#with being left out of Joker's narrative

[psalmsofpsychosis]

You know, i've been thinking about the way Batman keeps danger and weapons so close to his body, so tight to himself, practically tied around his neck, that joker often has no way left but to grab for him if he wants something Batman has. Batman does not want to be left out of Joker's plans, his story, he wants in on Joker's narrative by any means he can make it happen. It's such particular "you take me with you wherever you are, it's your punishment, just as it's my punishment to take you with me wherever i am" statement. Batman actively leaves no choice for Joker but to get very very close to him and claim him as part of his win or his loss. I mean,

he didn't have to. he could've put the key in one of his waist pouches, push it into the back of his left boot, he could've tied it around his bicep, i dont care��� he could've done whateverthefuck with it. But he had to put it around his neck, and intentionally invite Joker to "come and get it". Something something classic cliche of the way lovers' bond is signified by a necklace-adjacent item and the way they interact with it; hold unto it, toss it, tie it around their necks, giving it back, not giving it back, necklaces as items of reverance and revenge. Something something a tie around neck being a sign of being claimed and owned,

[egophiliac]

So.... what are your thoughts on Ace's UM, if you haven't been asked this already?

sneaky magic for the sneakiest boy

no but really, I think it fits him really well! I had thought his UM would probably involve something kinda sleight-of-handy or pickpockety! and I looooved that it made such a nice loop-around back to episode 1. ❤️ I was. kind of half-expecting him to just run out and punch Riddle in the nose again. but instead this time 'twas he who offed the queen's head! it was great! and he did it while stone-cold terrified out of his mind! because Ace is the only remotely normal or well-adjusted person at NRC and therefore the only one who is like "we're going to literally die, this is super effed up". but he did it anyway!!!! I AM SO PROUD

[glitter-stained]

Incredible how dc pushes the "Jason died because he was reckless" narrative to try and absolve Bruce of blame because, victim-blaming aside, that's worse, right? You understand how that's worse?

No matter how you interpret it, in Jason's post-crisis run, Bruce is gonna be partially responsible for Jason's death, because he was the one to offer him Robin in the first place in exchange for a good foster home (Batman 1940 #408), and because he had fucked up with Jason to the point he felt the need to run to a whole other continent in search for family (Batman 1940, a death in the family). Like, that part of responsibility, that remains no matter how you spin it, because regardless of why specifically Jason went in the warehouse, that's why he was in Ethiopia with the Robin suit in the first place.

But this aside, in canon? Jason goes in the warehouse because Sheila betrays him and he does what any hero, and many children, would do in his place: he wants to help Sheila, he listens to her, he trusts his mother. The people directly responsible for Jason's death, in canon, are Joker, Sheila, and crowd of goons that helped Joker and Sheila take Jason down in the warehouse. It's clear as day who the villains are in there and it doesn't add any stain on Bruce's ledger.

But according to that victim-blaming narrative that Alfred and Bruce (and others later on) spin in-story, and that dc spins in meta? Jason died because he was reckless. So it's Jason's fault right? Yes and no. I need to write a more detailed meta about the two types of recklessness and how confusing the two accidentally led to Starling writing a compelling narrative with Jason, but basically the important question here is why was Jason reckless. And Starlin answers us, in text, in a death in the family: Jason has been behaving abnormally recklessly recently, because he's suffering. Bruce tells us, straight up, that he suspects Jason to be suicidal. This isn't the first time Starlin's Batman says Jason is suicidal: even in Batman (1940) #416, Batman explains Jason's "reckless" behaviour to Dick as a symptom of being mentally unwell, and very clearly implies Jason already struggles with suicidal thoughts (which I maintain is the reason why Dick changed his mind on Jason so quickly and gave him his number with a "you can reach out to me, don't let a lack of communication become your achille heel" talk at the end of #416.)

And Bruce's POV mind be often biased, but we see, ourselves, Jason jump in front of bullets in aditf and it's like... As much as I'm not convinced with Bruce's random explanation for Jason's struggles in aditf, I do agree that he is being suicidal (and considering the stories that come right before this one, I completely understand why he would be.) So that's why Jason is reckless in aditf. It's not why he died, but if we listen to that victim-blaming narrative that claims his recklessness is indeed what killed him, doesn't that make Bruce more guilty? Because that means Bruce knew Jason was suicidal (literally jumping in front of bullets with apparently no consideration for his life) and left a fifteen years old active suicide risk alone in a completely foreign environment after having messed up very severely with him during the whole issue, and then he told him "do not go into that warehouse alone, there's a very dangerous guy who wants to kill you." In terms of responsibility, Bruce is actually very damn lucky Jason, like some impulsive suicidal teenagers his age would have, didn't think "oh well, I'll try my luck against the guy who wants to kill me alone and that way either I win and get reassured in my heroism and right to be alive, or I die and that saves me the trouble of buying rope and a step ladder!" Bruce took the Robin costume from Jason to protect him from this exact type of situation but didn't seem to realize the danger he was putting Jason in at that moment. And it's not just me saying that! I don't have the exact reference (I think it was in Gotham Knights?...to verify) Barbara, after finding out about Jason's death, literally tells Bruce that this is his fault and that she warned him Jason had issues.

Of course, all of this is moot point, because it's not why Jason went in the warehouse in the first place, but I can't help but feel baffled at the audacity of DC, who are so deep into their psychophobia, classism, general victim-blaming bullshit and ingrained stereotypical conception of the "troubled teen" that they don't realize that the revisionist interpretation of Jason's death they are defending is literally worse for Bruce. And I have to say, it certainly doesn't paint people trash-talking Jason and blaming him for his death to prop Tim up as "better" and "different" in a very good light either (especially since, if i'm not wrong, there's an arc in which Tim struggles with suicidal thoughts himself... especially since Tim's trauma happened after he became Robin and is, for the most part, a direct consequence of his heroism. Doesn't exactly paint the adults in Jason and Tim's life in a favourable light...)

Anyway, stop blaming Jason's death on his recklessness to absolve Bruce: you're only making it worse.

