, my god, how dense can Bruce be? “we’ve been broken long enough”? YOU have broken your relationship with these people time and time again! As you are standing there talking about the truth you are hiding the fact that Dick is alive and well somewhere far away because YOU sent him on a very dangerous mission after he died and you manipulated him.

THE AUDACITY OF THIS PIECE OF SHIT! Am I becoming an anti-Batman blog? I think I am and quite honestly, I am having the time of my life. Fuck this guy.

But back to the issue, after Bruce says that the truth is all that goes now, Barbara basically says that she doesn’t believe him, that all it takes for Bruce to go back to lying is “another situation that justifies you going dark on us in more ways than one” HA! You go, girl! But he is already hiding something from all of you.

Jason being himself supplies a situation like the ones where Batman lies to them in order to get them to work for him, he says, “or bringing me to Magdala Valley on a sightseeing trip to reminisce about the good old days of crowbars and explosions”, ah yes, sure, Bruce did all that back in issue 20 and now it is brought up as an afterthought… how wonderful.

Bruce, of course, lies to their faces when he says “I promise that nothing gets held back. We speak our mind no matter what the cost” to which Jason says “Unconditional truth now and forever, Bruce, otherwise this is all a load of crap”.

AND IT IS! IT IS ALL A LOAD OF CRAP CHONKY! RUN, RUN LIKE THE WIND!

Man, what a mess, poor Dick. He had to wait there and watch his father lie his ass off. And he really wanted to help Bruce get Damian back. Even after Bruce told Dick (as well as Barbara, Tim, and Jason) that he had to go to Apokolips alone Dick still helped Bruce in other ways, Dick really is the MVP, what a man, I love him so much!

(I really needed to show my love for Dick right then and there, sometimes you just have to do it. Dick Grayson is, after all, the greatest comic character to have ever been created).

Batman and Robin #36

First of all, seeing Jason and Barbara wearing the Robin symbol really makes me laugh. It’s just weird to see Barbara wear it, it almost feels like it’s something that shouldn’t have happened and in Jason’s case, well, the last time he wore it he died and it’s kinda funny to see beefy and tall Red Hood wearing a Robin symbol, it’s just funny not a critique.

What I am going to critique from this issue is that after they (Jason, Barbara, and Tim) go to Apokolips and find Bruce they say, “You’re here in this hellish place for your son, Bruce” and Jason continues that with, “And we’re here for you”.

Ah, the irony. Of all people, having Jason say that to Bruce is wild. This man has done nothing for Jason and here Jason is, in Apokolips, of all places, to help a man that does not deserve it. This is proof that Jason is a good man but its also proof that he is an idiot in the New 52, I am sorry but come on, writing Jason this way after what Bruce did to him in issue 20 seems like DC is confirming the fact that even though Batman does the most horrible stuff to his kids, he can still get away with it because his kids still love him all the same.

I understand, loving your parents when they are flawed but Bruce had been written at this time like an abusive father, and he was written like that towards Jason and Dick, so it is not a good look. Bruce saying that he promises that he won’t do it anymore isn’t enough DC, make the man pay for being that way, make his kids stay away from him for a while (or forever).

And here is the other thing, I say that Bruce is Jason and Dick’s father but DC doesn’t, they only acknowledge Damian as Bruce’s son and they do it because the New 52 timeline is non-existent. After all, they deleted a lot of history from these characters, I think it’s fair to assume that Bruce never adopted Dick or Jason and that both of them were Robin for a very short time. What I am trying to say with this is that not only is Bruce getting away with being abusive but he is also getting away with being an abusive father. Because Bruce is their father, at least I see it that way, he isn’t just his friend/mentor/tutor he is their father. He used to be before New 52 and that’s not something that we as the readers are ready or want to let go of.

All in all, Jason didn’t do much in these issues thus confirming (to me, at least) that the only reason he was invited to the party was because they couldn’t use Dick. And that’s an insult to Jason’s character, it would have been better if Jason didn’t appear in this story and he actually had the chance to do something else, like go back to being the proper Red Hood, an anti-hero that does what Batman won’t do for Gotham and its people.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Tony, Steve, Clark, and Bruce: A Cross-Universe Comparison

I saw a post that, in my opinion, unfairly compared Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, and this inspired me to write a comparison of the four characters listed in the title above. I believe many people misunderstand a lot of what these characters believe and stand for, so I want to express what I find their stances and motives to be in relation to each other.

As a note, the interpretations of these characters have varied widely, given the multitude of comic book authors and the somewhat differing portrayals on screen. For this analysis, I will be focusing mostly on the film interpretations, as they are better known, with the exception of Superman; this is because on screen, he is intended to be a reimagining of the character. In order to stay true to his nature, I will mostly be using the Superman developed in the comics (particularly the one presented in the Dark Knight Returns).

