Psrinklers - Psrinker

i know starlin is seen as the main post-crisis jaybin writer but jason writers PLEASE read collins

(pictures are from batman #409 and #411)

i also think people try to equate bruce and jason’s flaws as vigilantes despite the fact that they are representative of two distinct issues. wrt bruce there is a dissonance between his awareness of the law as a tangible, corruptible institution versus his belief in the law as an intangible, incorruptible ideology (hence his relationship with gordon as a “good cop” who uniquely upholds the law as bruce sees it despite the fact that gordon is realistically as much an extension and product of the corruptible institution as much as anyone else is, and the ideology bruce wants to believe in is created by the institution). wrt jason there is a dissonance between his helplessness in the face of the institution and his over-corrective ideology that thereby bleeds into a mimicry of said institution (which you could correctly criticize as character assassination of the socially marginalized, and/or use as a conduit to explore the divide between defensive and offensive vigilantism)

under the clarity of i have still not slept and it’s half past 4 in the morning, i can safely say that i was wrong:

jason would have a plan for being caught, in fact he would have a whole speech prepared complete with citations. this doesn’t mean that at this point he wouldn’t crumple like damp paper as soon as bruce tries to bring him home, either going with him or running away, but he’d give a valiant effort. (maybe, secretly, he was hoping or even relying on being caught here, making him all the more at a loss when faced with the detonator in the actual comic.)

lost days jason being picked up by the scruff of his neck after batman accidentally catches him planting the bomb on the batmobile. jason immediately goes to attack but because he’s not trained to kill as well as he is later on he’s disarmed quite easily. jason looking so young, not having killed anyone yet, and not being in control of the situation through careful planning meaning bruce is more likely to accept him but jason’s emotions are completely raw to where his actions are just fully calculated fury and hurt. also this is before wargames and stephanie’s death so that would make bruce have less emotionally vulnerable because his lack of fresh grief and guilt.

Fanon batfam fans are scary man. Why are they always fantasizing about Tim or Jason telling Damian, “if u don’t shut up i will sleep with ur grandpa/mom. Already did it.”

Like, telling a minor (who’s usually depicted as 10-11 in fanon) about ur sexual activities (with his OWN FAMILY MEMBERS) is actually weird as hell… Especially when they say it as soon as damian opens his mouth to say legit anything…

odyssey has it 29 times illiad has it 32 times overall homer writes the word thighs a total of 61 times

the more you know.

ophelia represents who hamlet truly is whereas laertes represents who he desperately aspires to be.

at the beginning of the play, laertes is able to return to normal life after the funeral/wedding with the approval of both a loving father and claudius, an obvious contrast to the mourning, trapped, and isolated hamlet. ophelia is then shown to be similarly trapped but due to patriarchal forces, with hamlet contributing to her conflict of family, freedom, and love.

when it comes to love caused madness and duty driven vengeance as responses to grief, hamlet chooses the former whilst desperately searching the will to commit the latter. and ophelia and laertes act as personifications of this conflict with the way they naturally embody these ideas respectively. madness is therefore the feminine weakness and vengeance the masculine triumph, right? but no, things only go downhill once hamlet’s desires for revenge cause him to become impulsive in the killing of polonius, and the play’s end can be seen as laertes’ fatal error in letting his rage cloud his judgement on claudius’ scheming. because at the end of the day, whilst ophelia may die before laertes, they all succumb to their ailments of grief.

hamlet was always doomed, not because he was foolish, but because he was trapped between two false representations of mourning, the madness of remembering and the indiscriminately destructive force of revenge. and thus he infects ophelia, laertes, and, in a very shakespearean manner, makes the whole of denmark “rotten”

the creature (frankenstein) and jason todd parallels:

associations with death and therefore transgression

negative influence of father figures

questions of nature vs. nurture

sympathetic killer and antagonist

a ‘rebirth’ that leads them into vengeance against the neglect of their father figures, along with giving them agency through education or cognisance after being deprived of the ability to realise their suffering- the delaceys and lazarus pit

being rejected of their one morally questionable wish towards their father figure

goes on a path of vengeance that leads to their deaths

lower class or representative of them that is given a ‘voice’

dismissed from their emotions because of their violence/intimidating stature

strange niche of characters who would read frankenstein and cry because they related to the creature

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

nothing shows a character is evil quite like a good cooking montage