[prlssprfctn]

Love the idea of ghost!Jason not being able to rest is not because he wasn't avenged (what everyone including himself believes) but because he doesn't know at his dying hour if he was truly loved by the people he cared about. So he comes back as a ghost and decides to follow Dick around. Not Bruce because his relationship deteriorated so far prior to his death he doesn't even want to see him.

Dick being the perfectly mentally well person doesn't know if its a ghost, hallucination, or something else entirely but rolls with it. After all he never got to spend time with Jason before he died, he's making up for it now. Of course that pisses Jason off because why now, only after he died is Dick willing to put in the effort but at the same time he gets to spend time with his brother so he shelves that thought. It becomes a part of his day to day just to hang out with his brother something he never knew he wanted till now.

That is until Dick kills the Joker. Now Jason has no reason to stay here and he just lost his connection for good. Of course that isn't the case as Bruce brings him back and Dick doesn't have to live with the guilt of murdering someone (but with the guilt that he selfishly still wants to keep Jason around).

However, the universe decides to bring him back leaving ghost!Jason to just disappear one day putting Dick into a panic. He checks to see if Joker is alive which of course he is. He runs to see if Bruce has done anything, he hasn't. He has to wonder what happened for him to move on and why wasn't it something he did himself.

Dick still misses his brother dearly and Tim has definitely come into his life but that doesn't replace Jason so he begins to hallucinate him. Being a product of his own mind hallucination!Jason is a lot meaner. Insulting Dick all the time, guilting him, and putting him down for his failures as a brother. But his brother is here so who is he to complain. He'll apologize a million times and do whatever he wants as long as he stays by his side.

Then Red Hood enters the scene. His actual brother alive and well(?). Yes, he is angry, justifiably so, but he is here and Dick will do anything to be there for him. Past the arguments and the feelings of guilt and remorse there's moments where they can just be brothers, like before. Except Dick wasn't there when he was Robin. He wasn't there when he died. He thinks he knows the boy based off the time they spent but how much of it is rooted in reality. The past, ghost, hallucination, and present Jason all blend together in his head as sometimes he acts in character (to some version of him) but other times he doesn't (but maybe it is, he's been gone for years).

EXACTLY THAT!

i think Bruce has honestly the same problem (which is canon in some runs), and both of them cannot remember for sure now (or, in Bruce's case, he sometimes doesn't want to) what kind of person Jason was all these years ago. their portrayal of Jason in their heads are very different from what Jason truly was, and funnily enough, very different from each other's perspective of Jason's ghost.

i think that is what also frustrates Jason. because first, he sees that his death is diminished, changed for the better narrative, and atop of that uninvesigated and unavenged — but then his memory is distorted, too. none of the things he left in this world mattered, and his own family were the first that discarded it, all for different reasons.

but it gets even angstier if you think that after the Pit, Jason doesn't remember some things from his past. and he tries to imagine himself doing/liking things Bruce and Dick say he did, but it sounds unreal. because he might not remember some things, but he knows himself. and that doesn't sound like him. and so, he is stuck, uncertain.

those who got alive are supposed to be bearers of memories... then why does his family tarnish his?

[akechi-stole-my-heart]

So, do you believe he’s alive, or that the person through the window was a coincidence? Or do you like the ambiguity of it?

Sorry I love hearing others thoughts and I love ur thoughts

- 💫 (appreciate it but am so shy. Not like I really super try to hide who I am haha..)

Oh, I definitely believe he's alive. I don't think Atlus would have put him in that window if we weren't meant to think he was alive. There's no coincidence, it's absolutely him. Like, sure, it's a school uniform, but no one in the game besides him wears it, that outfit is associated with Akechi and you're meant to believe that it's him. There's no narrative reason to include that scene except to hint that he's alive. And if it's meant to be entirely ambiguous they could have just left it with the glove, but they chose to go beyond Joker's hopes and actively hint that he's alive if you get the full true ending.

I don't think Atlus will ever put him in a game post-canon, though. His survival is supposed to be up to the viewer. That, imo, is the reason for the ambiguity. Akechi is alive only if YOU (you as in, both the player and Joker) want him to be. Just like you only get the full sequence of 2/2 with Hereward's Awakening if you maxxed him. If you want him to be alive, he is. If you want him to die, then he does. So they won't canonize it beyond that.

It's quite literally, textually, Akechi's bond with Joker that saves him. Without that bond, he would have died. And that's a beautiful narrative--that you can make a difference by reaching out. And that by forming a bond with someone, Akechi did the impossible and defied death. He died because he isolated himself, and he lives because of the one true bond he formed with someone else.

So, for that reason, I do like the ambiguity, because it makes Akechi's survival be directly linked with his bond with someone, and that works so well in the narrative of Persona and the themes of salvation and the meaning of life being the bonds you create with others. But that ambiguity is really only so beautiful if you believe that in the true ending, where Joker and Akechi established their bond and the two understand each other and love each other more than anything, Akechi is alive at the end.

Because if he isn't, then what's the point? His bond with Joker wasn't enough. He didn't defy fate, it was too late. And I think that goes against everything Persona stands for.

[ladyloveandjustice]

Question for the people who've been keeping up with comics from new 52/Rebirth/Infinite Frontier and Jason comics in particular- Does Bruce ever find out the circumstances of Jason's death? Because since he wasn't there, all he knows is he told Jason to stay there and not engage, Jason did not do that, he got beaten nearly to death, his mom was there, he attempted to shield his mom when the bomb went off, he died.

He never knew that Jason didn't just charge in there and try to fight the Joker, that he just went and talked to his Mom and told her he was Robin, that all he actually did was trust her and believe she was telling the truth when she said the Joker left when actually she led him into a trap and sold him out, that it was wanting to love and trust his Mom that led to it all, not "anger issues", Bruce doesn't know that his Mom just stood there and did nothing while he was beaten to death, he doesn't know that despite that Jason still tried to save her .

It would be genuinely good drama for him to find all this out, so like, did any comic whatsoever take advantage of that? at all?