On the surface, Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne appear to be two fairly similar characters. Both experienced traumatic youths, including the sudden deaths (which were both murders) of their parents. Both Tony and Bruce are incredibly wealthy and intelligent, with almost unlimited technical resources making up for their non-superhuman physical abilities. These two characters, however, are actually closer to opposites than doubles.

In actuality, these characters are each more similar to the other's counterpart: Tony tends more towards Superman's more conformist vision for the world, having gone from a rogue, or individualist, to someone who recognizes his own potential for ignorance and damage and decides he needs to be held accountable. It is Steve Rogers, not Tony Stark, who is the MCU counterpart of Batman.

Steve had initially, at least on a surface level, been portrayed as the ultimate conformist: he gave his life to the army, in order to become a medical experiment who fought and acted at the behest of his country. But in actuality, he maintained his individualistic and rebellious spirit, growing further into that attitude as the franchise progressed. This is why, by Infinity War, Steve has embraced his Nomad identity, fully shirking any responsibility to the larger government, and instead, seeking after his own goals.

This individualist attitude is encapuslated best in Endgame, where Steve says to a high-ranking government official: "I'm not asking for forgiveness. And I'm done asking for permission." This implies that he had, at some point, asked for permission in the first place, but this is not the case. When the Accords were introduced, Steve spoke out against them, refused to compromise, and essentially fled, becoming a rebel and fugitive in the process. Any time an authority, government or not, gives him an order he doesn't agree with, he dismisses it outright.

These actions and attitudes are mirrored almost exactly by Bruce, who not only appoints himself sole arbiter of right and wrong by enforcing his vigilante justice, but also avoids police detainment and other efforts to force him to comply with the law. The law is not sufficient for his purposes, so he does not abide by it. He has no problem with allowing himself unchecked power; for example, in the Dark Knight, he constructs a surveillance system that invades the privacy of every citizen of Gotham to find the Joker. Although he does destroy it, to him, the ends justify the means. He does not believe there is anything wrong with allowing a decision of such magnitude to be left solely in his hands, and in fact, he would not want anyone else to interfere, even a government. He firmly believes he knows what is best--and he intends to plant himself like a tree and say to the government, "No, you move."

Bruce is much more cynical about humanity than Steve, which is understandable, and offers insight into their differing ways of acting on their similar beliefs. Steve was raised in poverty and was bullied, but experienced minimal trauma in his youth, whereas Bruce was traumatized at a young age. Despite having privilege as a child, Bruce was darkened by his trauma, making him use his position of power in decidedly more violent ways than Steve, who was able to grow into a position of power without the scarrings of a traumatic youth. This is what causes the apparent difference between them--on the surface, no one would call Bruce and Steve similar, as Steve is viewed as a "good" character, and Bruce as morally grey at best. Ultimately, however, they act similarly: Bruce uses his troubled past as a justification for inflicting his own form of justice on those he deems criminals, and Steve uses his supposed moral high standing to do the same thing. Both of them also view the advantages they have over average humans as indicative that they are supposed to take action--but, because of their superiority, this action is taken on their own terms. It is similar to the theory of the Superior Man in Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment. The Superior Man, expresses the main character, would not be bound by the laws of society. He could break and form them as he pleased, as they only exist to keep the average members of the populace in check. Much of the same attitude is presented by Steve and Bruce, who, as stated, use their physical advantages as an excuse to do whatever they deem "necessary". Because of this the two characters, although they express their idealogies in different ways, share many of the same views.

Another cause of the difference in public interpretation of their characters is that the narrative justifies Steve's decisions at every turn, but Bruce has more of a penalty to pay for his actions. Ultimately, Bruce is also justified by the narrative: he gets a happy ending in the Dark Knight trilogy, at least. (As an aside, this is perhaps a commentary on how in the end, the rich are able to get away with anything, and can do whatever they please with no real consequence. Although I will not make a statement on the veracity of such a claim, it is nevertheless a possibility that the films endeavored to make a pint about it.) Bruce does, however, have to face some costs for his decisions. He is driven into hiding for eight years after taking the blame for Harvey Dent's death, which was caused by a chain of events in which he--and his occasionally selfish decisions--played a major role. Additionally, in the comics, Batman lost several of his companions, with Dick Grayson giving up the role of Robin, and Jason Todd dying because of Batman's oversights. This distinct cost to his actions results in him appearing to be less of a morally good character; in the perception of the audience, if Bruce really made the right decision, would it not then have resulted in victory? It is a firmly entrenched idea, in America in particular, that good will always triumph over evil--and so, if there is any element of good that does not unequivocally triumph, it must not have been purely good.

