thinking about Dan in CFAU and just how different he needs to be (in my opinion) in order for Danny's whole thing to work. Canon Danny with Dan's influence, would never even consider thinking of killing anyone even after losing people close to him because he'd be scared of becoming like him. CFAU Danny however has been festering in this hurt and anger for years and wants the Joker dead and is plotting it. I don't think he'd do that with Dan's influence.
I explained how Rath came to be in this post here. Things happened in TUE as normal -- Danny's family dies, he lives with Vlad, Vlad rips out his ghost half. The difference here is that not only was Danny in a grieving state (something exclusive to banshees that the post goes into) but he also doesn't end up fusing with Vlad.
What happens instead is that Danny's ghost half, consumed already with grief and now enraged by being murdered and lied to by Vlad, destroys him completely and disappears into the ghost zone. He traps himself unintentionally in a negative feedback loop of grief, and as a human spirit banshee, cannot mentally handle the constant agony and sorrow he's experiencing. What happens is that he ends up driving himself insane with misery.
So the difference here, ultimately, between Dan and Rath, is that at the end of the day; Dan is fully aware of his actions. He knows what he's doing is wrong, and delights in it. He acknowledges his lack of humanity and feels no remorse in doing what he does.
Rath? He's... not. Not really. Dan is a hulking mass of muscle; tall, towering, terrifying. He loves what he does and does what he loves. Rath, however, appears as a scrawny young boy in raggedy clothes far too big for him, hunched in on himself while dirty, unkempt hair curtains his face and hides whatever he doesn't have ducked down in his curled-in form.
Rath is locked in a constant, unending state of sorrow and misery. He, for lack of better words, is unable to perceive the world around him properly and lashes out terribly and violently at anyone or anything that catches his attention. The only thing that he knows is that his family is gone, his other half is gone, that everyone he loves is gone, gone, gone.
He is a zombie apocalypse wrapped up in the form of a malnourished child, wandering the world in search of people who are not there, and becomes furious if you're not them. He is constantly crying, but he's been crying for so long that he's all but lost his voice. Meaning anyone trying to keep an ear out for him has to listen for soft, pained gasps and quiet whimpering, and wonder if the sound they're hearing are hurt survivors, or the very thing they're running from.
As a result, Rath's influence on Danny isn't that he's scared of doing something bad and becoming like him. He's scared of losing control of himself and dooming himself and others to eternal misery. As a result, he's adamant that things that he's done were not done out of pure emotion, but were active choices he made.
Up to and including killing the Joker. There's enough grief and rage behind his views on him that anyone could argue, especially knowing that Danny's a ghost, that he was not in the right mind when he did it. He was blinded by his emotions and was not in the right mental capacity, he had no control over himself. It'd work as a convincing argument.
If it weren't for Danny himself arguing against it. Killing the Joker was a choice he made, fully and willingly. It was autonomous, premeditated murder and he won't accept anything else -- it was not a fit of passion, it was not act of insanity, it was a decision. He won't accept it being anything else but revenge either, and if anyone tries to claim that it was a necessary evil he will yell at them. He didn't do this for the betterment of the public, that was just a fortunate side effect. He did it for himself and Jason. If you wanted it to be a necessary evil, then you should've killed him yourself. It was a selfish evil and he knows it.
In the end, Dan’s existence would prevent Joker’s death. Rath’s existence only solidifies it.
Rath's complete difference from Dan is one of my favorite parts about this au even if he never makes a direct appearance.
158 notes
·
View notes
new fanfic pet peeve is when people are writing children and clearly don’t know the difference between a 3-year-old, a 7-year-old, and a 13-year-old. this newborn isn’t saying words, this teenager is learning emotional intelligence, this child is literally not capable of comprehending that complex topic. please, it takes 2 minutes to look up “how should a 9-year-old be speaking” and “how developed is a 4-year-old’s mind”
you could even take it a half step further and look up the various stages of development in people. piaget, kohlberg, erikson, all those psychologists created these stages because we all followed such strict patterns when growing. you don’t need to go into the moral development of your oc’s child but at least make sure they’re speaking and acting like a child would at that age.
also when in doubt, for older children just go for more mature. it’s far better than treating teenagers like they don’t know what an emotion is lol
133 notes
·
View notes
At the bus stop one time there was a gaggle of preschoolers waiting to catch the bus for a field trip day, and someone walked past with a couple of friendly little dogs, to great general delight.
