this is perhaps completely obvious, but the comparison of pre-crisis vs post-crisis jason runs is such a poignant illustration of how the intentions of the writers make a world of difference.
pre-crisis jay was, ironically, at the beginning of his career much more of a thrill-seeker and much less serious about his motivations behind his desire to be a sidekick than post-crisis jay ever was. he was also much more reckless. he said, for instance, that studying crime was even worse than doing homework, and what interested him was going after "action." he didn't like the thought of not being credited for his actions. but he was still a character written with so much sympathy and enthusiasm – with so much open and continuous consideration for his youth, his past, his feelings. and the readers saw that! so many of them loved him! when you look at the back pages of these issues, issues in which jay often committed mistakes during patrols, in which he was at times petty and moody, you see with how much compassion they looked at him. there were letters that started with hate about the art or the storytelling, and ended with warm and attentive analyses of jay's character.
and the thing is, reactions to post-crisis might have been worse, but i don't think it was ever a matter of people disliking any iteration of jason todd from the start (even if some were certainly prejudiced as dick grayson fans. and as bigots); it's simply that post-crisis jay has never been written with a similar amount of care. o'neil saying that "people really hated jason" and that "he didn't know why" is absurd because (well, first of all, i don't think that he was ever that hated, and second of all) he was specifically written in a way that prevented a lot of casual readers to connect with him. pre-crisis, we see jay's perspective all the time, also beyond the patrols. he's much meaner than post-crisis jay a lot of times! for example, he tells julia (alfred's daughter), who is at the time staying at the manor, that he saw new flat listings, insinuating that she should move out because he is bothered by her presence. and that's rude. that's a reason why someone could think that he is a spoilt child (which imo pre-crisis jay actually very much is. i don't think it's a bad thing). but we also see him in his bed later, wondering "how could i have said something like that to her?" so naturally we see it from his side too.
on the contrary, when it comes to post-crisis jay, we have almost no insight into his head up until a death in the family. and of course, starlin admitted that he did want to make him unlikable; so suddenly everything jay does, including acting against orders, is written to make him seem like a difficult, unpleasant kid. but something you really have to understand is that the same attitude, when previously displayed by pre-crisis jay or even dick (!) was seen as endearing; a sign of bravery and an honest heart. in the first issues by collins, as well as barr's detective comics run, there's a semblance of recognition for that. beyond that, the whole narrative of his (very short) published history gets hostile. and starlin might not have written any of that outright, but you see that shift. all of a sudden a decision that would make you go "aww" if moench or barr wrote it, makes you displeased. i think one thing to take away from that is asking if it were depicted in the same tone if dick or tim did the same thing, for example. it's content that requires a much more critical attitude from the reader, that's for sure.
151 notes
·
View notes
ehehe 4 arm raph,,, with glasses,,,
anyway hes made projections with 4 arms,,, so now he has 4 arms
The birth of a raphsona??? perhaps???
the first time i drew raph ,,,,,, and that was using a shit ton of refs. nice to see a lil improvement :] this uses no refs except for the pose cause I'm an obsessed sdfjkasgj this is my drug,,,, think I fucked up the legs tho,, wanted to crop em out but eh. made em too big lol
someone give me drawing ideas I'm on a fukin roll
ps I literally only draw raph like u see people who either don't draw raph or draw everyone
no
I don't know how to draw anyone but raph ok and im fine with that all I need is raph
58 notes
·
View notes
As some of you already know, I am disheartened- though certainly not surprised- by the recent backlash against one Sparrow Oak Garcia for his recent transgression of *checks notes* having a mixed-to-negative opinion on zoos.