The similarity between Steve and Superman comes from their acheiving this ideal, this unequivocal goodness, but it is not present in Batman, leading many to wrongly think that Steve and Superman are birds of a feather; in fact, Tony is much more similar to the do-gooder Superman, who feels compelled to utilize his assets and abilities to help the common people. Tony likewise focuses much more on helping others than on correcting injustice as Bruce and Steve do. This is the ultimate distinction between the four characters: whereas Bruce and Steve believe it is their moral duty to correct the injustices they perceive--confrontational heroics--Tony and Clark see their abilities as an opportunity to help others--supplemental heroics.

In other words, Tony and Clark recognize it is not their role to define what is good or bad on an ultimate scale, and instead step in and offers aid in the areas in which they know it is needed. For example, Tony provides scholarships for underfunded college students in order to help them pursue their dreams. He contributes on a larger scale with his technology, allowing much public access to his inventions, such as BARF, that would be good for the common welfare. In this way, he contributes a lot of good without creating his own definition of good; instead, he does what the public perceives as good, just as Clark does when he saves people from accidents or other catastrophes.

Tony often fights, however, to keep the weaponized side of his inventions--namely, the Iron Man suits--private. This is because he had previously been involved with the government in the weapons business, and realized that there was no accountability there, neither for him nor for the government. Countless people died, and there was nothing to keep the people involved in check. Thus, his position on individualism versus conforming to the government depends on each party being kept accountable by the other; he will submit to governm ent authority, as it makes him liable to some higher power and prevents him from making potentially world-altering decisions on his own, but he also maintains enough control that he can exert pressure on the government in return if they begin to grow too large.

This seems to cause him to differ some from Superman, who does not keep the government in check; this is because of a difference in situation. Ultimately, because Superman is so powerful, the government could not actually keep him in check, and so he voluntarily submits to their authority as a way to keep himself accountable. He knows full well that if the government were to "step out of line", he would certainly be able to subdue them, but he recognizes the old adage that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," and does not want to take that chance.

Superman realizes, just as Tony does, that it is not his right to determine what is right or wrong since he is just one man. Unlike Tony, however, Clark is powerful enough to exert his will over everyone. To prevent himself from acting on this temptation, he submits himself to human authority. Thus, Tony and Clark have very similar idealogies: neither fully relinquish autonomy, but prioritize accountability over the freedom to do whatever they would like, because both have seen the consequences of unchecked power.

As a slight aside, this surrendering of control develops to become the source of the conflict between Batman and Superman in the Dark Knight Returns, the comic which not only revitalized the comics industry but also inspired Batman vs. Superman. In this comic, Superman has almost completely relinquished autonomy to the government, and Bruce has become the ultimate symbol of resistance, inspiring violent gangs to assert their forms of justice on the streets. The conflict between the two of them is ultimately reduced to a conflict between their two opposing ideals: conformism and individualism. This also provides great examples to illustrate the difference between confrontational and supplemental heroics: in the comic, Superman sacrifices himself to divert a nuclear missile from its target city, nearly dying in the process; Bruce emerges from retirement to become Batman again, because he believes the condition of society has gotten out of hand and needs him to correct it. He, too, nearly dies in the process of doing so. Ultimately, both survive and go on to continue striving towards their various ideals, allowing each other to function without interference. This is supposed to represent how there is a place for both approaches, and neither is necessarily right or wrong; rather, they balance each other out.

In the end then, it is clear that despite their superficial similarities, the characters commonly related to each other are in fact very different on an ideological level. The reason the pairs (Tony and Steve, and Bruce and Clark) work so well in the same franchise is because they serve as foils and complements to each other: one member demonstrates confrontational heroism and individualism, and the other in turn demonstrates supplemental heroism and conformism. They represent the ongoing battle in the real world between differing beliefs and ideals, and it is precisely this conflict that makes their interactions interesting to observe--whether on screen, or on the page.

[katohz-blog]

The Importance of Near In Death Note

The Death Note Netflix movie came out last week, and somehow as they always do whenever anything Death Note related comes out, people used the opportunity to shit on Near. Well, I'm gonna come out and say it. I love Near. He is my favorite character in Death Note. And today, I'm gonna explain why. Because let me tell you, this has been a LONG time coming. Near is actually my favorite character in the entire series, but so many people think he’s terrible, or an L-clone with no originality, or just a plain-old jerk, or that Mello should have won in the end. Well, let me tell you why you’re all WRONG about Near. But before that, let's examine some of the problems that people have with Near.

