i missed that class what dont you like about starlins rendition of their relationship?
(and also like, DID you think he did something in particular well or was it all…meh
the crux of my issues in this regard stems from batman #416. in the post-crisis era you began to see this way more lopsided depiction of bruce and dick's relationship wherein the former was portrayed to be almost.. bitter that dick had moved on to establish his own life. and it stood in great, great contrast to the bruce of the pre-crisis era, who was certainly devastated at the realization that dick was growing up, but also very intent for him to find his own happiness and way in life. they would have their disagreements on occasion (e.g., bruce initially disapproving of dick dropping out of college, bruce immediately taking leadership of a situation where the titans were involved when dick was better equipped to handle it, etc.) but the outcome of those situations was never outright bad yknow. bruce was very much capable of recognizing where he might have overstepped and subsequently stepped back to let dick have his own space. and i think initially max allan collins expanded on that dynamic in the post-crisis era in interesting ways by juxtaposing bruce's desire to see dick flourish against his own constant fear for dick's life. so instead of mike w. barr's comedic and lighthearted backup stories in early 80s tec where bruce disguised himself to keep an eye on dick's shenanigans and assure himself everything was going alright, you got this more serious confrontation within bruce with regards to his position as a parent. i don't think a lot of people read it that deeply but i've always viewed batman #408 as one of the most sensible depictions of that dilemma. the general complaints tend to be that this issue robbed dick of his pre-crisis decision to retire robin on his own, and i'll concede that as a worthwhile concern. but i don't think it's esp damning what with the implication that bruce no longer wants to be the person indirectly making the decision for dick to continue to be in this line of work. their moment at dick's bedside is less about bruce robbing him of the decision and more about him saying, if i let you still be robin, that's a direct reflection on me, bc i'm the one who got you to do all of this originally. i'm the one who put you directly in harm's way. if you're going to do this from now on, you need to do it on your own terms. you need to decide for yourself that this is who you want to be, without your relationship with me even being a factor.
it's a moment contributive to that delicious dynamic between them wherein every decision bruce takes to service dick's agency is inevitably read the wrong way by the latter to imply that he's not valued or not worthy of being seen as bruce's equal (and before the hounds pounce on me this obv does not include the increasingly abusive depiction of their relationship as the 90s progressed). that is an unavoidable dilemma when you're simultaneously someone's ward/adopted son and also their partner-in-crime! dick wants to be bruce's son and to be entitled to all of the love and care and protection that that entails but he also wants to be bruce's brother, his equal, his confidante, the one person he trusts more than anyone else in the world, etc. it's a tough place to be! it is paradoxical! and i'm so, so open to seeing that explored and think the way collins attempted to approach it in #408 was marvelous. but the way starlin (and other writers as well) totally swerved right in #416 to create this sudden resentment in bruce that dick had grown out of needing him was.. so utterly bizarre. like completely out of left field in a way i don't understand why people don't question it anymore bc in light of everything in the immediate fifteen years prior to the crisis it makes so little sense. their relationship with each other was so valued, bruce was so anxious to see dick establish himself while nonetheless maintaining a protectiveness over him, but it was all very much in good will even if he could overstep on occasion. it had all of the potential to allow for a very nuanced, empathetic exploration into the dilemmas of parenthood and esp when you are someone like bruce who has to forever live and contend with the crime of taking kids with him out onto the streets. bc he has to feel guilty! there is no escaping it. this is history, done and dusted forever, can't go back in time, so on and so forth. whatever harm comes any robin's way he has to live with as in some part being traceable back to his own actions. and i frankly believe that would be far more likely to evoke grief and anxiousness and concern than it would be bitterness that his son is charting out his own life
9 notes
·
View notes
I have a lukewarm take I’m walking to the microwave to see what happens pls weigh in
When will it be appropriate to suggest we have to pick a new litmus test for basic human decency because I don’t know if putting away the grocery cart you’re done with it should be it anymore..