Part of me honestly feels a bit silly responding to any of this, but what are any of us here to do if not have opinions on fictional podcast characters. Anyways, I will get to the more important stuff, as obviously (if you've seen any of the criticisms I'm talking about) this ties back to Hero at the end of the day, but seeing as the first wave of hate I saw after the episode was largely to the effect of: "what the fuck does Sparrow have against zoos?", I would like to start by addressing that point briefly (and only briefly, as it's really not the sort of topic I care to discuss online), by saying that zoos and animal captivity more generally have a long history of being contested and criticized by animal rights activists, and that instances of animal abuse and neglect within zoos and other animal-based theme parks are anything but obscure. Furthermore, it feels worth noting that as of present less than 10% of zoos in the US are AZA-accredited. I say absolutely none of this with the intention of making any definitive statements on the nature of zoos, nor to judge people who do enjoy zoos, nor even to provide my own feelings on the matter. Rather, I offer this information only to explain that someone like Sparrow taking issue with something like zoos really isn't strange at all? And whether you agree with such a stance or not, it undoubtedly comes from a place of empathy. Moreover, I don't think we can honestly divorce Sparrow's take and compulsion to voice it from the metacontext that Sparrow is a character being played by Anthony Burch, you know, a vegan, who probably has his own views on the matter that may or may not differ from yours and mine.
Okay, on to more important matters. At the forefront of things I suppose is the assertion that Sparrow's behavior regarding Normal and the zoo and all that is hypocritical and perhaps even nonsensical in light of what Hero was going through at the time with her training. "He wouldn't take Normal to the zoo but he forced Hero to kill a deer with her bare hands?" Certainly the sort of statement that will elicit a strong emotive reaction from the fandom, but one that ultimately relies on a pretty major assumption, namely, that Sparrow acted as the primary organizer and perpetrator of Hero's training, one who supposedly felt no internal conflict towards the situation whatsoever, rather than instead serving as an enabler of it, who ultimately intervened but only after far too much damage was already done. Neither is a great thing to be, but there is absolutely a difference between both of these roles, and I think that Lark and Sparrow's respective behaviors over the course of the season point almost unanimously towards Sparrow being the latter and Lark the former.
(The above being a non-exhaustive list, of course)
The funny part about the whole zoo thing is that it only further corroborates the notion that Sparrow is someone who is sensitive to the suffering of others, and by extension only serves as more evidence that he most likely was not the one actively making Hero undergo the worst of what she had to do. Does this make him guiltless in the matter? Absolutely not, but it does point to Sparrow having issues that are fundamentally different from Lark's, and means that the instance with the zoo is not only consistent with Sparrow's characterization, but frankly not actually all that hypocritical if you look at it for more than a second. That is, there is a very important but simple difference between the situation with Normal and the zoo and that of Hero and the deer that accounts for the variances in Sparrow's behavior between both cases: Lark. Sparrow isn't okay with either situation, based on all the evidence we have so far of who he is as a person there is absolutely no reason to think that Hero's training is not something that deeply upset him- I mean for fuck's sake everything about how Sparrow raised Normal down to his name stems from not wanting his kids to have to live that kind of life. So why doesn't he put a stop to things sooner? Why does he let any of Hero's training happen at all? Again, very simply, because Sparrow cannot say no to his brother. I mean, he does eventually, given Hero's current status, and that change is an important and still ongoing facet of Sparrow's growth and his arc, but at the start of things it is something he struggles with even more than he does now, to his own suffering and detriment and of course even more so to Hero's. But did Sparrow himself "force Hero to kill a deer with her bare hands"? Almost certainly not, and I have to admit that I find it quite frustrating how quickly Lark vanishes from the collective conscious of the fandom when the time comes to assign accountability for matters concerning Hero. But then, who is Sparrow if not someone who takes the fall for his brother, apparently even in the fandom-space.
[Not that there isn't any nuance to Lark's utilitarianism, either. In general I feel as though discussion of the twins' biggest mistakes too often omits the acknowledgement of the fact that all of it has been to stop an eldritch horror responsible for the death and torture of millions of people, but anyways. Not what this post is about.]
I think that's mostly it lol. Got some thoughts on the family's policy on pets (and how it relates to the Hero thing but also to Beanie actually), as well as some remarks on Rebecca and how we really shouldn't be leaving her out of this discussion (I say, leaving her out of this discussion) but eeehhhhhhh y'all I'm especially low energy as of late eheh and mostly just wanted to speak my peace on a couple major things so let's cut it here for now I think :b
74 notes
·
View notes