There are a lot of complaints about his personality. Frankly, I can't argue with that, because if you don't like his personality, I can't get you to like it, unless you blatantly misunderstand what his personality traits are. I think one misunderstanding of his personality that gets thrown around a lot is embodied in this scene. Here, we see the SPK headquarters is being stormed by rabid Kira supporters being led by Demogawa. Near has a contingency plan to use money that he inherited from L to create a distraction so that he and the SPK can escape. People point to this scene as evidence that Near is wasteful and he disrespects L. This is a huge misunderstanding of Near's motivation here, and of what this scene represents. Near believes that there are good people in the world who agree with what Kira's doing because they think it'll lead to a better world. However, he also believes that there are people who just want to jump on the bandwagon because they're too stupid or too weak-willed to examine Kira's philosophy for themselves. He knows that those people are the ones at his door, and he wants to demonstrate their lack of dedication to Kira, which they use as an excuse for violence, by proving how easily distracted they are by blinding them with money. He uses the last remnant of L on this Earth to display how worthless these Kira supporters are. From a thematic standpoint, L's battle with Kira was all about defending himself from Kira's attempts to kill him. If there was ever a move that Light was about to make that could prove dangerous to L, L foresaw that move and took action to stop Light from being able to make it. And here, the last remnant of L is blocking Kira's attack. With all of that in mind, this moment should be celebrated, but instead it's pointed to as evidence that Near has a bad personality by people who don't understand what the point of this moment is. It's a testament to Near's respect of L. By showing everyone that Demogawa and his army of blind followers are greedy and not noble, he challenges Kira's very philosophy that the people who oppose him are the ones who are truly evil, and that good people would inevitably support him. This moment is evidence that Near is a perfect foil for Light's own belief of himself as a God. But we'll get to that later.

The next point that I want to combat is the ideas that Near is a clone of L. Near and Mello are both like L in their own way, because they were both raised to be L. Near is the intellectual side that has an out there way of thinking that leads him to make connections that no one else really sees and Mello is the emotional side that is driven to act, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve victory. That's the idea behind the theme that the two would have to work together to beat Kira. The most iconic Mello scenes are him speeding down the highway on a motorcycle with a hostage, or blowing up his headquarters to escape capture. He even attains a position of power that allows him to combat Kira through violence, namely finding a mafia boss that even Kira couldn't identify and cutting his head off Jason Todd style, while Near attains a position of power through more bureacratic means. Near outsmarts and Mello acts. This makes Mello stand out more as being different from L than Near does, as he's even more radical than L was. The contrast distorts people's perceptions of the character, causing them to view L and Near as being too similar despite their many differences, simply because they're both understated personalities and socially inept geniuses. Really, people simply overestimate the actual similarities between the two characters when all that they really have in common is their possession of genius level intellects and general dismissal of social norms. And of course, their childish nature.

Finally, we have the claim that the final arc of Death Note, the battle between Near, Mello, and Light was the weakest in the series because of Near. Even if that is what you believe, it doesn't make a lot of sense that people seem to pin that on Near. What people love about L's interactions with Light is how he confronts and challenges him almost constantly, often coming out and saying that he's suspicious of him and trying to catch him off guard. If these interactions were something that really pulled you into their conflict, then that's all the more reason you should love Near, because he is constantly doing the same thing. The very first sentence he ever says to Light is accusatory and throws him off from the very beginning. He's the character that keeps the cat and mouse element of the series alive. The characters that cause the biggest tonal shifts are Mello and Takada, as Mello's actions elevate the level of spectacle we're used to and Takada's involvement with Light add a romance element to the series. Personally, I think the Yotsuba arc is the weakest in Death Note, and I'd even say the dynamic between Near, Mello, and Light made the show more interesting and less predictable than the dynamic between L and Light, just by adding another major player. My favorite arc in the show is the first 9 episodes, when Light and L are both making moves to reveal each other without being in direct contact. It's the most interesting part of the show because being unable to directly speak to each other forces them to be creative regarding how they try to get to each other. Light leaving coded messages in suicide notes and L televising what can essentially be called a diss track are two of my personal favorite events. Don't get me wrong, I think every single arc in this show is a masterpiece, but the specific set up of two anonymous forces subtly working against one another was the most interesting part of the show for me. In that sense, Near's battle with Light feels like a return to form. They are able to speak to each other directly, but Near still has to figure out who Kira is and what he's up to, while Light also has to try to figure out ways to kill Near. It's different enough that it's not a complete rehash of what we've seen before while also having the same allure of the earliest episodes of the show, and it's all thanks to Near.

