the fact that the majority of the jason todd hate is the fault of one man
jim starlin hated robin as a concept, actively ignored the editor, denny o'neil, when he repeatedly asked him to include robin, when he did include jason, he wrote him as a disobedient and arrogant asshole
people didn't like him before, but that was a relatively small group who were mad he replaced dick. starlin changed that and made people despise him so he could rid batman of a robin
if you had any doubts, here's it in his own words:
"I always thought Robin was a ridiculous character. The whole idea of fighting crime while you're wearing the black and gray and hiding in the shadows, then having a teenager go out to fight criminals with you, dressed in primary colors- for me, that went beyond child endangerment to child abuse.
As a result, I was always trying to avoid using Jason Todd. If you look at my standalone Batman stories, he was not in any of my early ones. I knew that he wasn't a popular character, and I didn't know anything else about him. Jason Todd wasn't anybody I was looking to write, or had any interest in whatsoever."
87 notes
·
View notes
Yara, do you have a playlist?
"You can find it below."
[yes, I dusted off my Spotify account for this lol I don't use Spotify that often, I'll admit. Also, please give me song ideas! I'm not very Hip With The Kids when it comes to music, so if you know of any songs that feel like they have Yara Vibes, please send them my way!! The Portada playlist would be a whole other playlist entirely but idk if I'll make one. Maybe at some point, if anyone would want lol]
Ask Yara (or any of my OCs) anything!
6 notes
·
View notes
btw obviously talking pure shite about the Corinthian thing but among the many things that makes me not want to watch the show. why ISN'T it a 90s period piece?
like honestly it's the same as with Good Omens being modernised for TV. Good Omens is EXTREMELY rooted in the specific cultural context of the end of the millennium. I just don't think it made sense to set it in the 2020s.
but so much of the plot and aesthetic of Sandman is so very of its time. the experience and ideologies of the feminist characters, the queer characters, the alt characters. the aesthetic of wealth and power. honestly the entirety of Rose and her brother's storyline is so rooted in the serial killer and stranger danger and suburban terror of crime in the 90s and I know that the serial killer obsession has come back around but it's a very 90s flavour of paranoia. like obviously a lot of the series is timeless but at the same time the main plot IS very rooted in time, especially Dolls House and A Game Of You, and it definitely can be modernised more readily than Good Omens but like. why would you. when the aesthetic of the comics is a) deeply rooted in the alt culture of the early 90s and b) fucking iconic. like the original run of Sandman finished the year I was born and despite not having been a goth in the 80s or 90s on account of being an Infant, the 80s-90sness of my style is so so so part of how I put my adult self together and What's Wrong With That?
and there's a lot of sticking points tbh. mostly again I'm thinking of the comic's handling of transphobia and homophobia. which I am concerned that this adaptation is going to address by "modernising" it out of the picture, instead of talking about it. which like. this is a different reservation I guess bc it's true whether it's a period piece or a modernisation. but. I am very concerned that under the guise of modernising it this is going to lose an awfully lot of its crunch.
and ymmv bc I know a lot of people take very deep issue with how the comics handle queer themes and I think a lot of that criticism is fair. but I also think that as a queer and traumatised kid the thing that made Sandman so deeply resonant and meaningful for me was that it was ok with getting messy. like it had a lot to say about homophobia, abuse of all kinds, lateral aggression, and it spends I would say almost all its Real World Main Plot Timeline being very interested in the nuance and moral greys and self- and laterally-inflicted harms among queer people. like it involves a lot of stories about abusive or unbalanced queer relationships whether it's with Alex Burgess or Judy and Foxglove (then Foxglove and Hazel) or the Corinthian. and it also wants to spend a lot of its time tangling with the support but also the spite and ignorance of specifically small queer communities (I think that Doll's House is more interested in depicting queer community as an oasis in the dangerous world of heteronormativity covering up violence. whereas A Game Of You is much more about lateral harm - everybody in that book except possibly Barbie is some flavour of queer, and maliciously (Thessaly) or through ignorance (Hazel and Barbie) or through anger (Foxglove) they are frequently spiteful, bigoted and unpleasant to each other, but Barbie, Wanda, Hazel and Foxglove still draw strength from each other's presence and care. and that rings very true to me of queer communities.
(for the record. my (cis) reading of A Game Of You has always been that it's a fairly direct condemnation of people like Thessaly. she's posed as being cruel and self-serving and ready to throw other women under the bus for her own benefit, and I always assumed we were meant to read her calling Wanda a man as part of that, and that that was the point. that Thessaly is in the book to make a point about TERF/separatist thinking. idk whether that's the intended reading or whether it's an appropriate thing for Neil Gaiman as a cishet man to be cracking into, but it's how it read to me as a 11 year old in 2004 who hadn't yet heard of TERFs or really had any idea about trans women, and i find it hard to take away a reading where we're meant to agree with Thessaly given the way Wanda is framed and the way Thessaly is framed throughout the story. I think there's more complicated stuff to unpick around like. whether Wanda's in the story to suffer and die for the Nice Cis Lady but I really have not ever got why depicting transphobia in this context has been so frequently read as endorsing it.)
like. The thing that makes Sandman deeply important to so many people is that it's messy and uncomfortable. it is. mostly interested in painful questions without answers. it's interested in power, rape, abuse (parental, familial, intimate partner, social, sexual, physical and emotional), homophobia and transphobia, CSA, bigotry, grief, trauma, madness, suicidality, addiction, etc. like. Almost everything in Sandman is focused around people and experiences that are hard to talk about and treated as scary or invisible and that's the point.
and to me again as a queer kid going through trauma and violence and abuse. that's what drew me to it. it's a really visceral read for me bc I think while I don't always agree with how it approaches every topic, it doesn't shy away from engaging with the actual messiness and complexity and no-right-answerness of those marginal experiences. it would not work as well if it was too afraid to say things that might have bad interpretations. and that was what made it matter for me, especially when it comes to queerness and disability and survivorhood (ie things I've experienced) - like it always felt like it had enough trust in its characters and audiences to let marginalised characters be fully fucked up and flawed and experience and inflict unjustifiable things. queer and marginalised characters in Sandman are, in my opinion, relatively unusual in that a) they're everywhere in the text and very internally diverse, there isn't a sense of Here's Our Gay Character Who Represents Gays, and b) they're neither utter villains Because They're Gay (/addicts/mentally ill/disabled/whatever) or Sad Objects Of Pity. they're given space to be extremely flawed and extremely sympathetic Whole People Who Fuck Up.
and my worry is. especially given how a lot of mainstream discourse is around representation and Problematic Media. but also tbh given how increasingly anodyne and pandery I think a lot of Neil Gaiman's output has been getting in this ourouboros stage of his career. I am almost certain that the Netflix Sandman series is going to sand a lot of the crunchy sharp edges off the story. I do not think we're going to see the willingness to make the audience uncomfortable and uneasy (and I'm not talking about the horror elements, but the human ones) and I think that's. honestly totally understandable from a production standpoint bc I think there are things in Sandman that would cause huge backlash if you screen them today. I also. think. that the story would be worse without them.
(none of this matters bc I'm not going to watch the show. why would I do that to myself I KNOW I will not enjoy it even if it's great, bc the comics are embedded somewhere 2 inches from my heart and I'm not. interested in What If That But TV. I can just read the comics again.)
10 notes
·
View notes