Or any other Batfamily member who'd always been under the impression Jason being reckless and angry was what led to the Joker confrontation? Like reading through 80-90s-early 200s comics it was wild the different ways he was victim blamed over the years--I remember the Even Robins website back in the day immediately noted this as a parallel between his and Stephanie's deaths, they were both blamed for their deaths in the aftermath. Sometimes it was even implied Jason died because he was incompetent despite the comics he was in as Robin having zero indication of that, that was never his problem. "Dick had the skills all Jason had was anger etc". I don't really need that to be acknowledged (it felt extremely out of character sometimes, more the writer's issues with Jason) but it would be interesting to see what it would be like for someone who had a narrative in their head about it to learn the specifics.

Also has any single one ever gone into how Jason feels about his Mom after coming back? Does he resent her at all? Does he still grieve not saving her?

[quacktities]

I feel like the appeal of C! Quackbur (to me at least) is just how versatile it is as a ship and the range it has.

You want a subtle rivals to lovers, mutual pinning and longing but one of them is repressing his own feelings because he hates himself too much to let someone get attached to him ship dynamic with a political backdrop? You want longing gazes, knowing looks and the unspoken truth that, maybe, just maybe this relationship and understanding between them goes deeper than either of them let on or want to admit? BOOM. Lmanburg election arc Quackbur!

You want all of that but with more tension, high stakes, mental illness, a very "forbidden romance" vibe with an enemies that have been in love with eachother for a long time but can now finally be on the same side and possibly act on their feelings dynamic (but theyre doomed by the narrative so it was never going to work out. Or maybe it will, who knows. Maybe this time they find solace in eachother. Maybe this time Quackity stops him before its too late. Maybe this time it doesnt end in flames. Who knows. Its up to you really, if you keep telling the story over and over again, maybe this time they get their happy ending here and it doesnt have to be a tragedy. Your choice really). Pogtopia era C! Quackbur!

You want fucked up grief and angst and reminiscing on the past and being haunted by what could have been? You want seeing the spectre of your dead friend (if he was truly your old enemy, why does he feel like a past lover to you) and wondering if maybe he remembers everything you both went through the same way you do and if maybe his heart aches when he sees you the same way yours aches when you see him but you know he isn't the same and you'll never see the old verison of him ever again... but hes here... as a ghost.. and that has to be worth something right. (Is it a miracle you can still see him or are you forever being tormented by what you can never have?). BOOM, Butcher arc C! Quackity and Ghostbur (or Aftermath C! Quackbur as I call them)

You want all of that, but hey. What if we brought back the guy. What if it didn't have to end in death? What if they could reunite and speak again after everything? Would they even get along? You want the culmination of years of pinning, grief, hurt, and mutual obsession? Do they truly love each other, or have they fallen in love with the idealised verisons of each other they have in their own heads? Maybe this time, they'll actually get their shit together and talk. There really isn't anything stopping them now, other than themselves and each other. Maybe C! Quackity finally finds someone who respects him, is dedicated to him, and can engage with him on the same intellectual level in C! Wilbur. Maybe C! Wilbur finally finds someone who makes him feel human and can challenge him and his more self-destructive behaviours while still loving him in C! Quackity. Maybe this time, they get to understand each other, and they get to heal. Maybe this time, it's not too late, and sure, they dont have the healthiest relationship, but they're working on it, and they're okay for once. Just this once. Maybe. Or maybe you don't want that. Maybe it is too late for them. Maybe they'll never have what they once had, and they're both left with bitter hatred and longing for the past that grows weaker by the day as the rose tinted filter starts to fade. Maybe they make each other worse. Maybe the closest they ever get to being close to each other is by hurting each other. Maybe the only times they hold hands are when they're catching each other's bloody fists. Maybe they're both too far gone now. Maybe they've hurt each other too much to ever be vulnerable with each other. Maybe it's just too late for them. Maybe it was never meant to be. You want a joker card ship dynamic that can either end in healing and a happy ending or in an even more fucked up tragedy? Or both! Why not. BOOM. Post revival C! Quackbur

[batnotes]

Hiya! Noticed you’ve been posting about bats for a while. As a newer fan, I was wondering what are some things you love about Helena Bertinelli in particular or what’re things you think fans tend to overlook with her?

Aw, this is such a nice ask! Yeah, I'm recently returned to Tumblr after a long hiatus, but I've been a Batfam-fan for a verrrry long time. I've loved seeing your content---it makes me super happy to see others appreciating Helena Bertinelli. One disclaimer here I is grew up on the 90s/2000s comics and stopped reading after Flashpoint erased/retconned/de-aged/reworked-past-all-recognizability several of my favorite characters, chiefly Huntress and the Birds of Prey---while I've watched from afar the last decade-plus of stories, and have enjoyed a lot of Batfam fanfic set post-Flashpoint, my Helena is solidly pre-2011 Helena.

I had to give this some thought because I have too many reasons to love Helena. But I think the biggest thing that is overlooked about her is her astounding loyalty. Gonna link panels where I could find them easily because this became a bit of a manifesto as I was drafting it. Whoops.

Helena's loyalty to Gotham isn’t something she ever really articulates in words but it is there in all her actions. Both in her civilian life (Why else be a public school teacher? Why not any other kind of work? Why not just live on her inheritance?) and as a vigilante. Gotham is not good to Helena---personally and professionally, it repeatedly shows her the worst humanity has to offer (up to and including cannibals, not joking). But she continues to fight for it well beyond that of someone whose only loyalty is to themselves.

Leading up to the Quake and NML, Helena, who's been told several times at this point that she will not be getting an engraved invitation to the Batcave, is asked to assist in several major Batfam events. And she does! Every time! She might lampshade that very fact, but she never sits out when her help is needed. If she were only about her own agenda, she wouldn't respond as such. (Is this partly a product of the writers not knowing what to really do with her? Probably, but the effect is that for being a so-called loner with an all-consuming vendetta, she sure does help out a lot. And that's leaving aside all her multi-issue team-ups with Robin or her stint on the JLA....)