WAIT DONT GO YET PLWASE HEAR ME OUT PLEASE I PUT AWAY MY CART I DO!!
IM JUST ASKING ONLY ASKING
Because the new grocery carts have an anti-theft feature on them to try to make it harder to steal them and at a seemingly arbitrary point in the parking lot the wheels literally lock… is it just because I live in Seattle now and the housing crisis is just that out of control here compared to other cities?
I want to know because christ alive grocery stores are starting to make it hard as fuck to keep up the universal I’m Not An Asshole baseline behavior.
Also what’s the intention? For stores that have these, are we literally supposed to just leave the cart next to the car, taking up a whole parking space after you drive off, until some underpaid 16 year old in a hi-vis vest in the rain has time to come by with a key to unlock the wheels?? Is that the new normal?
Because if it is god damn we need a new litmus test for “are you the kind of person who does the right thing even if nobody is watching, even if inconvenient, even for no recognition or reward, and also in the absence of any negative consequence” because it was so USEFUL for that and putting the cart away is dead and dying. Ol girl is bleeding out in the Kroger parking lot. Literally.
A ywy is this just something I’m confronting constantly because I live in a city with a wildly disproportionate unhoused population?
By the way please feel free to use that “other” option to cast a “Sometimes” or “none of the above” or “misc nuance” vote and expand on that in the notes I am invested in this conversation and will be circling back to read what ppl say
2 notes
·
View notes
I love snake handling, as a religious practice.
Because while they can point at some Bible verses to justify it (a couple gospels use "snakes can't hurt you" as a metaphor for strength of belief, and they took it very litteraly) it's basically a modern invention. Like, the American Christian practice of snake handling is barely over a hundred years old! That's very young for a Christian practice.
It's younger than Mormons and Christian Scientist, and it's mostly limited to my area: the Appalachians.
It's basically just a regular Pentecostal service (which often involves laying of hands for healing, and my favorite Christian tradition, glossolalia!) except they add The Snake.
Like, you're at church, and there's the pews, and people are going up and Feeling The Spirit, and some of them are Picking Up The Snake.
That's alright, it's a harmless snake, right?
NOPE! They use venomous snakes. Usually American ones (your rattlesnakes and copperheads) but sometimes they import cobras and the like.
The venomous nature is the point. They believe that if they're blessed by God, they'll be able to handle the dangerous snakes without being hurt.
And given that this is a relatively rarely practiced thing, and it's connected to faith healing, you might think it's just a con. There's some traveling "holy man" with a well-trained snake that he can "miraculously" handle without being attacked, right?
Oh god no. It's a bunch of different guys and they get bitten all the time. Wikipedia has a list of 15 of 'em who died because of it, and that's just the "notable" ones.
People are allowed to just come up and touch the venomous snake! No training or safety equipment needed, just Jesus. Reportedly people who get bitten are not considered to be lacking in faith, just "it was their time to go". Like, they don't even call the hospital about anti-venom. You just die.
(Did I mention sometimes they drink poison too? Mainly strychnine, possibly because it's survivable in small doses. Same reason: their faith will protect them)
Anyway I really do love it. It's such an unusual thing to jam into Christianity, that I can't help but be mesmerized by it.
But it makes up the majority of 20th and 21st century American deaths from snakes. Most people avoid snakes so even the most deadly venomous snakes in America usually only ever kill by surprise, like someone reaches into a gopher hole and gets bit, or they accidentally bother one trying to piss in a bush. And even then, we've got anti-venoms! Lots of people bitten make it to the hospital and get treated.
So naturally the main group that ends up dying from snakes is the ones who are constantly handling deadly snakes and then refuse medical care.
7K notes
·
View notes
Did I just spend half an hour in an internet dive to find out if a character would be able ot pick another caracter up from the bedroom to the bathroom in a state of feverish unconsciousness (and how much exercise would be implied they do on a regular basis to get to do that)?
...no?
Also, she wont be picking him up, I'm afraid, it will be more of a push on the back so he walks kind of situation.
1 note
·
View note