Now that I'm done defending him, let's get into what I like about Near.

Looking at all of the major players in Death Note, you'll see that most of them have an identifiable quirk. Specifically, the ones related to Wammy's House. L has his iconic sweet tooth, Mello has his penchant for chocolate, and Near has his toys. One of the things that I like about Near is that his toys actually mean something, contrasted from L's sweets accompanying him in most scenes as just another way to make him a weird character, or Mello's chocolate pretty much meaning nothing to the character at all, every single time we see him playing with his toys, it's a metaphorical representation of his thought process. For example, take this scene from the final chapter of Death Note, the flash forward one year after the conclusion of the Kira case. Here, we see Near surrounded by an impossibly huge house of cards. The metaphor here is that he's been spending the last year building something incredibly intricate and substantial: his career as L. There's also the scene where Light and Near speak for the first time, and Near is tossing darts at a dart board while he explains his thoughts on the case. With each comment, he tosses a dart at the board. He suggests that Kira might have killed Mello's hostage, which would suggest that he's someone with access to the Japanese police force's information. He's correct, but he doesn't have all of the details. At the conclusion of his statement, he misses the dartboard. He's not quite on the mark. Then, there's the moment when Near calls Light to tell him that they'll be meeting in the near future. During the call, Near is building a model of a tower. Then, we see imagery of Light and Near standing face-to-face in a similar tower. This metaphorically foreshadows that Near is in control of this confrontation. For a less subtle example, there's a scene where many of the SPK members are killed by the Death Note, and later the scene where Aizawa first calls Near. At the same time that the first SPK member falls, a stack of dice that Near had been meticulously piecing together falls. It all comes tumbling down as the organization that Near had built from the ground up is dismantled by Mello. When he talks with Aizawa, he begins building a new stack of dice. Clearly, like the house of cards in the one shot, these stacks of dice represent his career as a detective, or more specifically, his Kira investigation. These metaphors are abundant in the series and they add a level of insight into Near's world view that's pretty interesting to me. He uses his toys to represent the world, and plays with them the same way that he plays at life. This is consistent with him referring to L's death and Light's defeat as having "lost the game". Life's a game, and Near's Yugi Moto, baby.

Now, for the most important point in this entire video. Not only is Near a cool character, he is also the perfect person to succeed L, and to defeat Kira. The rivalry between L and Kira is elevated to absolute importance in the series, but what L and no one in the show seems to acknowledge or even realize is that this rivalry actually deifies Kira. L’s very introduction proves beyond a doubt to the entire world that Kira does exist, that someone out there actually is punishing the wicked. He puts a huge spotlight on Kira and their rivalry from the very moment that he becomes known to the world. A man with godlike power versus the greatest mind in the world. L states multiple times that stopping Kira is a cause that’s worth his life. This not only deifies Light in the eyes of society at large, resulting in cultist followers like Teru Mikami forming around the world, but it especially does so in the eyes of Light himself. This dude really starts buying into his own hype like crazy, to the point that by the time he does meet Near, he calls him “far inferior to L”, and dismisses him as a threat. The reason that this makes Near a great foil to Light is that Near does not think Light is special, allowing him to humble him in unique ways. Near says something to Light that I, as a viewer, had wanted to say to him throughout the entire show, and something that I guarantee you L would never say. Near calls Kira, Light Yagami, nothing more than a crazy serial killer. Light, who had defeated the greatest detective on Earth, his greatest personal challenge, is bested by a child who doesn’t even grasp the importance of what’s at stake. This is what goes through his mind in his final moments, and it’s the ultimate reality check. While Near tells Light that he’s nothing special, he holds up the Death Note as the most dangerous weapon of mass murder in history. The spot light isn’t on Light for Near. He instead identifies the truly unique evil and the real remarkable detail in this case, the Death Note itself. Light isn’t special to Near. The Death Note is. This, I think, is what makes Near the only character in the show that actually grasps the truth of the situation. The reason that Mello wouldn’t be as good of a foil as Near was, despite the fact that he’s in the same position of being L’s successor, is that he has the same problem that Light and L had, but regarding Near. To him, his rivalry with Near is the most important thing. Rather than denouncing Light as Near did, he’d probably have said something like “Beating you was the best way for me to beat Near.” All of this made him an even more perfect candidate for the final victor than Mello or even L himself in my opinion. Light believes that he is a God, and that it takes the greatest man he's ever known to even pose a challenge to him. Near defeats him, basically saying "I'm not as great a man as L was. I'm not as experienced a detective or as righteous as he was. However, I'm still enough to beat you, because you, Light Yagami, are not special." That's what I love about Near, both as a character and as a part of the plot.