Fast forward to NML. 1) She stays in Gotham. Despite the perpetuated narrative that she’s a vigilante for vengeance (Babs’ narration harps on this in particular), the mafia has fled the city; there’s no personal gain for her in staying. But she does. (Without Barbara or Bruce's resources, I can't help but add.) 2) She becomes The Bat. For all the talk about how she wants Batman’s approval, he's not around to approve when she dons the cowl. She's not doing it for him. When she says, "he'll have to accept me," it's not that that's the goal, it's that she knows she's a worthy crimefighter and unquestionably committed to Gotham—Bats can’t gaslight her about that after this. She's verbalizing what no one is willing to ever admit (because NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT, even after she and Babs finally become friends), that she saw the city’s need and met it. Not what Helena needed, what Gotham needed. 3) She holds her ground when shit hits the fan. For all the talk that she "goes rogue" after her humiliating unmasking (and a frankly unhinged guilt-trip from Batman for not being able to do the impossible), she spends most of her time with the Strongmen reigning in Petit, not abetting his increasing insanity or abandoning his sector to his destructiveness, at the risk of her own life. (That this is exactly what Batman wanted her there to do...implying trust in her choices....GAH). And then of course her one-woman stand against the Joker and his goons, which speaks for itself.

Fast forward again to post-Cry for Blood (where Helena has again been mistrusted and left to fend for herself). We don't see much of Huntress for a while, but when she's back, I love that Helena can resent Batman with every fiber of her being but it never stops her from showing up: zero hesitation to come to Bruce’s rescue in Hush, when there's been no reconciliation between them. Bruce even acknowledges the enormity of that. She later throws herself out a freaking skycraper WINDOW when Checkmate tries to blackmail her into joining them and by extension sell out Batman. She says on panel this is something she would never do.

And of course it's not just Batman she shows up for. Within minutes of meeting Robin in Cry of the Huntress, she protects Tim from his own worst impulses; by their next team up, they're bantering about who owes who a rescue. When Babs calls Helena to ask her to rescue Black Canary in BoP, she goes, questioning only why Oracle is deciding to trust her with the mission, not the going or who it's for. And it's not just people she admires or likes! When she gets Oracle's distress call a few issues later---Oracle, who has held and expressed a grudge against Helena as much if not more than Batman has---Helena goes, immediately. Helena also subs for Arsenal (whom she barely knows, as they've never worked together) on the Outsiders for several months after he’s critically injured, even though it means dealing with an absurdly pissy Nightwing about it.

Her loyalty, despite all the horrors she's witnessed, despite the repeated ostracization, double standards, and lack of faith in her heart and her abilities, should nuance even her most cartoonish characterizations (looking at you, late 90s Chuck Dixon) and how we interpret her in-universe critics (particularly folks like Bruce and Babs).

Don't get me wrong. Helena is deeply flawed and I love that she's a character who grows and matures with many steps backward along the way. She's messy and complicated and I don't always love or understand her choices. But she also shows the hell up.

[ashenquill]

There are people who get really annoyed about the whole “pit rage” concept, but I am a firm believer that it can serve an important narrative purpose if you present it in a way that makes sense. You have a comedy, and it’s funny if Jason crashes out at every teeny tiny inconvenience? Okay, real, I’m giggling while I read it. You want to write soul-crushing angst where Jason hurts someone he loves without meaning to and regrets it deeply? Yeah, I’m bawling my eyes out, but I support your endeavors.

Equally, I see the value of not having it; you want it to be clear that Jason is his own man who makes his own decisions? You want to give him a chance for confrontation with no excuses as to why he’s “not in his right mind”? You want him to be angry, and to vent that anger, and you don’t like the idea of someone taking away from how deeply he was hurt by excusing his actions as “pit madness”? All incredibly valid, all incredibly strong narratives, and all very much fodder for the pain and suffering of the reader (/pos). I support his wrongs, he’s earned them (as a treat).

That being said, I kind of like the concept.

Now, there will always be people who disagree, and that’s okay! But me personally? I appreciate what it can add to Jason or Damian’s characters.

The way I like to think about it best is not as a separate emotion or entity that “takes control” whenever they get remotely angry, but rather as a temptation. A promise of extra wind beneath their wings, of strength and energy that only come with anger, but also the distinct lack of control that comes with it, too. The feeling you get when you’re in a heated argument and say something you don’t mean? That’s what you’re giving in to. It’s not that you lose control of yourself, it’s that you let yourself lose control (please tell me that makes sense I’m trying my best out here). Like, it’s not an out-of-body experience in the way that being blackout drunk is, it’s a very much in-body distraction that lets you get carried away when you normally wouldn’t. It’s still human anger, just louder and more demanding.

So, when Jason or Damian are experiencing “pit rage”, it’s not that they’re in this haze of I cannot control my own body or decisions, it’s that they’re in this haze of act now, think later. They are given the choice between engaging with that part of themselves, and they still have ultimate authority over their actions.

Now, this is where it gets interesting.

Because, see, Damian grew up in the League. He was the successor, the heir. He was taught to always use the pit for its extra strength(I know he didn’t get dunked before going to Bruce but just work with me here), that it was a weakness if he didn’t. He had to unlearn that, to realize that there was such a thing as “too far” sometimes, that lethal force could be unnecessary, that anger was not the only motivation for action. It’s no secret he started out angry and violent, and it’s entirely because he wanted to be strong. Because he was scared of what might happen to him, if he wasn’t.

But with Jason? He wasn’t taught that. He grew up on the streets of Gotham, yes, but he was adopted for his teenage years, and Bruce did his best to instill his morals in that time. Whether or not it worked is up to interpretation atp, since canon seems to be very unclear about it, but anyway. Jason’s dunk in the pit changed just about everything for him. He was dead and now he gets to see just how much his death impacted. Just how much it changed. And the answer he gets? Nothing. He doesn’t get to see the grief, the pain, the blatant breaches of morality. All he is shown is Gotham, same as it ever was, with Batman and Robin and the Joker. So yeah, he’s angry. He’s angry that he went unavenged, angry that he left seemingly no impact, angry that, despite all his pleading, Batman never once listened when Jason said that some people were just too evil to be spared. But most of all? He’s hurt. It hurts that he sees a better version of himself, a replacement, working with Bruce as an equal, one he trusts and listens to. It hurts that his killer is still out there, known and yet unpunished. And it hurts, more than anything, that even though Bruce lost Jason, it wasn’t enough to break him in the way it would normally break a parent to lose their child.

So maybe Jason isn’t his child, after all.

