I Also Think People Try To Equate Bruce And Jason’s Flaws As Vigilantes Despite The Fact That They

the day that people stop simplifying jason’s ideologies to the death penalty and punitive justice is the day i find peace

so the diomedes server told me to post this... im not sorry

the minimal amount of context below the cut

courtesy of @ithacantrickster and @jewishdainix

oh and this is in context of Jorge mentioning Diomedes in his potential Trojan War musical themes

Hal and Ollie being queercoded as fuck but the Tumblr/tiktok/ao3 gays not giving a shit about either of them is the funniest thing ever to me.

Like it is played into so much more than most actually popular DC slash ships, but I borderline hesitate it to call it queerbaiting because they're so unsuccessful at actually baiting shippers. I swear they get more attention when they just have batman and superman stand in the same room.

under the hood is not a conflict formed out of violent miscommunication; it’s a tragedy born out of irreconcilable differences between father and son, catalysed by the most traumatic event conceivable.

whilst, yes, batman initially believes jason was fighting him because he failed to save him then later on believes that jason is asking him to kill joker in that moment instead of making him watch the joker to be killed, the resolved miscommunication fixes nothing. you can even say it gets worse because now it’s not something that can be understood as an unavoidable hurt of the past or an easier justification of his moral line, it’s the one thing that is somewhat reasonable to ask but that batman is unable to provide- killing the joker himself or allowing jason to take the joker’s life without trying to prevent it.

jason knowing that batman attempted to kill the joker in his grief or that nightwing did succeed temporarily changes nothing because nothing changed. the joker is not dead and the fact remains that if batman and nightwing wanted him truly dead, he would be and the deaths of so many would have been prevented.

jason knows he was loved, in fact he actively mocks it because that love was not enough to save him or avenge him like he points out the same for nightwing when bludhaven explodes. but he doesn’t need just love, he needs to be prioritised by his father and batman can never let go of his morals to do so. in batman #425, batman implies that the death of so many as a result of garzonas’ fathers vengeance is jason’s fault, showing that it’s only a natural consequence for a father to avenge his son, with the only one at fault for the blood feud being the son’s murderer. jason has every right to have expected batman to kill based off this and batman just can’t do it. therefore batman hides behind his mission to rationalise his guilt to his son, causing jason to replicate his language of vigilantism and costumed conflict, using his own goal to appeal to him.

both jason and bruce are simultaneously correct on their moral stances on murder (not taking into consideration the extremes and perhaps diversion from the core of their moral philosophies), it’s been a subject debated and questioned for an inconceivably long period of human history and will continue to be done be done because there is no definitive ‘right’ in ethics. they’re both highly intelligent, motivated, and thoughtful characters who definitely considered all possibilities and landed on their moral code.

moreover, even if one of them was more ‘correct’ than the other and should move towards the other moral view, they can’t; both have made their stances on the issue as a foundational to their lives. batman can’t let go of his belief in hope and the sanctity of human life and jason can’t let go of needing vengeance to be able to continue on in his second chance at life and the question of how many more lives is he willing to risk for sustaining an individuals right to life.

also, on a meta level, their conflict is that of conventions of the superhero genre combatting criticism of it. batman does as any hero is expected to and treats jason as the antagonist he is with his murder spree whilst also responding to the final trolley dilemma by trying to find a ‘third option’ of keeping both jason and the joker alive. but jason mocks and criticises batman’s approach to vigilantism and the given tropes he embodies and we are somewhat encouraged to root for him in part of his calling out of batman’s extremes such as when he cries out for the death of captain nazi. jason pushes batman into a moral corner and he is killed by him because of it, shutting down jason’s genre awareness and serving as a final, damning critique of batman. both batman and jason todd’s defiance can not co exist because to do so would erase the valid criticism jason makes without meriting it or would cause batman to betray his own respectable mythos.

it’s a tragedy of father and son torn apart by their conflicting and extreme opposing moral principles that cannot be altered without work being put in that dc is unwilling to do. they both need to fight because they love each other and feel the need to bring the other to their side, but in their futile efforts “everybody still loses.”

yet another reason why queer romance in media that is very subtle or more queer-coding than actual explicit rep is so much more compelling than the wealth of straight stories that are out there is bc I think a lot of romance writers forget that you have to like. show not tell. and imply things. and if you hustle things along and put two characters together for the sake of it instead of really working to build their relationship and show how well they work with each other it's not really going to be as interesting to people. and for some reason, a staggering amount of people do not know how to write romance properly so you get a very bland forced dynamic that either feels like an afterthought (he's a boy and she's a girl, hey they could be together because that's what happens!) or the only thing that matters about their characters (see her? she's the Love Interest. that is all she's there for)

however if you're being censored and you literally can't make your characters say "I love you" or kiss or maybe even hold hands you're going to have to come up with more creative ways to tell your audience that they're in love and that usually results in the most poetic beautiful stuff you've ever seen that's SO much more interesting than two characters who make eye contact and go into the slow-mo rose petals scene that's basically screaming at you "hey look at these two. they're in love. you're supposed to be invested in their relationship now. do you get it?" eye contact held for slightly too long in an emotional scene is more compelling. a hand very lightly touching their back is WAY more compelling.