But after a little bit, the dogs were getting overwhelmed, and the preschoolers were gently coaxed to back off so the person with the dogs could continue on. Specifically, one of the preschool teachers said, "Sometimes, when you're small, being surrounded by big people can be a bit scary and overwhelming. Even if they are friendly."
This was recieved as great wisdom: after all, the preschoolers were also small, and understood how scary and overwhelming big people could be! And the dogs were indeed even smaller than the preschoolers, so it made sense.
What was funny and charming was that, upon absorbing and reflecting on this wisdom, they all felt the need to tell it to one another. In tones of great insight, they turned to one another and said, "Did you know? Sometimes when you are small, being surrounded by big people can be scary and overwhelming! Even if they are friendly!" Back and forth, without any particular concern that they were all saying the same thing. Have reached comprehension of an insight, it must be shared!
I must say that this behavior is less charming in tumblr users than in preschoolers. Not least because tumblr users, having gained a little analytical skill to misuse, insist on Summarizing and Generalizing and Unifying the insights they repeat, quickly turning any interesting new information into formulaic dogmatic mush.
13 notes
·
View notes
Just watched Haunted Mansion (2023) and yeah, they did good. In my opinion, at least. (SPOILERS as I ramble my thoughts. Obviously.)
Enough park canon material included to make me very happy! And best of all! We still don't know the origin of the Mansion! Ahhh! Perfect!
They have the WDW Mansion belong to Hattie (movie verse's Alistair Crump), but our classic mansion, while owned by Gracey who made a big mess with the help of Leota, still has an undefined origin.
There was an emphasis on the Captain. I do like that. He's a major hitchhiking ghost and one of the friendlier ones right away (technically). He's still left ambiguous, though. His haunts make him the Mariner, but he's anyone from Captain Gore, to Culpepper Clyne, to unnamed and forgotten captain.
I am actually a big fan of Gracey and I love his inclusion. He's the owner, or was the most notable one, at least. Not the originator of the place, but he was handed the role of "fucked up stupendously" and I love that for him. I'm speaking lightly but genuinely, this movie does show us grief in a lot of its forms and I can honestly say that I laughed and cried my way through the movie. They did very well.
So yeah, I enjoyed seeing the way they played out the cycle of grief, his desperation inviting the madness of a dark player. Hattie's origins are good by me. I only cared that he was NOT tied to Constance. The two can be diabolical ghosts but I didn't want him to be one of her victims. Big bad murderer in his own right is good with me. Love that journey for him. I do wish the cgi had been a little more...greenish and glowy. And I wish he'd been a little more playfully devious. But I was good with it. No surprise villain or unexpected twist—just ghosts we know, weaved into a tale, and real humans that worked.
I also loved the art style during Bruce's expositional talk about Alistair Crump. Like, damn, I want more of that. Deeply love it.
From cheesy to heartfelt to genuinely nice, this was a great ride. I laughed, I cried, I loved the story. I love that it was about the people. It was about genuinely difficult emotions that none of us can outrun. I love that there's a Mansion full of Happy Haunts in the end.
It didn't feel like they were rewriting or forcing a new canon. Hell, they had Bruce reference the endless crazy theories about the place. The ghost appearances came straight from existing, physical characters (love the Mummy of course). Stories like the dueling brothers and Constance already existed, and played right into the Tragic Souls after Gracey and Leota had already poisoned the Mansion through his grief.
Hatbox Ghost was the only one given an expanded backstory because the story needed an antagonist. I was good with that. Honestly the Crump Manor bit surprised and delighted me. But I also don't care if people view this as only one of many possible theories. I, personally, quite like it. I could probably ramble on this point further but I'll end it here.
Good movie. Well suited to the material. Playful, spooky, intense. I will definitely be watching it again.
24 notes
·
View notes