And that’s why he gives in to the pit rage. Not for the strength, but for the distraction. If he can convince himself that he’s angry, only angry, then he can ignore the way his chest hurts if he thinks about the new Robin for too long. If Jason loses himself in rage, he won’t have to find himself wandering though the dredges of loneliness. If he’s busy being pissed off at Bruce, then that means he won’t have time to think about how much he misses him. His dad, the man who raised him. The man who doesn’t see him as his son.

[umbrellajam]

*steeples fingers and stares at my tablet with gimlet eyes*

so. Road to NML. You mean to tell me that the reason the rest of the country, Congress, and the President himself decided to write Gotham off, blow the bridges, and isolate everyone left - all criminals and asylum lunatics and 'undesirables', of course - was in large part due to *checks notes* a satanic rock star's unnatural, irresistible charisma and cult-like media manipulations aimed at dooming the city for his own benefit?

and that in order to find out what actually happens to this villain, who disappears from the Batman and 'Tec storylines...I'd have to *checks notes* read Azrael's event issues?

....yeah, PASS. I only included JPV's book on my reading list when I absolutely had to (*cough* whenever Cass pops up *cough*), so it's off to the wiki summaries for me!

...but okay, on the one hand I find it very funny how thoroughly fandom has excised this demonic media influencer aspect from the collective consciousness of NML - or at least it had never made its way to me via either fic or fandom posts. I know how few people read comics in general in this fandom, and even for those who do, NML is a Beast that only a percentage have tackled (see: me just starting to pick away at it!), so honestly it's not that surprising.

and like it can easily be left out of the story and still leave it coherent lmao!! One can certainly argue things are in fact neater that way; certainly it's not something that would ever be kept (or at least not in the same form) if NML were adapted to another medium, except as perhaps a normal media demagogue (or a montage of them).

but on the other hand...hmm. Thinking about Hurricane Katrina hitting all of six years after the NML storyline played out. And the debate over whether funds should be used for reconstructing New Orleans and other massively damaged areas. And people around the country wondering if New Orleans would or should be rebuilt at all. Or if a vibrant, historic city would just be basically wiped off the map.

I know this is a conversation that happens everywhere and every time a major disaster wrecks a city. There are always huge fights over disaster aid and funding allocations of any kind.

but man. It's something to see this fictionalized depiction in such close proximity to a real life disaster that paralleled it so strongly, and to know that - yes, there are always people who Do Not Abandon Their Homes and work to reclaim them. Yes, massive amounts of aid (federal and otherwise) and federal reconstruction funding did get dispensed. Yes, people cared, and yes, we rebuilt.

so...maybe we do actually need the demonic social media influencer's evil powers in order to comic book logic explain how everyone in the country turned their backs on Gotham and created No Man's Land.

like - no, it's not necessary. the narrative would work without it. and yet...

the premise imagines - requires? - a significantly more callous, selfish populace. Still plausible and compelling! Possibly even stronger as a story since the turnaround for No Man's Land still hinges on winning the country over to open Gotham back up, let aid in, and rebuild. But. You do have to start from - kind of a bleaker take on humanity?

it also kind of reminds me of what scintillyyy pointed out a few weeks ago about Dick killing the Joker, and how actually there's an important comic book superpower interaction going on there, too, with Rancor present massively amplifying Dick's hate and anger to push him over the edge.

but so few people ever notice or remember that and it certainly isn't one of those things that gets transmitted via fandom osmosis. (It was news to me!!) People focus on Dick breaking down and letting loose solely due to being pushed too far.

and that's extremely compelling on its own! It is! Just like the no-satanic-Nick-Scratch NML.

just thinking about fandom's tendency to ellide the supernatural or powered influences that are canonically affecting a situation, in order to explore/focus on more purely humanistic explanations or motivations...that actually end up being darker than what we might reasonably expect from real life, or from a character's typical values.

like it's part wanting to brush off comic book nonsense, part wanting to dive into gritty realism (that's not always realistic), part not having all the information because of learning things secondhand so you construct the most reasonable explanation...idk it's just interesting.

anyway.

more importantly: Dick and Tim are adorable in 'Tec 727-729!! Especially love them trading off yelling each other's names in fear/alarm, and also trading off protecting each other - Dick's "You hurt that kid and you're gonna be eating through a tube!" and Tim's clever solo rescue of a thoroughly captive Dick via clever use of a voice modulator and a two-way radio. The Boys 😊

[thefrogsennaneverfound]

let's not forget that ricciardo once made a bet with helmut marko back in 2018 that bottas would lose his seat by the end of the season. all purely for his own shits and giggles.

fed the narrative that red bull were doing him dirty causing a load of hate to be sent to verstappen by his pack of rabid fans, when in reality verstappen was just better than him.

was happy to let his rabid stans mock esteban ocon's ability all across social media when they were teammates at renault and made a few sideways jabs egging them on, because esteban was losing to him.

spent the months before joining mclaren making digs about norris's age and experience, disguised as jokes but clearly mind games, and spoke about norris like he was a child who needed to be shown by the master (him) how to drive. (boy did karma bite him on that one)

egged on the interviewers making mugging jokes and then pretended to grab norris's new watch off his wrist during an interview just days after norris had been held in a chokehold and mugged, then laughed like norris was being a bad sport when he understandably didn't find the jokes funny and walked out of the interview.

put out that pr statement about being committed to mclaren purely for pr purposes, bringing a deluge of hate onto the team when it was announced they'd dropped him. later came out he already knew the writing was on the wall at that point so clearly did it just to try to turn the narrative into a pity party for him before word got out.

he/his team also deliberately fed misleading information to espn during his time at mclaren saying that norris was only beating him because it was the only car he had ever driven in f1 and it was tailored around him and implying norris was overrated, only for him to be forced to admit when directly asked in an interview once he had left the team that the car hadn't suited norris either and that he was frequently baffled by the things he could see on the data that norris was able to do with the car that he just wasn't able to.