and might I add this is not even impossible to achieve with uncensored straight romances at all like Pride & Prejudice is wildly popular for this exact reason. how many times have I seen people going insane over the hand flex scene. they didn't even kiss in that movie unless you count the extended ending. and everyone loves it. because it's done RIGHT.

tldr; romance is hard to write and you have to put in the effort if you want people to care about your ship. now go forth and imply something

QUICK EDIT TO ADD ALSO when things are more subtle that gives people more space to interpret the dynamic as whatever they want. something might be subtle because that's all they're allowed to show, but something might be subtle because that literally what it's supposed to be. as an aroace person I personally see a LOT of queerplatonic vibes from more subtly played relationships and it's so incredibly exciting and heartwarming for me. and that's a whole new realm of relationship that I think should also be given more attention

(batman #422)

as much as this story is deeply flawed, this is an interesting take on batman’s no kill rule. batman is a figure practically leading a one man war against violent crime, and being someone who holds restraint with every fibre of his being he knows he needs a system to hold himself accountable if he loses himself along the way.

despite the system’s extreme flaws maybe, to bruce at least, there is no better way for batman to define his moral limits and judgements. he doesn’t hold good account with jim gordon because otherwise he would be arrested, he could easily evade arrest; but he does it to be under the spotlight of the best representation of a possible uncorrupt legal system. the justification that he is one kill away from being a serial killer shouldn’t be the truth necessarily but it’s the worst case senario that batman must account for- the potential flaws of letting himself define what he does meaning he becomes the extremes of violent crime he is fighting against.

it’s ultimately hypocritical because batman aligning himself with the law means he perpetuates a corrupt system that causes part of the violent crime he despises and when he goes above and beyond to solve a case such as his interrogations it imitates police brutality. however, in fiction, injuries and trauma caused by batman’s methods have less consequences than the inescapable reality of murder and the reliance on corruption lets infamous rogues out of prison yet again leads to more entertainment. this meaning batman’s hypocrisy is much more palatable and justifiable on paper.

“An act of translation is an act of betrayal” (quote by r.f. kuang which is paraphrased from roland barthes) is so interesting when considering mythological retellings.

obviously ancient texts have to be translated which is to be considered in distorting meaning, but also many retellings can be seen as a more liberal translation of the original stories.

probably the two biggest examples i could use for this in homer’s works is miller’s ‘the song of achilles’ and rivera-herrans’ ‘epic the musical.’

tsoa covers a wider range of time from patroclus’ birth to achilles’ death rather than the small period of the 9th year of the trojan war like the iliad which means stretching the iliad and other myths to fit into a cohesive story. also in order to prioritise the clarity of the love story between patroclus and achilles she may have decided to cut out some of achilles’ more irredeemable actions such as the raping of his slave, briseis. it’s a betrayal to the events of the original texts, the complexity of achilles’ moral character interacting with his relationship with patroclus, and of the suffering that briseis should be seen as having gone through. however in order to fit the romanticised idea of patroclus and achilles’ love and stay more faithful to what the story would have been if told in the modern day, the shifting of the truth can be seen to some as necessary.

epic on the other hand changes also in making the story fit over a longer period of time by being chronological rather than odysseus’ tale in phaeasia telling the decade between the war and his homecoming, but more importantly it has to change its form altogether from the remains of epic poetry we have. which is almost a translation from the performances of homer played by lyre, to a written translation into english, and then finally to the adapted story back in the form of music. perhaps it may be a betrayal of homers actual words but it is arguably more faithful to how people in ancient times would have perceived the story. it captures the spirit of the tale, retaining the themes of fantasy, family, heroism, and leadership, all to the background of music. however some of the themes can’t be carried across because cultural values and practices like ‘xenia’ (hospitality) would not be understood by a modern audience. it’s a reduction of all that the odyssey considers but it’s almost impossible for us to understand or truly translate because we don’t live in their society. this can be said on a lesser level about odysseus heroism and fidelity to where his actual actions must be twisted to retain an impression close to original one intended.

translation may be betrayal, but that’s not always a bad thing. the closest way i can consider it is a cruel inevitability.

“not all men” you’re right, Horatio would never

hey guys have you ever heard of THE CHARACTER. i’m thinking about THE CHARACTER. honestly can’t even get shit done because i’m thinking about THE CHARACTER. i’m listening to a song and imagining THE CHARACTER. all i know and love is THE CHARACTER