agreed pre-race in baku 2022 to the strategy of the two mclaren's holding station in whichever order they were at the end of the first lap in order to work together to use drs to keep the alpine of ocon behind, only for him to then get on the radio knowing it would be broadcast to whinge about how unfair it was that lando was holding him up from getting past alonso, forcing the team to tell him no they weren't swapping them and making the team look bad. he was pissy he hadn't been the lead mclaren at the end of the lap so had to hold behind and knew exactly what he was doing with that radio message. admitted after the race that the strategy had been arranged beforehand and that he wouldn't have got past alonso either as the mclaren was so slow on the straight, but by then the damage was done and norris and the team were being dragged all over social media by his rabid dog-pack.

never once condemned his fans for bullying his mclaren mechanics on social media (to the point one of their wives was posting begging the staniels to stop because it was having an adverse affect on the mechanics' mental health), didn't condemn them sending death threats to his engineer after the radio in baku when tom stallard asked him if the car was okay (he didn't realise ricciardo had crashed at this point, he thought the car had broken down), made digs that fed into his stans mocking norris's very real mental health struggles, and didn't condemn them from sending hate to a mental health charity that mclaren work with.

took visible pleasure in being undeservedly handed de vries's seat on a silver platter last season.

he is not mr nice guy at all. he is incredibly manipulative and good at playing the pr game. he also gets away with some really cruel jokes and jabs by putting on the 'joker' smile and playing the it's only banter card.

egged on the interviewers making mugging jokes and then pretended to grab norris's new watch off his wrist during an interview just days after norris had been held in a chokehold and mugged, then laughed like norris was being a bad sport when he understandably didn't find the jokes funny and walked out of the interview.

Another very salient point I'd forgotten about. Thanks for pointing out this and so many other examples of his nasty behaviour.

he is not mr nice guy at all. he is incredibly manipulative and good at playing the pr game. he also gets away with some really cruel jokes and jabs by putting on the 'joker' smile and playing the it's only banter card.

Absolutely; this takes us right back 'round to the 'charming bully' analogy. The likes of Tsunoda don't make a fuss about his bullying so he gets away with it. Norris does make it clear that he doesn't think it's in the least bit funny (it was downright fucking cruel to bate him like that) so he twists it to make the victim look bad. Utterly vile behaviour and, sadly, Ricciardo is a long way from being in a minority of people who get away with it.

I really do appreciate you taking the time to add to the ever lengthening list of why that obnoxious twerp is such a wrong 'un. It's likely that some folks reading our descriptions of his behaviour will recognise people in their own lives who've been getting away with treating them badly just because they know they can get away with it. Maybe it'll give them the courage to be a Lando rather than a Yuki (although I don't mean to disparage Tsunoda) and make a stand.

[darkshadow90]

I Didn’t Like Joker 2 (Spoilers Mentioned)

Hey guys. I’ve wanted to post my thoughts on Joker 2. I’m still having trouble putting all my thoughts together especially since I’m really tired, so bear with me. First off before I start my rant, I just want to say to those of you that enjoyed the movie, that’s fine. I’m not trying to take that away from you. Nor I’m I telling you you’re wrong for liking it. You can like whatever you want. That being said, I didn’t like it all. I found it to be really upsetting. I have a lot of similar feelings that other people who didn’t like it have, so I’m probably going to come off as parroting points that people have expressed. But I really do feel the same way.

So when I hear people say, people didn’t want to see Arthur, they wanted to see Joker, yeah, in my case they’re not entirely wrong. Listen, I knew this isn’t supposed to be Clown Prince of Crime Joker. I knew it’s a different take on the character. I didn’t necessarily need to see him going up against Batman. I’m okay with different takes on the Joker. That’s what makes this Joker special. I found him to be unique and his story compelling. If they were going to make a sequel, I wanted to see more of this Joker. I wanted to see more of a continuation of where the first movie left off. But as the previews came out, I realized I might not be getting that. I was still willing to give it a chance. I thought maybe this could be a unique take on the Joker and Harley relationship. Instead I felt like I got slapped in the face and curb stomped.

The sequel basically retcons Arthur’s whole transformation into the Joker. Like, I’m sorry, am I supposed to forget the final scene in the first movie? It’s never mentioned. It was heavily implied he killed the psychiatrist in cold blood, but I guess that guy never existed? So we’re back to Arthur being like he was at the beginning of the first movie. Okay…still gonna see what happens. At least he might get to have some people in his life, like Harley or make friends with some inmates and have some happiness? Nope.

Arthur just gets used and abused by everyone around him and his life is hell. He doesn’t get to have any happiness. Sure it happened in the first movie, but it had the narrative pay off of Arthur becoming Joker and the people who treated him badly getting their comeuppance. Here we’re just watching Arthur’s and essentially Joker’s whole story being destroyed, and him having his dignity taken from him. There’s one scene where we get some of Joker with Gary. I loved it but then it’s completely undercut later on. Also like I said earlier, the Joker at the very end of the first movie wouldn’t have cared that he ruined Gary’s life. At that point, he was completely a monster who didn’t care whether someone was good or bad. He basically gave up on everyone and society and said “Fine, they want a monster? I’ll give them a monster.” The first movie was all about how a person can become a monster from a society without empathy. This movie completely undid all that.

After a little bit of Joker comes out in the scene with Gary, and Joker talking shit about the guards in Arkham, when Arthur is taken back to Arkham, the guards sexually assault him. It’s so unnecessary and really disturbing and upsetting. It didn’t need to be in the movie. At this point Arthur decides he doesn’t want to be Joker anymore, that there was never a Joker, just him. What the fuck, that just shits all over the first movie then. Then at the end of the movie, Arthur gets killed by some random guy who doesn’t even have a name. So basically fuck me and the rest of us who found Arthur to be an interesting character and this Joker’s story compelling. The guy at the end of the first movie who killed a psychiatrist in cold blood? Never existed. He’s a nobody.

It really does feel like this movie was made out of spite for DC fans or really anyone who enjoyed the first movie and resonated with it. I don’t mean to parrot what other people have said, but it does feel like they set out to destroy everything the first movie built up. I guess the message was we shouldn’t like the Joker because he’s bad or whatever. Okay, but like, it’s too late. People liked this take on the character and his story. What, were a few edgelords like “Yeah I feel like Arthur does and I think he’s a hero and I wanna be like him.” Or something? Is that really what Todd and crew took away from people who said they empathized with Arthur and resonated with his story? That they idolized the Joker and wanted be like him? No one was saying that. People can empathize with a villain and not condone their actions.

I guess the joke was on me and a lot of other people the entire time. We got clowned. We had all these theories about the guy in Arkham at the end of the first movie. We wondered who he was or if Arthur ever even existed and the whole story was made up by the Joker to get sympathy from the audience. Turns out it doesn’t matter because that guy never existed and Arthur is nobody. I’m not gonna let it ruin the first movie. I hate this movie. I wish we never got a sequel. Once again, if you like this movie, more power to you. I’m gonna pretend it doesn’t exist.

[trying-out-stuff]

Today's batman issue came out and I'm gonna focus on damian and what might happen and why I'm not happy at all .

My main problem is damian is being left alone with zur (see panels of today) the child here and not with the batfam (minus bruce) the adults... as we see them being together talking without Damian which makes it look as if damian didn't reconnected with them since gotham war (not counting the other books I'm only focusing on the chip run).

Last we saw damian, he was alone helping defeat the villain army in gotham with cass, duke and tim. Since then we had Bruce disconnected from the batfamily and the bat computer while looking for joker. We know Bruce left Dick and Barbara in charge of the family and act as parents for the rest (which kinda weird since all of them not counting Damian are adults with their own personal lives).

Zur decides to upload himself into failsafe and emprison Bruce with joker and other crminals in blackgate and acting out as batman from this issue.

Jason meets up with zur and doesn't really believe it's Bruce while talking to Barbara. My first issue is when Damian shows up to meet up with zur it looks like he isn't connected to oracle (this might end up wrong but for the moment it is) and all the rest of the batfam met up with oracle at her tower.

Which weird, why is Damian alone going to see zur ?

Is he playing double agent ? maybe but I wouldn't be so sure...

We know chip zdarsky likes to uplift Tim by downplaying or denigrating the other robins including Damian (see Tim towards Damian in batman #138). And chip doesn't seem to like Damian all that much.

So narratively speaking, If anything happens to Damian for being with zur I'm gonna blame the batfam and bruce not even joking, Damian is a 14 years old teen who can make choices but isn't supposed to be alone to decide (like hello he was alone during the lazarus tournament and the period when he was excluded from the family and they weren't there for his 14th birthday).

What might happen ?

We know in batman #147 that zur will have a sidekick and I'm very worried it might be Damian...

If it's Damian, I hope it isn't willingly and if it is, he better be a double agent or else...

[fractualized]

Zdarsky’s run on Batman ends soon, thoughts? 🎤

lmao I feel like I could either toss out a dismissive one-liner or rant for like a dozen paragraphs. Guess I'll go with the latter.

We'll, I'm certainly not going to miss him at the helm. I read Batman: The Knight, and even though I agree with the criticism of the end, it showed competent storytelling with a good emotional core, which is the most basic of standards, but let's be real, this is comics, I'll take competent any day. And when his Batman run started, I had caught up on Snyder-King-Tynion Batman and was excited to follow a run in real time.

I'd say I stopped having a good time when Bruce got sent to the alternate universe. Penguin faking his death was fun. Bruce being pursued by a dramatic robot version of himself was fun. Bruce again fretting about protecting the family was… par for the course. Calling back to Zur-En-Arrh didn't bug me because I hadn't read that full storyline yet, so it felt like a gateway to digging back into lore. Bruce surviving a fall through the Earth's atmosphere was too fucking ridiculous but the kind I can look past. (Imagine you're a DC writer. You have the idea: lol what if Batman got out of this by surviving a fall from the moon. You have opened that door in your mind. Do you have the will close it or would you be like FUCK IT LET'S DO IT?)

The Red Mask universe, however, dragged any momentum at that point to a stop, and I honestly don't care enough to dig deep into all the reasons why, which I guess gets at the core of what was wrong with the Red Mask universe. (Skeleton Jim Gordon was the most interesting thing but he was just a temporary side effect or something? Whatever.)

But, of course, since I'm a Joker fan, Darwin Halliday was a major sticking point as the most boring Joker to never joke. Nearly everything Zdarsky did with Joker was a major sticking point.

It still drives me crazy that from Snyder to the Zdarsky run, we had a Joker who tried to force Bruce both away from the batfam and Selina and back to basics multiple times, so their battle could be one-on-one again. We had a Joker who, after Bruce left him to die, was notably depressed and suicidal at the end of Joker 2021. He is still that way at the start of The Man Who Stopped Laughing.

And you could follow from that with the basic beats of what Zdarsky did. You could say Joker is disillusioned with his relationship with Batman, and that's why he turns to Zur-En-Arrh, a real Batman. But no, everything has to be too fucking complicated. We have do yet another retcon of so much other stuff and say that Joker always was looking for Zur. And we have to a weird take on Three Jokers because people were really biting at the bit to get a real answer within canon like a decade after Johns wrote that nonsense?? I don't know, I don't do marketing research, but I'm pretty sure if they just quietly never addressed it, it would be fine.

And the freaking Captio stuff. Ugh. UGH. I really just. I feel like this is a product of overthinking. "Well, Batman is so thoroughly trained, it only makes sense that Joker had at least some of the same training to beat him." No. Fuck that. We don't need that. Joker rivals Batman out of sheer audacity. I like that it doesn't really make sense that a clown pushes him to the limit. I like the juxtaposition of Bruce having to do so much training and learning to survive, but Joker is a cockroach revived by the narrative. I like Joker being a plague and a mystery that Batman cannot resolve. I like Joker being essentially absurd. No, it doesn't make sense, but he's here to stab you out of love and you better know how to dodge.

So much of Batman comics now are not about telling a fun Batman story. They're stories about Batman stories, just circling back and cannibalizing each other into a total fucking mess, and putting the city on the brink of destruction so much that those stakes no longer have meaning. There has to be a writer out there who wants to get back to just telling a smaller action/detective story that makes the reader give a shit about what's happening instead of feeling like maybe they're just not getting it, like they missed homework.

And I say that as someone who started reading Morrison's full run when Zdarsky's started so I could have the Zur background. I had to pause when Morrison's writing got to be too much (for the bad reasons!). I intended to jump back in again, but then Zdarsky's run nosedived and the effort no longer seemed worth it.

Especially when everything paused for Gotham War. Jesus Christ. The only good thing to come out of that was Rosenberg's second Red Hood issue. But speaking of Gotham War, I do wonder if there'll be an article years from now that will reveal Zdarsky had to deal with too much editorial fiat. He had to interrupt his Zur story not only with the badly executed Catwoman plot and the Knight Terrors, but cram in a Three Jokers explanation.

And speaking of Rosenberg, I can't end without mentioning that because he started TMWSL around the same time Zdarsky started on Batman, and they both had their protagonists dealing with other versions of themselves, man, there was such potential for a crossover event. Me and my pals had lots of fun theories about how these series would converge, because the idea that they wouldn't seemed ridiculous. There were two Jokers in TMWSL, and at the same time in Batman #131, Halliday seemed to have created three of them. I didn't like Halliday, but still, what did that mean? It would be ridiculous for those developments to be unrelated, right? RIGHT?

Joke's on us, as usual. 🤪

[weloveakechi]

Here’s the thing about why I think Akechi’s alive and why his return on Christmas Eve is really him.

He shows up to take Akira’s place testifying against Shido. As a simultaneous thank you to Akira and one last fuck you to Shido (Seriously the satisfaction he’d get by being the reason Shido’s crimes stick is not explored enough). It’s great, good for Akira and good for Akechi.

It’s also a thing that is only required because of the deaths and chaos caused in the Metaverse.

But in Maruki’s reality, Shido’s in prison for trying to overthrow the government. That’s it. No Metaverse murders have happened to charge anyone over.

So Akechi showing up to testify and turn himself in makes no sense. To Akechi it does, he still remembers said crimes, but if Maruki’s world were settled? Sae wouldn’t even be there asking the question.

And if Maruki’s very first act after gaining massive powers is to make Akechi stroll back into Akira’s life on Christmas Eve, why not do it in a way that makes it so they can be together right away?

It’s because Akechi is alive and well on Christmas Eve.

It’s him standing there, ready to pay back his debt to Joker and the Thieves in the only way he has left. Maruki has no idea this is happening. He’s still probably reeling from the sudden influx of power streamed over to him post Yaldy going down.

Leaving Akechi just enough time to well and truly assert himself into the narrative and screw with any neat and tidy plans Maruki might be dreaming of.

Maruki steps in only after Akechi’s gone and tossed himself in prison, effectively ruining any chance for Akira and Akechi to spend time together happily. And Maruki can’t have that, he needs to properly thank Akira for all his help (and all that godlike power he’s suddenly got).

So he’s scrambling, and wipes everyone’s records by removing the Metaverse crimes. (It also conveniently means Okumura and Wakaba are back too). And boom happy ending for everyone right? Right? Why aren’t these boys living their happy lives?

It’s the funniest possible reason to have Akechi alive and well. It’s hilarious if Akechi’s alive and the first thing any of us see him do next is becoming an absolute menace to the next godlike being that rolls up threatening to assert control over him. He’s really out here living up to his full potential and creating chaos for everyone (including himself). Truly some Wild Card behavior

[themattress]

Arcane's second season was shakier than the first, but still hit way more than it missed.

With that said, there is one part of it that I am really, really disappointed in.

(SPOILERS BEHIND CUT)

Jinx.

So, the concept for Arcane and whatever shows follow it is that it's the reality behind the world and characters seen in League of Legends. Legends have to come from somewhere, after all, and we see how they came to be in Arcane. And that works...except for Jinx.

In the first season, there was no such problem. It was masterful in being an origin story for Jinx, concluding with her choosing her path and becoming the nihilistic, psychopathic terrorist that would become legendary for her evil deeds. But similarly to Joker: Folie a Deux and how it handled its title character, the second season displayed great narrative cowardice by backtracking on this. It didn't do it immediately, mind you - Act 1 still had Jinx as she was where we left her, someone whose sole motivation in life is to "watch it all burn". She's not pure evil, as displayed by her bonds with Sevika and Isha, but she's also not redeemable.

Yet then Act 2 starts and she's suddenly become this inspiring symbol of resistance for Zaunites even though her actions have made things objectively worse for them by every metric. She resists this label only to later embrace it, becoming a "big fat hero" as she puts it. Then we get the revelation of Warwick being Vander, which is followed by Jinx reconciling with Vi and basically becoming Powder again, which is followed by her heroically saving Caitlyn's life, which is followed by her losing Isha which turns her suicidal only to be talked down from it by Echo which is followed by the finale where....well, if you're reading this far you probably already know. And all of this is executed pretty well, but it begs the question:

"How the fuck did any of that result in THIS being the public perception of Jinx!?"

How did the legend of Jinx become her as a villain and not her as a hero? She had already become viewed as a hero by Zaun even when she technically wasn't one, and then she played a huge and very flashy role in saving Piltover during the final battle, meaning they should also see her more positively now! There is no logical reason that the narrative of her as a loony terrorist who blows shit up for the lolz should be the one enshrined into legend.

And what hurts is that no other character has this issue. Vi, Caitlyn, Jayce, Viktor, Ekko, Heimerdinger, Singed, Warwick, not to mention the inevitable Mel legend that's going to be added to the game like her mother was...you can totally track how their legendary characters were shaped even if it's not wholly reflective of reality with a lot of nuances missing. But Jinx now has a huge disconnect between the person and the legend that doesn't make any sense.

Like I said, it feels like narrative cowardice. The ending of Season 1 had Jinx choosing the "Jinx" chair over the "Powder" chair, telling Vi things can never go back to how they were between them, and then has her let out a scream as she fires her bazooka at Piltover which was clearly meant to symbolize Powder's death cry; through committing this act, Jinx is killing what was left of her old self. The natural follow-up to this was for her to stay as she was presented in Season 2's Act 1 - no morality, no grander purpose, just living for chaos. But Jinx became popular, including with the writers, and they didn't want to commit to the tragedy they'd so excellently built up. It's such a letdown. Arcane and Jinx both deserved a lot better.